DEREK LLAMBIAS sought assurances over James Easdale's position on the Rangers board during discussions with the Three Bears consortium over a crisis loan.

And the Ibrox chief executive wanted the Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor alliance to vote against the resolution calling for Easdale to be removed at the upcoming powderkeg General Meeting.

SportTimes understands the position of Easdale, whose brother Sandy is chairman of the club's Football Board, was brought to the fore by Llambias but any proposal to safeguard his position was overwhelmingly rejected by the Three Bears.

Rangers yesterday confirmed they had accepted a controversial £10million loan, split into two £5million tranches, from Mike Ashley that sees the Newcastle United owner gain security over Murray Park, registered trademarks and strengthen his grip on the club's merchandise operations.

The billionaire has taken control of a further 26% of Rangers Retail Ltd and will receive proceeds from shirt sponsorship deals from season 2017/18.

The Three Bears were involved in lengthy discussions with the under-fire board in a bid to strike a deal and had provided proof of funds as part of an offer to put down up to £10million on the table.

Their offer included an immediate injection of £4.5million, which would have been converted to equity at a future share issue that the group would partially underwrite and a further £2million for short-term working capital requirements.

As a condition of their offer, the consortium wanted the £3million loan due to Ashley which was taken out last year to be repaid and for security to be granted over Murray Park, the Albion car park and Edmiston House.

The Three Bears were also looking for two seats on the board, to reflect the size of their loan offer and their significant shareholding at Ibrox.

A spokesman for the consortium said: "Security for the Sports Direct facility involves the club's registered trademarks and a floating charge over the club's assets. This is disadvantageous to the club compared to the security required under our offer.

"It appears that the only measure by which the SD facility could be considered favourable to our offer is in respect of the quantum and duration of the second tranche of £5m but there appears to be some uncertainty as to whether this will actually be required and it is subject to further due diligence by SD.

"We fail to see how the SD facility can be described as better for the club than the funding offer we made. It isn't and should not have been accepted if the best interests of all the shareholders were considered. Acceptance of the SD facility will do nothing to repair relationships with the fans which is critical in improving the revenue streams of the club."