Quote
By John Mcgarry
Last updated at 12:00 AM on 21st February 2012
Craig Whyte sold off four years of Rangers season tickets — one month before he bought the club.
The embattled owner flogged the seats to London-based Ticketus to fund his entire takeover last April — four weeks before he persuaded Sir David Murray to sell up for just £1.
Sportsmail can reveal Whyte convinced Ticketus to advance him £24.4million on the proviso that he would then buy Rangers. That cash was deposited into a client account with his London-based lawyer Collyer Bristow on April 7.
Whyte then showed Murray that balance as evidence he had sufficient funds to give Lloyds Bank the £18m they were owed — one of the key conditions of the sale.
He then bought Murray’s 85.3 per cent shareholding for £1 on May 6, paid off Lloyds and used Rangers employees’ personal tax — which should have been handed over to HMRC — to help run the club. Until it ran out and forced administration eight days ago, that is.
Had Murray refused to sell to him, Whyte would have returned the money to Ticketus — a gamble he was prepared to take.
The latest revelation means that Whyte, who stayed away from the first post-administration game against Kilmarnock on Saturday, effectively bought into the club for nothing before installing himself as the ‘preferred creditor’.
It is widely assumed he will never attend another game at Ibrox and there are now questions marks over that ‘preferred creditor’ status.
Strathclyde Police are examining files pertaining to Whyte’s nine-month tenure, which were handed to them by former chairman Alastair Johnston.
The SFA have also launched a full inquiry into Rangers in a move that was welcomed by manager Ally McCoist at the weekend
Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1mzDYe8Vv
So what does it all mean? Rather complicated but it would mean that Wavetower, Craig Whyte's company, now named Rangers FC Group, borrowed money on the strength of assests they did not yet own to take ownership of those assests.
I'm not sure how the law works on this. Certainly deceitful but unlawful?














