CAMPBELL Ogilvie has built a reputation on being efficient, inoffensive and uncontroversial.

Last night, amid the turmoil which has suddenly engulfed his SFA presidency, he sought to salvage it with a personal, impassioned plea in his own defence as he laid bare his involvement in the Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) scheme at Rangers from the mid 1990s onwards. Many – particularly those who inhabit the murky world of phone-ins and internet forums – feel Ogilvie, an Ibrox employee for 27 years and director until 2005, is compromised by the ongoing SPL inquiry into non-disclosure of payments made to players since the scheme's launch in 1998, and the imminent First Tier Tax Tribunal into the propriety of such arrangements which could cost Rangers £49 million. The questions against his own probity are serious enough that a statement issued by the SFA on his behalf late on Thursday afternoon never seemed likely to suffice.

In revealing more details about his role in the affair, Ogilvie, also a former director at Hearts, admitted he had received three amounts of £5000 from the scheme between 2001 and 2003, in addition to a one-off sum from the scheme of £80,000 upon his departure from the club in 2005. All of these amounts are classed as "discretionary" soft long-term loans, with repayments which do not kick in until some unspecified future date, with Ogilvie understood to have legal letters at the time to indemnify himself against any future action on the matter. Although he claims to have had no involvement in drafting, negotiating or administrating player contracts from the mid-90s, he is aware he is tainted by association and knows a judgment in HMRC's favour next month could leave him in a difficult position.

"Let's deal with that when it comes up," Ogilvie said. "I was a director of the club until 2005 so I know about fiduciary duty et cetera even if I wasn't involved directly in the drafting of contracts or EBTs. At the moment that is hypothetical. As far as I was concerned they were legally set up with the backing of the accountants and the lawyers and they were operated legally.

"I can't remember [who offered me my EBT] but I didn't give it too much thought at the time. I don't have to give you the figures but there are all sorts of suggestions out there. I got three payments between 2001 and 2003. It was a £5000 payment on each of those dates and then on the termination of my employment, as part of my settlement, I got a figure of £80,000. So I knew the EBT scheme was in place but I didn't know the extent and which players had them. I didn't believe they were risky quite simply because at the time they came in, I think in 2001, the Murray Group took a lot of legal and accountancy and tax advice."

Not that he doesn't have regrets about the whole issue. Use of the EBTs was a mechanism employed by the wider Murray Group, but as one of seven directors reporting to Murray, Ogilvie wishes he had been more questioning about their use in the club. "I might not have been involved in the bigger decisions but I'm not going to go and hide from the fact I was a director," Ogilvie said. "At no time would I say I didn't have responsibility. At the time I tended to get on with what I did. Looking at the situation the club finds itself in now, I regret very much this has happened. Maybe I should have questioned things more."

He was in communication with Sir David Murray as recently as Tuesday, but has never met Mike McGill, Murray's tax lawyer.

Knowing what he does now, he would never have accepted that EBT. "Hindsight is a great thing," Ogilvie said. "They were set up and we went down that road. Now, if it came up again, I wouldn't." Where Ogilvie's position could still become untenable would be if his fingerprints were found on any documents which may have misled the footballing authorities. Hugh Adam, one of Ogilvie's fellow former directors, has gone on record about the existence of these so-called "dual contracts" even if he clarified his position recently to indicate Ogilvie would most likely have had no knowledge of them. In any case, it remains a source of legal dispute whether redacted copies of documents in the public domain represent second contracts or merely letters of "intent".

"I have no knowledge of any side contracts and I would be very surprised if that was the case," Ogilvie said. "There is an HMRC case and SPL inquiry going on. What I would say is that there were player contracts which I would have been asked to sign during my time at Rangers – just as an officer of the club who was present in the stadium. I've got a clear conscience on it to the best of my knowledge. Anything I have signed has been in good faith. If anything comes up I'm not aware of then I'll put my hands up. I have not been approached by the SPL but if I am I would be happy to speak to them."

Rather than the six-figure salary some would have him being paid, Ogilvie earns £20,000 a year, and finds the constant sniping from some parties grating, if not entirely unexpected.

"I do a bit," Ogilvie said. "But I'm big enough to cope. With my background, having worked at Ibrox for many years, there will be some people in this country who are not happy with someone from that background coming in. I've genuinely always tried to do the best for Scottish football."

Ogilvie, who left Rangers after finding his role diminished in a boardroom restructure, has been scrupulous about avoiding any conflict of interest with his former clubs.

"From day one I've stepped out the room when there has been any committee or disciplinary issue involving Rangers," he said. "Once I had to step out of the room four times. It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase corridors of power."