LEGAL experts have revealed that Rangers could argue Employee Benefit Trusts do not constitute a contract – as the SPL became the latest organisation to investigate their financial affairs.

There have been claims today that the stricken Ibrox club could be stripped of the titles they have won since the inception of the SPL, after the governing body launched a probe into an allegation made by former director Hugh Adam last week that players were given two contracts and 'under-the-table-payments' stretching back to the 1990s.

The SFA confirmed last Friday they were already looking into the Adam allegations, and the SPL confirmed yesterday: ''SPL rules D9.3 and D1.13 impose a prohibition on players receiving payments for playing football or participating in an activity connected with football except where such payments are made in accordance with a form of contract approved by the SPL and require that all such contracts are submitted to the SPL within 14 days of being entered into."

But Richard Cramer, a lawyer with FrontRow Legal, a firm that specialises in sports business, believes the discretionary nature of payments under trust rules is the opposite of the normal understanding of a contract.

Rangers, of course, have already been served a demand by HMRC for their use of EBT's over a decade; the club's appeal on that demand to a First Tier Tribunal will rule inside the next month on whether they are liable, and the bill could hit a staggering £49million if it goes against them.

But it's the allegation that SPL and SFA contract legislation has been breached that will be probed by the governing bodies, with a range of sanctions open to them if any wrong-doing is proved.

It would appear, however, that EBT's cannot be considered as 'second contracts' as has been claimed.

Cramer said today: "Rangers could argue to any inquiry that the EBTs are a private matter between club and player because they involve a discretionary payment.

"They could say to the league: 'Why should we inform you of discretionary payments that do not fall under the umbrella of a normal contract?'

"For example, with EBTs there is no contractual enforcement right. You are relying on the goodwill of your employer and you could advance the argument that if there was no contractual obligation to pay money then there is no binding contract.

"There is an argument that the club could simply say that all EBTs fall outside the normal definition of contract.

"EBTs have always been a little bit scary from a player's point of view precisely because it is a discretionary payment. What the player is relying on is the ability of the owner or company to honour the agreement.''

SportTimes can reveal that Rangers paid its parent company Murray Group a £500,000 fee every season for legal matters to be taken care of, and the administration of player EBTs came under that umbrella.

And EBT expert Graeme Nuttall, an independent government, said payments made under the scheme were ''not a contractual right''. He explained: ''There is no obligation to pay the employee a certain amount of money.

"Typically, there would be an expression that you were part of a bonus plan and that would be paid into an employee trust.

"So it is not a contractual right for the player to receive a sum of money.''

A draft letter claiming to outline details of off-shore payments and performance-related incentives issued to an un-named Rangers player was published in a Sunday newspaper nine days ago.

Nuttall conceded, however, there would be documentation on both sides. He said: "The player would receive some documentation and there would also be a trust deed.

"You would expect letters of instruction from the club. The trustees would have issued guidance that is not strictly legally binding. It all works on a trust basis.

"There are a lot of good, genuine employee trusts out there.

"It has been a constant frustration to me over the years that employee trusts have been used for tax-driven purposes rather for genuine purposes.

"I do not know the details of the scheme at Rangers but I assume it was tax-driven.''