Rangers - The Men Who Sold the Jerseys BBC Scotland Investigates

Repetitive Flashing Images (e.g. Strobe lighting). It's the end of

the most dramatic season in the 140 year history of Rangers. This is a

difficult day. For more than a year, this proud football club has been

mired in uncertainty, deceit and scandal. And whilst its very

survival is under threat, fans no longer know what, or who to believe.

And they are angry. If it comes to light that they did

tell lies, absolutely. Totally betrayed. They've destroyed or

almost destroyed one of the greatest football institutions on

the planet. Tonight BBC Scotland Investigates

goes in search of the truth behind Rangers' descent into

administration and what we reveal is shocking.

If the conflict of interest is as it appear to be, then I would

expect Duff and Phelps to stand down as administrators, or to be

replaced forcibly by some other practitioner.

This is a story based on hundreds of secret documents, which name and

shame those responsible - from the tax scheme up to the present day.

want to speak to them. Off the record. Absolutely not. On camera,

on the record. What on earth have they got to be afraid off if they

have done nothing wrong? This is a story of hubris, negligence and

greed. This is the story of Rangers For Govan mechanic Sammy Paterson,

Rangers to him are more than a football club. They are a way of

life. Well, according to family legend,

my grandfather was supposed to be babysitting me and I was about six

months old, and when my grandmother went to work, he shoved me inside

his jacket and took me to Ibrox stadium. My grandfather and my

Uncle Sammy were massive Rangers fans and they used to take me to

the matches and it just progressed from there, you know. As I got old

enough to go myself I started doing so. What have the last three months

been like for you, living with the uncertainty of administration and

possibly liquidation and maybe even worse, maybe even Rangers dying?

Absolute hell. I couldn't contemplate, you know, not, there

not being a Glasgow Rangers because they're too big to die. There's

thousands upon thousands of fans who'd feel the same as I'm feeling

- angry, upset. Rangers are on the brink - and

Sammy wants answers from those responsible.

I'd love to hear them explain themselves to me. And the thousands

of other Rangers fans that have been put through this hell, this

turmoil because of what's happening with the club. I would love to see

them answer, truthfully, but will they? I don't know.

Sammy Paterson is one of the many tens of thousands of loyal Rangers

fans who turn up here every fortnight to support the team they

love and they are demanding to know who's betrayed the club's proud

history, who's benefitted at the club's expense and who really has

sold the jerseys. I'm setting out to try and answer

these questions and discover who's ultimately responsible for the mess

Rangers are in. We need to analyse the roles of all

the key players. And there are enough of them to fill a football

team. Sir David Murray, the man who

enabled the famous nine in a row, but whose reputation is now under

serious question. Then there's serious question. Then there's

Craig Whyte, Sir David's successor and now pantomime villain of the

piece. Andrew Ellis, the man who brought Whyte to the table. Gary

Withey, Whyte's former lawyer who helped him buy Rangers. Alastair

Johnston, chairman of the Rangers board which opposed the Craig Whyte

deal. Paul Baxendale-Walker. Millionaire playboy pornographer

who brought the infamous tax scheme to Ibrox.

Duff and Phelps, appointed by Craig Whyte as administrators.

David Grier, also of Duff and Phelps, adviser to Craig Whyte

during the negotiations to buy the club. Ticketus - the London finance

firm who put up the cash for Whyte. Lloyds Bank of Scotland - calling

the shots. The Taxman - claims he's owed a fortune for a tax wheeze

operated by Murray Group. The formation is often difficult to

detect but most claim to have the best interest of the club at heart.

An unusually large subs bench includes the Rangers players and

staff who were on EBTs, they'll come on later. And to make sure

that the game is played by the rules, the referee will come from

rules, the referee will come from the SPL and SFA.

But before we start, here's some pre-match entertainment for the

So what has brought this proud Scottish institution to the edge

and more importantly who's responsible? At the centre of

Rangers' problems is an offshore tax scheme used to pay players over

ten years. HMRC claim the scheme was tax evasion, and that Rangers

could could owe up to �75m. Rangers say they were just exploiting a

loophole which up until 2010 was perfectly legitimate.

I knew the existed because we had been shareholders for a long time.

Nobody should be surprised. We had major accounting firms representing

Murray that were retained to represent Murray in dealing with

the tax authorities. Again, I think we're entitled to assume that if

these accounting firms thought there was no validity to what we

were representing, they would have basically said, "We're not going to

take this case because you guys are totally wrong."

But I wanted to find out who was right. Rangers or the taxman? The

BBC has obtained a wealth of information which could provide the

answer. Tax schemes can be a bit

complicated but this one - is very simple. It's called an Employee

simple. It's called an Employee Benefit Trust, or EBT. So how does

it work? The company deposits funds in an offshore trust. The trust

then divides the money into sub- trusts allocated to individual

employees. They could then apply for a loan which apparently they

didn't have to pay back. And, Bingo. Neither the company, not the

employee pays income tax. Everybody's happy. Except of course,

Everybody's happy. Except of course, the taxman.

