A SENIOR partner with Rangers administrators Duff & Phelps last night denied he faced a serious conflict of interest after it was claimed he had worked on the deal to buy the club with money raised from selling season ticket rights to Ticketus.
Insolvency expert David Grier rebutted allegations in a BBC documentary screened last night that he knew of the deal in April 2011 and had helped disgraced owner Craig Whyte set it up to buy the club.
Whyte completed the takeover of Rangers on May 6, 2011, but was widely criticised after it was revealed he had used Ticketus to pay for the deal by selling off most of the next three years' worth of season tickets.
Emails featured in Rangers: The Men Who Sold the Jerseys from Whyte's lawyer to Mr Grier purportedly outlined how the "Ticketus agreements will become unconditional" once control was gained over the club.
The documentary also claimed former Rangers owner Sir David Murray was the largest beneficiary of a controversial tax avoidance scheme, with an untaxed £6.3 million paid into an Employee Benefit Trust set up by the Glasgow club.
Speaking from New York, Mr Grier told The Herald: "There is no conflict of interest. My first involvement with Ticketus was in May during the settlement of the Murray Group's position with regards to Rangers. Ticketus was designated as a funding source which was already being used by the Murray Group, and its use as a way of raising capital was discussed. I had no knowledge it was going to be used as a source to fund the acquisition."
Mr Grier said the administrators' decision to launch legal action to stop Ticketus from claiming its rights to revenue from season tickets in March proved he had no prior involvement with the company. He said: "If that was the case, why would we have taken Ticketus to court? It would have been the easiest thing in the world for their lawyer to have it stopped because I had worked with them to secure season ticket rights."
The Ticketus deal, if it stands, would make Rangers a much less attractive proposition to any potential buyer, since more than half of the club's income stream for the next three years will have dried up.
Whyte called in administrators on February 14 after running up debts to HMRC of up to £15 million. His choice of administrators, Duff & Phelps, was appointed with court approval.
Mr Grier was pictured at Whyte's side in the days leading up to the takeover.
But he revealed last night that concerns had been raised over some of the legal documents prepared by Whyte's team, saying they looked like they had been "written by a lawyer on his way home on the tube on a Friday night".
He said he had tried to explain his position to the BBC, but that "minds had already been made up".
Paul Clark, joint administrator, also spoke out to defend his role at Rangers.
He said: "The allegations made in the programme against Duff & Phelps are untrue, a distortion of the facts and defamatory.
"Discussions are already underway with our solicitors with a view to bringing legal proceedings against the BBC. We made a number of offers to assist the BBC in order it would not make the fundamental errors broadcast this evening and for some inexplicable reason the reporter Mark Daly declined these.
"We had also hoped to give interviews stating our case on camera but received strong legal advice against this course of action, bearing in mind the legal proceedings Duff & Phelps have raised against Collyer Bristow. The BBC was informed in writing from our solicitors. We did, however, provide the BBC with lengthy written statements stating our position and we are publishing these on the Rangers website."
He added the BBC journalist involved in the investigation "failed to understand the difference between working capital arrangements for the club and acquisition funding".
Former Rangers director Paul Murray, who led the failed Blue Knights bid last night said: "There are serious allegations which have to be answered. Why was one of the big four insolvency firms not appointed? Why was Craig Whyte so desperate to get Duff and Phelps appointed?"
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article