From: Imran Ahmad [mailto:sheik.iahmad@gmail.

com] Sent: 29 October 2012 18:43 To: earley aidan Subject: Re: Craig

Aidan I'm not going to comment on most of this as its complete garbage. I'm actually surprised you're associating yourself with this as it says an awful lot about you and your own moral values. Zeus or myself have never been mandated by you hence I'm struggling not to report this to the police as this is clearly blackmail by extortion punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. I'm happy to meet you next Monday when I'm in London to discuss a deliverable outcome. What I've read is completely la la land. If that's you and your masters final position get on with it and sue us. What's sad is you seem to think everyone is cut from the same cloth as you and Craig. Fortunately I'm pleased to inform you the rest of humanity believes in a moral code of conduct which you seem to have lost sending emails like the one below which are complete fiction and nothing more than a pathetic attempt to blackmail us pre IPO in the thought that somehow after the IPO we won't enter into meaningful dialogue with you. I've always maintained without CW shares we wouldn't have completed this transaction. The key point though is at no point did we ever agree to pay Craig anything. We were happy to tell the truth and be helpful via the media up to the point you and Craig started blackmailing us. How do you expect to persuade the board to pay CW something when your resorting to blackmail and have never contracted with any of us through our corporate bodies or with us personally to act for you? Furthermore you have both never ever kept to your word. You only let us have the shares when we didn't need them. Up to that point it was last minute blackmail of 1m per year in perpetuity at the last minute to transfer the shares for the CVA which was never offered or agreed. Happy to meet you next week when I'm back in town to have an adult conversation. In the meantime if you want to resort to blackmail via media pls feel free to and there is then nothing further to discuss. Feel free to wipe you and your master from my Christmas card list anytime. I'm not losing any sleep over this nonsense.

Kind regards,

Imran

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Oct 2012, at 08:16, earley aidan <aidanearley@blueyonder.co.uk>

Dear Imran Without prejudice Craig was understandably upset to see the piece in the Daily Record (of all places) and the article on the Rangers website. This is in addition to the consistently negative comments from Charles about Craig and also threats to Craig's life from Charles using, apparently, people that Charles knows in Greece (Craig has heard this from two independent sources). Dealing with the last point first, ordinarily one could consider such threats to be merely posturing until one considers the relatively restricted number of options available to Charles at the moment none of which, other than a fair settlement, are attractive. All of a sudden "getting rid of the problem" becomes more appealing however insane such a course of action would be. Whatever the substance of the threats they hardly make Craig more receptive to reaching a settlement. Moving on to the articles in the Daily Record and on the website, presumably some genius concluded that by acting in this way any action Craig might take would be neutralised (in contrast to the solemn undertaking by Charles to make it his business to do his utmost to help Craig be welcome back at Rangers by using every opportunity to say something positive). In fact, ignoring entirely the background as they do, the comments have only made Craig more likely to act and the hole that has been dug correspondingly larger. I am keen to avoid this going to court it will be a catastrophe of an intensity that you or Charles or both clearly do not appear to understand at all. The action will involve a claim for 53% of Sevco and Rangers, the arrestment of all Sevco and Rangers assets, pending the trial, the necessity at trial to rely upon the voice recordings evidence (which incidentally I had no idea had been recorded) including "you are Sevco" quotes from Charles, the claim that the attempt to move assets/the benefit of the sale and purchase agreement to Sevco Scotland was fraudulent - to name only some of the actions being prepared. Craig's argument will be that Sevco retained you as a broker (and Zeus) to raise cash with Charles fronting the deal and that, yes, you raised the money and would be entitled to broker commission on that but then tried to steal the deal. It will be Craig's intention to sue Zeus as well. And you can be sure that once the genie is out it will have a life of its