It's not every day in investigations one gets to meet a

porn star, but that's exactly what I'm doing today. Not any old porn

star. This porn star also doubles as a tax advisor. And he's the tax

advisor that brought the EBT scheme to the Murray group, and to Rangers.

I'm not entirely sure what to Are you responsible for the

calamitous mess that Rangers now find themselves in?

No, because, if I build you a bus and it's designed according to

specifications, I'm not responsible for who you carry in the bus. I

can't stop you driving it into a brick wall or over a cliff and I

can't stop you running over an old lady in it but that's not what the

bus is for, and that's the key, isn't it? What is a Rangers fan to

think then when he sees you on this programme, a struck-off lawyer, a

pornographer who has been the person who has advised the Murray

Group on the very scheme that has driven their club to extinction?

What are they to think about that? Well, porn doesn't make you blind.

Running EBTs badly does, as for that one. I'm sure lots of them buy

my stuff anyway. I mean, it's very entertaining, great value for the

price. Not exactly a family pack but you know... And the problem as

we all know is how they implemented the structure, how they drove the

bus. But then again it's only a problem if HMRC win. If HMRC don't

win, then hopefully you're going to come back and say, Paul, all the

Rangers fans in this country want to thank you because you single-

handedly saved Rangers FC �50m. You're a hero.

So if Paul Baxendale-Walker says the scheme can be perfectly legal,

why is the taxman chasing Rangers? I've developed a few trusted

sources who might be able to answer that question. One of them, in

particular, had a treasure trove of documents he wanted me to have. To

ensure secrecy, we both travelled to a covert location outside

Scotland. But what he's promised to do today

is let me see documentation, Tribunal documentation that hasn't

been seen by any other journalist so far. And it will, he says, lay

bare the role that Rangers played in the EBT scheme, which has

contributed to the mess they're in It was worth the trip. I was now

inside the tax scheme which threatened to put Rangers out of

business. I had been given access to some of

the most sensitive, highly-guarded documents you can imagine in this

story. With so many files, letters and e-mails to process, we decided

to set up a data room which will provide answers to the questions

that so many Scottish football fans have been asking for the past year.

The first thing the documents reveal is who benefitted most.

Coming in at number 1, was not the highest paid player at Rangers but

Sir David Murray. Total loans for sub trust number 1, Sir David

Murray, �6.3m. Rangers and the Murray Group contributed funds to

the trust with Sir David taking the biggest single payment.

Sir David Murray declined to be interviewed but told the BBC: "I

personally have never received any payment from any trust which

involved contributions coming from By 2010, Rangers had contributed

more than �47m to the trust. Footballers, 63. Rangers staff, 24.

Murray Group employees, 24. Total Murray Group Remuneration sub

trusts, 111. So If I thought the man behind sub

trust number 1 was a shock, sub trust number 2 was even more

surprising. And involved a manager who'd left the club ten years

previously. Graeme Souness, sub trust number 2 - �30,000.

It was Graeme Souness who led the Rangers revolution and set them on

the road to their famous the road to their famous

championship run of 9 in a row. He left the club in 1991. Ten years

later Mr Souness received �30,000 from the trust - so what was that

for? He was managing Blackburn Rovers at

the time, and just five weeks after asking for the cash, Mr Souness

completed the signing of Turkish that HMRC suspected this cash could

have been an illegal payment in relation to the transfer, but found

no additional documentation to verify it.

Sir David Murray says our information is wholly inaccurate.

Mr Souness did not respond to our allegations.

allegations. It's Saturday, May the 5th, and the

last home game of the season. His club is in limbo. If a new owner is

not found, his club will go bust. The fans are not ready to let

Rangers die, and have already raised �500k for a fighting fund.

It's a far cry from the heady days It was absolutely incredible,

especially in the Advocaat years, if you like. They brought in Andre

Flo for, was it twelve million? Which was just insane. You had the

likes of Numan, the Dutch contingent, and they were just

something else to watch as well but no-one gave the money a thought. I

thought the regime at the time, David Murray obviously had been a

very, very successful businessman, would have had all this expenditure

in control because he's a businessman. It's as simple as that.

40% of players between 2001 and 2010 had their salaries topped up

by EBTs, sometimes as much as half paid through the trust.

But it wasn't just the players. Directors were getting in on the

Directors were getting in on the act too. Ex-chairman John McLelland

- �200,000 over five years. Ex- finance director Douglas Odam -

�120,000 over three years. Ex-chief executive Martin Bain. Receives

�100,000 loan in 2003. Total payments over 5 years, �250,000.

