FORMER Rangers owner Sir David Murray and his advisers did not care how Craig Whyte funded his takeover of Rangers. 

That was the claim made by QC Donald Findlay, who described Mr Whyte as "the fall guy" for what happened at Rangers saying the fraud trial was an “unfair and unjustified” case.

Before Mr Whyte took over Rangers on May 6, 2011, the Ibrox club was 85% owned by Mr Murray - but was sold for £1 with conditions contained in a share purchase agreement including paying off a £18 million debt with Lloyds Banking Group. The business went into administration nine months later.

Prosecutors in Whyte's fraud trial allege the venture capitalist helped fulfil a condition of the takeover to clear the debt by setting up a £24m loan from Ticketus against three years of future club season ticket sales in advance.

The Herald:

Mr Findlay, summing up the defence case, said that Murray and his team knew there were other investors at an early stage but did not seek to find out anything further.

An email a month before the buyout was complete, sent by one of Mr Murray's trusted advisers, Mike McGill, to Sir David, his legal adviser David Horne and then Rangers director Donald Muir, among others, tells that an adviser of Mr Whyte, David Grier "let slip" that there were "other investors".

"What did Mr McGill, Horne, Muir, Sir David himself do as they are aware other investors are involved? Answer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing," said Mr Findlay.

The Herald:

"There's only one conclusion that is driven by that and that it is it didn't matter where the money came from. They just didn't care. The deal is what mattered."

Mr Findlay said, in summing up the defence's case, revealed an email sent from Mr Murray to his legal adviser David Horne two days before the takeover was complete revealing "the pressure" that was on to sell to Mr Whyte.

The message talked about the "need now to get this over the line or we will face the purchaser walking away and any hope of stability and funding will be lost."

It added: "There is no realistic alternative or season tickets and the future playing squad details will not make good reading. Nothing is perfect, but we do not have a viable alternative. We have tried for some time to attract a new buyer and now we need to complete. The fall out of no deal is really serious."

Whyte, 46, denies the two charges against him, one of acquiring the club fraudulently in May 2011 and another of “financial assistance” under the Companies Act – which centres on the £18m payment, between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers, using London-based agency Ticketus to clear the bank debt with Lloyds.

Part of the allegations against Whyte is that he pretended to Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all agreed-to payments.

The Herald:

These are said to also include, the £2.8m “small tax case” liability, the £1.7m health-and-safety liability plus £5m for the playing squad.

Mr Findlay, a former vice-chairman of Rangers said that Mr Murray, while having had the club at heart and was concerned about his legacy, made two mistakes "that turned out to be catastrophic".

"Firstly he entrusted the club to the board that was running the club and to people who didn't have a clue what they were doing," he explained.

"And secondly, he left everything to his advisers and his advisers let him down, and they let him down very very badly.

Mr Findlay said "before the trial started beyond this court and elsewhere therehave been attempts to portray Craig Whyte as a pantomime villain, the person responsible for everything that happened and so he must take the whole blame.

Craig Whyte and his solicitor leave the High Court

"Because everything was fine until he came along and you know that is far far far from the truth.

"And aided and abetted by the Crown approach, what is now happening is people are trying to make him the fall guy and that's what this is about. Before you can do that you have to look at the background of the reality of the situation."

He said that Mr Murray left the club in the hands of people who "hadn't a clue what they were doing".

He added: "They were letting the club decay round about them and didn't know what to do about it and in fact did nothing about it. By the time Mr Whyte's proposal came along, Rangers were beginning to decline. The glory times were behind them and hard times were ahead.

"Murray could not bankroll Rangers. There was no more money from the bank.

"The best idea they could come up with is borrow more money from an entity that won't give it and spend it on more expensive players, paying more expensive wages in the hope they can buy success through the European Cup competition and that way they can get themselves out of the hole they were in. It was nonsense, it was a disgrace that people should be approaching the running of a club such as Rangers with that ludicrious business plan. It was only going to end one way.

The Herald: Rangers owner Sir David Murray has backed Tory victory in the coming elections

"Mr Whyte comes along with a plan and thereafter Mr Murray's advisers are interested in 'have you got the money'.

"If it mattered where the money was coming from wouldn't you expect your lawyer to ask that question on your behalf?"

He described a clause in the share purchase agreement that talks of an "intention" to spend £20 million on the club as "PR window dressing", saying there was "no obligation at all".

He added: "It was PR, so Murray could point to it and say, look £20m."

Mr Findlay said that Ticketus would not have done the deal unless they were satisfied that Mr Whyte "had the means" and said the venture capitalist made personal guarantees for all the money that was involved.

And Ticketus knew what the money raised was for, said Mr F‌indlay, producing documents from the agency headed: "Approval in principle...to part-fund the buyout of the club and pay off the debt."

And Mr Findlay asserted the deal was kept secret because Ticketus wanted it that way adding that they "were a bit concerned their business might suffer if fans thought a portion of their money was ending up in a managed fund somewhere down in London".

And he concluded: “Was there a crime? The defence say that manifestly there was not.”

Mr Findlay is due to complete his concluding comments and Judge Lady Stacey is due to give her summing up to the jury on Monday.
The trial continues.