The two were also adamant that their use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) around the turn of the century was based on sound legal advice.
The EBTs have since become the subject of a tax tribunal (the “big tax case”) which could land Rangers with a bill of up to £49million, and is separate from a far smaller tax case which Rangers agreed with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs.
“Mr Adam I think resigned as a director in September 2000,” McGill said. “The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players. That scheme is the subject of the small tax case.
“The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded [a sum of £2.8m] based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Craig Whyte didn’t pay it.
“The other scheme was started in 2001. The larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust, but there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence.”
Murray added that the chronology showed that Adam could not be in a position to know about dual contracts and an alleged conenction with EBTs. “Hugh didn’t know,” he said.
“Hugh Adam wanted to buy Rangers at the time I had the club. He was important, and did a great job in running the pools. He became a bit anti-me.
“I’ve asked the auditors to go through it. I’ve looked through every year to check my facts. There was no double contract. There was categorically no dual contracts.”