Ex-director Campbell Ogilvie - �95,000 over five years.

The evidence we've seen reveals who The evidence we've seen reveals who

was benefitting and by how much but was it legal? Sir David Murray

thinks so. "We believe we had a legitimate

scheme. We never hid the fact and we believe it was set up. It was

non-contractual. It was discretionary so we believe we

worked the rules. For it to be legal the payments have to be

genuine loans and made at the discretion of the offshore trusts.

This means the recipients cannot expect the money as part of their

regular salary and neither Rangers nor the Murray group should have

any say over who gets the money or when. In a letter to HMRC in 2008

the Murray group insisted they were playing by the rules: "There is no

trigger for the chain of events that led to an employee being told

that that they can apply for a loan that that they can apply for a loan

from the trustthe company has no control over the funds in the

trust." Our evidence suggests Rangers were not playing by the

Rangers were not playing by the rules. Let's look at two examples.

When Ronald Waterreus was negotiating his contract in 2005

his agent questioned the tax scheme. He was told by the club using the

trust was "in the interests of Ronald as it enables him to receive

funds tax free." "I can confirm that we will not pay these amounts

to Ronald unless they are made through the use of the remuneration

trust." So, not only were the payments not

discretionary but the company insisted this was the only way he

would get the money. Ronald Waterreus - two trust payments

totalling �510,000. Then there's the case of Sasa Papac.

In November 2008, the finance controller at Rangers noted a drop

in Papac's weekly salary and in Papac's weekly salary and

queried this with a colleague. "..note apparent drop in weekly and

no appearances, if I am correct? Is there a remuneration trust on the

side?" The reply came simply: "Yes."

So it seems that tax-free trust payments were being regularly used

as a substitute for salary. And that's why HMRC is gunning for

Rangers. Rangers.

The case against Rangers has yet to be decided by a tax tribunal. They

could face a charge of more than �50m.

They could be cleared. But whatever the result, many Scottish football

fans believe the club derived from this tax scheme an unfair financial

advantage over their rivals for During these ten seasons years

Rangers won 13 trophies. But some of those could be at risk if

Rangers are found to have lied to the Scottish Premier League about

how they were paying their players. Once again - our investigation

could provide some vital clues. Clubs must declare every penny a

player earns from playing football. player earns from playing football.

SFA Rule 12.3 states: "All payments, whether made by the club or

otherwise must be fully recorded within the relevant written

agreement." The charge against Rangers is that

they flouted this rule by declaring the players official salaries, but

having secret, or side contracts with players, promising them tax-

free cash from the EBT scheme. This has been strongly denied by

the man whose company implemented the tax scheme at Rangers.

There's categorically no two There's categorically no two

contracts running at Rangers. But evidence to be exposed tonight

for the first time casts serious doubt on that claim. According to

documents seen by the BBC, no fewer than 53 players had side letters,

giving undertakings to fund their subtrusts with cash. We can reveal

the two top-earning side letter recipients were Barry Ferguson - �

2.5m over five years, Stefan Klos - �2.5m over six years. These were

payments agreed on top of their normal salaries and not declared to

the SFA. But it wasn't just players who had side letters. Alex McLeish

- �1.7m over five years. Paul le We asked everyone in the EBT scheme

featured in this programme about their use of the trust. None would

tell us anything about their EBTs, except one director, who we're

getting to in a moment. We also asked Sir David Murray who

said the scheme had been legitimate, and was known to HMRC and the SFA.

The SPL is investigating the issue of side contracts at Rangers. One

person they might want to talk to is just down the corridor at

Hampden - the president of the Scottish Football Association.

Remember Campbell Ogilvie? He would know about the EBT scheme, and

admitted he got �95,000 from it. But what did he know about side

contracts? Mr Ogilvie declined to be

Mr Ogilvie declined to be interviewed. But in a statement, he

said: "I was not aware of which players received EBTs and, having

been advised that the scheme was being operated in accordance with

the regulations, I therefore did not raise any aspect of this with

the Scottish FA." The case against Rangers is not

The case against Rangers is not just that they could have broken

tax law but that they were using the scheme pay players that they

would have been otherwise unable to afford.

Whether the tax case finds against the club is yet to be decided, and

it's certain the football authorities will be watching this

programme carefully. But the fans, they're watching their club

collapse around them. Well, Sammy, how did it go? Nothing

each. Didn't go out with the bang we hoped. The crowd were behind the

team towards the end, but the realisation is dawning that this

might be the last time we see Glasgow Rangers at Ibrox.

Sammy believed Sir David Murray when he said he would always look

after the best interests of the club. Now Sammy wants answers.

Why did he let it go ahead? Because it's crippled Glasgow Rangers in

every, every manner. Champions League football, possibly being

liquidated. I would ask him if you knew this was going to come, why

did you do it? Why didn't you just play by the rules?