own that none of us can predict and it will not be possible to put it back in. Anyone who thinks they can predict a scenario where it will go according to their plan is a fool. The only person who will potentially come out looking better however will be Craig. Not least because his reputation has been so badly hit to date it cannot get any worse and the litigation will demonstrate method in what currently appears madness. It is also important that you are disabused of the idea that by playing for time the float can be achieved and then a settlement reached or avoided altogether Craig is not that stupid. You would really have to be living with the kind of lack of self-awareness that you suggested Craig had, to think that the float could go ahead and the Scottish establishment and media would do anything other than go completely and irreversibly incandescent. The allegations of having been misleading levelled at Craig would pale by comparison - and any false reassurance you may have given each other about managing the fallout would swiftly be brushed aside in the fury. I am therefore very keen to avoid this (I just want a calm life!). I believe that I can persuade Craig not to push the button and, indeed, have stopped an immediate hostile response to the Daily Record and Rangers website articles (not to mention the other negative comments from Charles about Craig). Distasteful as you may think it, this can all be avoided by a simple intake of breath and signing a settlement that is reasonable in the circumstances (not forgetting also that the Mike Ashley J/V was introduced effectively via Craig). However the settlement needs to look as follows: 1) The immediate return of the 167,500 2) 500,000 in cash 3) 25% of the shares that you and Charles are due 4) The hospitality benefits agreed in the office and signed by you although these can be granted to a company to spare you any embarrassment in the light of the unhelpful recent comments in the press 5) A proper attempt by Charles over time to say positive things about Craig perhaps a look at the recent articles on http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2012/10/craig-whyte-speaks-tofans.htmlmay help him. 6) An appropriate and tactful correction to be issued within seven days of the float or within 90 days (whichever is earlier) in relation to the Daily Record, Ally McCoist , Sandy Jardine and Lindsay Herron comments 7) A twelve month option to acquire yours and Charles remaining 75% interest at a 50% premium to the float price and a right of first refusal to

match the price if you decide to sell after the twelve months have expired Craig is willing to accept this if it is accepted within 72 hours and it is non-negotiable there isnt time and if he wanted to negotiate he would have started at a higher figure. We are more than happy for this agreement to be with a corporate entity should you wish and the retention by Craig of a stake aligns his interests with yours Now, you may say that your previous 1m cash plus benefits offer (signed by you and not signed subject to Board approval) was subject to you being able to persuade others (but according to you - you had already told them that any settlement needed to have seven figures in it, and you were right!). However in reality, as you know, the decision-makers are actually you and Charles in this respect and the Board was also effectively controlled by you anyway. In addition, don't forget, I was supposed to be getting 25% of whatever you, Charles and Rafat got. I am willing to throw that into the pot in order to reach an overall settlement. If, in fact, the Board only agreed to the 500,000 that you more recently offered and you cannot get them - or do not want to tell them - to see sense then the shortfall should clearly be made up by a simple transfer of shares or cash from you and Charles. I would gently point out that rather than feel hard done by or give in to greed, you should remember that the only reason that you and Charles have control of possibly the pre-eminent Scottish institution was because "you were the chosen ones" as Duff and Phelps said. This proposed settlement is a small price to pay to continue to be lauded as you are and to have the benefit of a multi-million pound payday. It is not rational to put that in jeopardy by begrudging Craig and I a reasonable share of that particularly as Craig and, to a lesser extent, I (but still very painful) have borne the bulk of the griefin delivering a debt free Rangers that can go on and do great things. In terms of timing, the 167,500 needs to be immediate so that Craig does not think he is being strung along and the remaining aspects of the agreement need to be signed off within seven working days, with half the 500,000 payable on signing and the balance on successful float or within 90 days whichever is earlier. You should remember that the value of the opportunity delivered to you is reflected by the necessity that Charles sign the various documents. Had it not been an absolutely essential part of allowing you both into the deal, Charles would clearly prefer not to have done so. The payment of the above is the release from that reality and is therefore eminently fair and reasonable. I am letting you know this, in plain terms, as a friend and as a favour but also because I dont want to get sucked into an unimaginable maelstrom which will absolutely and inevitably be the case if an amicable settlement is not reached. Time is short. Regards

Aidan