To answers those questions, we have to go back in time, and try to

understand what drives Sir David Murray.

At his height of his success, he was one of Scotland's richest and

most powerful men. He rubbed shoulders with Britain's most

influential, from Scotland's First Minister to the future Prime

Made a knight of the realm in 2007, he boasted a personal fortune of

If I can find out what drove him to be a success, many I can find out

where it went wrong. I started by going to meet someone who knew

David Murray as he was starting out. He has a very good range of

business skills, very good traitor, -- trader. He is also a very

careful thinker. He was obviously very bright, he

was very quick. He was the kind of guy who could buy something today

for a pound and sell it tomorrow for �1.30 and then move onto the

next deal. But the other thing he had, and I saw this on several

occasions while I knew him, was that he had vision. He could, and

had the patience to develop something on a much bigger scale.

Aged just 25, Murray had been a keen rugby player, and was involved

in a tragic road accident, losing both of his legs.

It seemed to me the accident kind of galvanised him into wanting make

a success of his business life. I think he would always have wanted

to have made it. It seemed to be a catalyst to make a success. But I

think most other people would, on occasions, have dropped their guard,

have said, "It's hellish not being able to walk, it's awful," and he

never did that. By the mid-1970s he had marked

himself out as the number one metals trader in Britain. But he

would set his set his sights on He'd been to Monaco, a metals

convention. And he told me about meeting Joanna Lumley there. Joanna

Lumley's in her 60s but she would have been a lovely 25-year-old then.

And he told me that he had a crack at her. I mean, I think he lost. He

didn't, there wasn't, he was honest enough to say. But the idea of a

26-year-old Scottish metal trader with no legs having a crack at

Joanna Lumley... It tells you what a confident, sure guy he was. And

honest that he said, "And it didn't work." She rebuffed him. That's,

that's his story. Maybe a humble metals trader was

not the kind of title he needed to woo the likes of Joanna Lumley. He

needed something else - it was time to move up to the big league. And

that meant buying a football club. In 1988, David Murray decided he

wanted Rangers. He was no longer just a metal trader, he was now the

owner of one of the most important But this audacious move could hold

a clue for what was to come - because it wasn't his own money

that he put on the line. In a single phone call to the Bank

of Scotland he borrowed the �6m he needed to buy the Ibrox club, and

changed his status in the world and Rangers' place in history.

We didn't expect what was coming, you know, with David Murray and the

Souness revolution and it was just phenomenal when that kicked off.

Rangers have won the Premier Division Championship. It was like

we could get anyone we wanted without the top players in Europe

or wherever, we could get them. And to see that kind of talent at

Ibrox was just something else, you know, it was class.

Murray was a heralded figure, a euphoric figure. I remember banners

at Ibrox, "The Royal Bank of Murray" and it was great. The

Rangers fans revelled in this wealth being lavished on the club

and the famous phrase, for every fiver Celtic spend, we'll spend a

Nine in a row. That was just fabulous, that was some of the

greatest times of my life as a supporter of Rangers Football Club.

Fantastic, you know, and no one could touch us, no one could get

near us. Everything about his relationship

with Rangers in that first decade was so sweet for him, so ego

nourishing, made him feel a big man, a real player in industry and in

society and in sport. And it was like a perfect marriage for him.

So David Murray had what he wanted, Rangers had what they wanted and

the fans were in blue heaven. But how much of this success was built

on solid foundations? This is Roger Isaacs, he's one of the UK's

leading forensic accountants and insolvency experts, and we've asked

him to help us analyse David Murray's business empire and how

its fortunes can be related to Rangers.

If you look at the accounts for Murray International Holdings for

the year to 31st of January, 1999, it's got net debt at the start of

the year of �69 million, at the end of the year �57 million. It then

embarks on a period of rapid expansion where it borrows to

acquire assets and properties. That Bank of Scotland was very keen to

grow its corporate lending book. It had almost reached the stage where

the bank seemed to believe that David Murray could walk on water.

You know, they would lend money for almost anything that he seemed to

want it for. Rangers were coming good on the

pitch again, and had just won their first of three titles in a row. But

that was hiding the true financial picture lurking in Murray's

And having looked at these accounts over the past weeks, what was your

opinion on the scale of the growth of the debt over the decades?

easy to judge with the benefit of hindsight. The question is when

does responsible risk-taking become reckless gambling? But there's no

doubt that by borrowing to the extent that this group borrowed,

the group was embarking on a strategy which by any definition

was high-risk. But Murray thought the high risks

were worth taking. If you don't buy In Rangers case that was an

expensive ticket - in 2004 they owed the bank more than �70m.

How could a club like Rangers, within the financial constraints of

the SPL, possibly cope with that amount of net debt? So, it became

obvious to me that something was going badly wrong in the running of

Rangers. And my final red card issued by Sir David Murray to me

was when I accused him of doing financial vandalism to Rangers.

About 2004 or 2005. My editor phoned me up said, "Look, David

Murray is complaining about you fairly vehemently." He loved

throwing his weight around and he had considerable weight,

considerable clout, chairman of Rangers. You could argue one of the

biggest and most influential people in Scottish society is the chairman

Spiers was banished by Murray. his words would prove prophetic.

Rangers were on the ropes and needed a major cash injection. Sir

David turned to the public to raise �50m - but it raised only �1m - so

what about the rest? Any other amounts of money over and above

that, the Rangers Club will be supported by the Murray Group

because the Murray Group indirectly owns the shares of Rangers and it's

our job to fund the club. So Murray says that his company is

always going to ride to the rescue of Rangers. But where does Murray

Group's money come from? It looks as if the majority of that 50m came

from one of the Murray Group companies which in turn borrowed

that money from the bank. The money then flowed into Rangers and was

used to repay the bank so from what I can see, the bank lent the money

with one hand and took it back with the other.

We've asked you to look at the accounts of Rangers and Murray

since 1999. Sir David has always said he has been a benefactor to

the club. Have you seen any evidence

whatsoever that Sir David Murray has put any of his own money into

Rangers? No, all the evidence I've seen

suggests that the money that's been invested in Rangers has come

directly or indirectly from the bank.

But what happens to Rangers when the banks stop lending? After the

crash, Lloyds bought HBOS, Murray's bankers.

They were absolutely horrified because they'd been hoodwinked. I

believe the board of HBOS had not revealed the true extent of the

exposure to toxic assets including the Murray ones, so they bought the

bank under false pretences. And when they did finally have full

sight of the balance sheet from January '09 onwards, they were

absolutely appalled and they realised they'd bought a complete

basket case. So how much trouble was Sir David

Murray now in? So if you look at the accounts to

the year to June 2009, the net debt's increased to just under a

billion pounds, at �942m. The bank suddenly was no longer Sir

David's best friend, and now took a firm grip of his failing empire.

High on the bank's list was Rangers. Just one last question, Walter.

We've been talking about this all day. Is what's happening in the

boardroom or not happening in the boardroom affecting the dressing

room? There are things that are outwith everyone's control. David

Murray has been fantastic over these 20 years. He's had to step

away and now the banks have taken over the running of the club.

Sir David Murray had gone from metals trader to one of the most

powerful men in Scotland who counted the country's establishment

club as his calling card. But his empire was on its knees, the

Rangers fans had had enough and the bank was calling the shots.

Sir David Murray's ambition and risk-taking left him with a debt of

almost a billion pounds, no longer able to turn to the bank to fund

Rangers excesses. Under pressure to sell the club, Sir David Murray

left Rangers hopelessly exposed and easy prey for the sharks that were

circling. And so began the next chapter in

the downfall of a giant - as the for-sale signs went up at Ibrox.

If somebody wants to come in and do a better job than me and wants to

take a serious interest, then I'm happy to talk to them. But that's

going to take serious money as well. Enter Cockney football fixer Andrew

Ellis. He thought he knew the very man to save Rangers.

I was introduced to Craig as a guy who was very, very, was reportedly

very, very wealthy. He was a Rangers fan. We got on, we went out,

we socialised and we sort of became friends. He said, "Well, I want to

do it. I'm desperate to do the Rangers deal." He said, "You know,

me and my family, you know, we're Scottish." I looked at it. I

thought, "It makes sense." There was another reason for

Ellis's confidence. Whyte apparently claimed there was a

super-rich investor. One of the reasons that I switched

to run with Craig, was Prince Albert of Monaco was going to be

Craig's investor. Prince Albert of Monaco was going to invest?

Yeah. That's what Craig Whyte told you? Yeah. We sat there, we talked

about it and I said, "Look, you've got to be very careful about that

name." He said, "Because he doesn't want to be involved, doesn't want

to be named to it. Just keeping the name very, very quiet, he will

invest." So I said, "Are you, are you sure?" He said, "Look, I see

him every weekend in Monaco." He said, "He's excited about getting

involved." Craig Whyte says Ellis's claims are nonsense, so we called

Prince Albert's office. His spokeswoman went away to check,

and, slightly puzzled, said this: "His Royal Highness doesn't know Mr

Craig Whyte. His Royal Highness has never had the intention to invest

in this club, Rangers FC." Should you have done more to check

out this guy? I don't see what more I could have done. I'm not a

private investigator. I'm, I'm not a solicitor. You know, we're told

the funds are available. While David Murray motivation to

own Rangers might have been a place in Scotland's high society, what

were Craig Whyte's? He was paraded as a Motherwell-born billionaire

and a big Rangers fan. But dig a little deeper and he was a venture

capitalist, with a history of asset stripping. But at the time, most,

including the mainstream media, did not bother to look past the surface.

On the 6th of May, Craig Whyte walked into Ibrox to a hero's

welcome. The deal had cost him �18m - which was to clear the club's

existing bank debt. The Rangers fans were right into

the arrival of Craig Whyte, partly because, I dare say, they'd been

misled a bit by press. The Record and other papers routinely referred

to Craig Whyte as being a billionaire. There's a story that

you can find if you click on the Internet. You'll find, you know,

billionaire Craig Whyte is going to do this and going to do that. He's,

he's going to provide a cache of money for Rangers managers to

invest in. Absolutely preposterous stuff. Uncritical, gullible stuff.

Craig Whyte has been exposed in the media before. But tonight we can

tell you even more about how Craig Whyte should never have been able

to get his hands on Rangers in the first place.

This is the key document - a "proof of funds" letter that formed the

basis of the deal. It states that a UK financial institution can

confirm that Whyte's company: "Liberty Capital Ltd has available

to it up to �33m for the acquisition of RFC." And that's it.

No proof, it doesn't say where the money's coming from or even what

the financial institution is. Seems a bit vague.

And I'm not the only who thinks this. David Roberts from London

Solicitors Olswang had originally been lined up by Ellis to broker

the deal. Initially, there was just an e-mail that was suggested we

sent, the genesis of which is, is the basis of that letter. I mean.

Blind Freddie would realise that that's not going to be acceptable.

Show us the letter that underpins your proof of funds. And we weren't

given access to the letter. There was total refusal. We weren't even

given the name of the institution. Despite Whyte's reluctance to tell

anybody, we can reveal the identity of that institution, Merchant House

Group. So why was he so keen to keep them a secret? Maybe because

he was on the board of the company. But in reality, what chance would

this company have had of raising �33m for the takeover of Rangers?

Almost certainly none, it seems - its shares were suspended by the

Stock Exchange last month amidst concerns they were running out of

working capital. So we asked Craig Whyte and his now ex-lawyer Gary

Withey about the proof of funds letter. Mr Whyte said: "The proof

of funds letter provided, reflected my ability to provide funds from

both my own and third party resources." Mr Withey, who wrote

the letter, replied: "The term 'proof of funds' is a technical

term and this was only a comfort letter given after my previous firm

Collyer-Bristow had itself received comfort from Merchant House Group

that Mr Whyte had readily realisable assets in excess of �33

But if the guy who wrote it says it's not even a real proof of funds

letter, how come it was it was good enough for someone as famously

shrewd as Sir David Murray? I said that I would only sell it to

someone who had the best interest of the club. And the information

that I had at the time, then I think that I did so. But as it

materialised thereafter I was duped. I think the shareholders were, the

media were. And the information that has come out since then has

proven that it was a mistake that I made. And I accept my

responsibility. I got it wrong. I've been very critical of David

Murray for years but I believe him. I think he was duped. He was duped

partly I think because he was desperate. He wanted rid of Rangers.

He was fed up with it. He'd long since given up the family dynasty

idea. I take what David Murray says at face value. I think he was duped

by Whyte. David Murray's not the sort of person to be duped by

anyone. I think David would have spotted him a mile off. So yes, the

answer is, it is surprising that he didn't see Craig Whyte coming. On

the other hand it may have been such a flea bite in relation to the

totality of the situation. He just said, "Thank God somebody's paying

18 million to the bank. I can close Did Sir David Murray do enough to

preserve the club's 140-year timeline before he walked away? For

the next part of our investigation its back to the data room. We've

obtained nearly 100 leaked emails between Whyte, his takeover team

and the Murray Group. They give a fascinating insight into the

takeover negotiations and provide some real clues about the men sold

the jerseys. It's time to introduce a new character, David Grier.

was employed by Whyte to help smooth the transaction - that meant

negotiating with the Murray group. If I move on from Rangers then I

will leave it in the hands of people who have the best interests

of the club. But was Sir David Murray so keen to sell the club

that he was willing to abandon the notion of due diligence and give a

prospective buyer a helping hand? In this e-mail from Whyte to Grier

it looks as if his team is given inside information from Murray

Group's Mike McGill about how to get the Rangers board onside but

Whyte's no intention of sticking to his promises. "I have forwarded the

attached working capital projections to Mike McGill. This is

not the plan we are going to work to, as it is clearly not

sustainable but according to Mike it is what the independent

committee expect to see." Sir David Murray told the BBC that Mr McGill:

"Discharged his role as finance director in a perfectly ordinary

David Grier helped get the deal done, and we'll hear more about

Grier later. And at first the fans were happy - it didn't hurt that

What did you think when Craig Whyte walked into Ibrox that day? I

wanted to give the guy a chance because he's on paper or in the

newspapers. He seemed to have the right credentials. Fans care about

trophies. But what was on Craig Whyte's mind? Remember he had a

history of asset stripping - did he intend to take this business model

to Ibrox? Behind the scenes, some clues were emerging and would lead

me all the way to Surrey to investigate the curious case of the

missing �250,000. This is the home of the non-league minnows Banstead

Athletic. It could hardly be further from the atmosphere and

glamour of Ibrox Stadium. But apparently, Craig Whyte had decided

to give this tiny amateur club �250,000 from Rangers' client

account. The problem is nobody here knows anything about it. The

chairman of the club has told the BBC that he's never seen the money

- nor does he expect to. So what was that cash really for and where

did it end up? The trail would take me to one of Craig Whyte's old pals

- Aidan Earley, a twice bankrupted born-again Christian. There are

some serious questions Rangers fans might want put to AE and that's

what I intend to do. -- to Aiden Earley. To be fair to Aidan Earley,

he just spent 20 mins at the door with me. He categorically denies

doing anything wrong. He was insistent that he had not

personally received this money, but every time I asked I asked him

where the money is, "Just to put the Rangers and me at ease - just

tell me where the money is," he just would not tell me. Aidan

Earley later provided a statement. "The �250k that you refer to did

not come from Rangers but because of Craig's involvement with RFC it

was conceded that Rangers could have an interest. It is none of

anyone's business how the money was deployed. I did not receive a penny,

nor did Craig. In the politest possible way, I would very much

like never to hear from you again in the context of Rangers." We may

never know where that money went. And in an email, Craig Whyte told

us: "I am not aware of any payment From what I could gather, it was

his own money from his own businesses and I thought he was

putting up money up front from his own labours. Did it worry you that

he would not tell us exactly how he had made his money? At businesses,

yes, but he would not say exactly where these so-called millions were

coming from? Smoke and mirrors, using choice phrases to reassure us

without telling us where his money came from but the new enough of a

hint to think it was all above Rangers fans were still giving

Craig Whyte the benefit of the doubt. The turning point, though,

was the revelation that he had mortgaged off three years of season

ticket money to fund the purchase of the club. Finance firm Ticketus,

based here at the Old Bailey in London, were flung into the

spotlight over what was a very curious business decision indeed.

This, to Rangers fans, was the ultimate act of selling the jerseys.

He didn't just mislead fans about where the money to fund the

purchase came from - he'd sliced off a huge chunk of future revenue

- potentially cutting off the lifeline of the club. The public

reaction to Craig Whyte, it definitely was going to change when

he was going to do something to the club and I got that totally. So,

selling jerseys, but more than anything else, coming out and being

proved to be a blatant liar, saying that it was his money that took out

the loan was huge. At the end of the day, what he's done is stolen

my money and thousands of other Rangers fans' money for the next

four years with our season ticket books. Even the most blinkered

Rangers fans who wanted to believe in Craig Whyte, the white knight,

the man with wealth off the radar, even that group of Rangers fans had

to concede really bad news is The bad news came on Valentine's

Day. What we have done today, it is the most practical way to

safeguard... A respected the manager... We will

It's sad, shocking, makes me angry, you know, because it is 140 years

of history, Scottish history, an institution, one of the biggest

names in football on the planet and we're reduced to this. Craig was

not the white knight Rangers fans had hoped for, plunging the club

into administration with a trail of debt. The fate of Rangers was put

in the hands of the administrators and we're about to reveal what

every Rangers fan needs to know This administration will be carried

out under the most rigorous public scrutiny and it will be conducted

to the highest professional Craig Whyte had been determined to

have his choice of administrator appointed but given what we know

about him, should that have raised alarm bells? Well, remember David

Grier, the guy who helped Whyte buy Rangers? He is a senior partner at

Duff and Phelps, which used to be called MCR. They were on the

defence almost immediately. It is not unusual, in my view. The Duff

and Phelps say Grier only played a limited role in the takeover but

here side by side with Whyte on the day he took up the reins at Ibrox.

I wanted to ask our insolvency expert how important it was for a

company to have clean hands before they take up an appointment?

insolvency practitioner should ever accept an appointment in

circumstances where there is a conflict of interest or even could

be seen to be a conflict of interest. What is the test?

utmost honesty. Utmost professionalism, utmost good faith,

Hang on a minute. Duff and Phelps man Grier was involved with Whyte's

takeover. I wanted to know whether that involvement went as far as

helping to put together or even having knowledge of the Ticketus

transaction. Let's put it simply - if you were owed money by Rangers

or if you are a Rangers fan, would you trust administrators who had

been involved with the very deal that had put the club's future on

the line? I asked them. In a briefing, Paul Clark told me he

knew nothing about how Ticketus had funded the deal until four months

after Whyte bought the club. To double check, I then phoned David

Grier, who said he'd only found out about the Ticketus deal in August.

The BBC has been given a series of emails involving David Grier and

the Ticketus deal which expose Grier's initial claims to have no

knowledge of the Ticketus This is an email from Gary Withey

to Whyte and David Grier sent on 19 April 2011, two weeks before the

deal is completed. It is entitled "Ticketus Draft" and concerns the

completion of the takeover. Note the statement about when Whyte's

company takes control. "The assignation documents will be

released by the bank and the Ticketus agreements will become

unconditional." Well, on the face of it this email seems to suggest

that David Grier knew about the Ticketus arrangement, and therefore,

in those circumstances, given that he was a partner of Duff and Phelps,

I'm surprised that that involvement wasn't firstly disclosed, and

secondly doesn't give rise to the sort of conflict of interest that I

would have expected would have precluded Duff and Phelps from

accepting the appointment as administrators. But there's more.

Duff and Phelps have launched a legal action at the High Court in

London, claiming Craig Whyte and his lawyers, Collyer-Bristow,

engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the club of �25m. Bear case is

based on a claim that Craig Whyte and Gary Withey deliberately misled

the rages independent committee at a meeting on 24th April, less than

two weeks before the deal was signed. The court papers state they

knew the offer was a false representation - laymans terms,

fraudulent - because the money of course was not coming from Whyte,

but from Ticketus, and Whyte's team: -- so Duff and Phelps sake

that Whyte's team... "Took no steps to rectify the situation and

allowed the committee to proceed to consider the merits of the

takeover." We've obtained the minutes from that very meeting on

the 24th April. Take a close look at who was there, alongside Whyte

and Withey. None other than David Grier. As the emails have shown,

Grier appeared to know how the deal was being funded and therefore also

"took no steps to rectify" the situation. Maybe Duff and Phelps

are going to sue themselves next. So this suggests that David Grier

was in attendance at the very meeting in relation to which his

partners are now taking legal action which, if true, is one of

the starkest conflicts of interest I've ever seen. It was time to call

Duff and Phelps. Their PR man said that despite what they told me

previously, they did know about a Ticketus deal - but not the

Ticketus deal that was used to buy the club. Last Friday, David Grier

and Paul Clark were coming to be interviewed to tell me how wrong I

was. We were all set. Then I got a call from the PR man. So here I am,

at the BBC, half an hour after our scheduled start time for our

interview. We've gone and got a crew for the day, because you

phoned me up at eight o'clock this morning, first thing this morning,

and told me that you would bring your guys in to do an interview.

They had nothing to hide. You were going to bring these guys in and

tell me, the BBC, and the thousands of Rangers fans, why they've got

nothing to worry about, about their continued position as

administrators. So here I am, here I am waiting for you. Do you know

what that looks like, Ramsay? You're only prepared to talk to me

off the record. They're in charge of the future of one of Scotland's

greatest institutions. We have extremely serious allegations which

relate to their integrity and their continued position as

administrators of Rangers, and all you can offer is an off-the-record

briefing. Ramsay, that is not good enough. We're going round in

circles. But I trust that you will have a go with your clients in the

next hour to see whether they might in fact, since they're here, be

prepared to come and sit down with me and explain to Scotland and

Rangers what they've been up to. So they might yet come. Good,

because I didn't just believe that Grier knew about the Ticketus deal

before it happened - I had evidence which showed he was involved in

sending them an invoice. In these emails, he has been asked to raise

an invoice to Ticketus. Grier replies: "Will arrange to get the

invoice to you ASAP." So he's writing invoices in June for a deal

he says he knows nothing about until August. If the conflict of

interest is as it appears to be, then I would expect Duff and Phelps

to stand down as administrators, or to be replaced forcibly by some

other practitioner. They didn't come. But David Grier provided this

statement: "I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte

takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus

were being used to acquire the club. However, we were party to

discussions regarding Ticketus as a recognised source of short-term

In a separate statement, Paul Clark said: "I thought that MCR became

aware of the full scale of Ticketus funding in July or August. I gave

an honest answer to the best of my recollection as I had not been

closely involved in the Rangers takeover work at the time. There is

a world of difference between knowing that Ticketus was a

potential source of working capital funding for the club and knowing

that funding from ticket sales had been effectively used to purchase

Our evidence paints a murky picture of a tax scheme which lined the

pockets of dozens of players and directors with millions of tax-free

pounds. Sir David Murray failed to safeguard the future of Rangers.

His successor, Craig Whyte, brought shame on its 140-year history. Duff

and Phelps were supposed to be the men who saved the jerseys - but

they were part of the cabal who sold them. Charles Green is the