RANGERS are considering whether to seek a Judicial Review of the SFA's decision to impose a year-long transfer embargo on the club.

Senior figures at Ibrox are weighing up whether to contest the ban in the Court of Session on the basis that they could argue the punishment is legally unsound.

Administrators Duff & Phelps and Charles Green, the figurehead of the consortium intending to buy the club from Craig Whyte, have taken advice on whether applying for a Judicial Review would be worthwhile.

While any review was being held, Rangers would argue that the transfer embargo should be lifted and, if the club can get out of administration, it would be able to sign players this summer.

But taking on the SFA in court would be fraught with difficulties. The process would be expensive and potentially time-consuming, and it may have little chance of success.

When Rangers were hit with a £160,000 fine and the 12-month ban on registering any player older than 18 – as punishments for Whyte and the club bringing the game into disrepute – they appealed it to the SFA, but lost their claim. A three-man tribunal including Lord Carloway ruled the sanction was "proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others, and effective in the context of serious misconduct".

Any legal challenge could have wider repercussions. In January, Fifa threatened to ban the Swiss FA if it failed to impose a transfer ban on FC Sion. The club had been put under a transfer embargo, but signed players anyway, and then went to court when Uefa expelled them from the Europa League; neither Fifa nor Uefa approve of member clubs taking on their national association in court.

Rangers could face fresh domestic sanctions unless Duff & Phelps comply with a request from the SPL for documentation relating to its investigation into alleged undisclosed payments.

The SPL first asked the administrators for information in March, but has still to receive much of the paperwork it requires.

The allegations of undisclosed payments to players were made by former Rangers director Hugh Adam and the SPL wants to examine contracts and player documentation dating back to 1998, before deciding its next course of action.

On Wednesday, the BBC alleged that 53 Rangers players and staff had received "side letters" which were not lodged with the SFA or SPL, but covered how they benefited via Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs). Duff & Phelps have declined to comment on the EBTs issue until learning the outcome of the "big tax case" dispute with HMRC.

Meanwhile, joint- administrator Paul Clark responded to criticism by former Rangers director, and leader of the Blue Knights, Paul Murray.

Murray had called for an investigation into Duff & Phelps after the BBC documentary alleged a major conflict of interest because one of their senior partners, David Grier, they claimed, had advised Whyte during his takeover and knew of a potential deal involving Ticketus.

"I feel this matter has to be investigated as a matter of urgency by the regulatory bodies," said Murray, whose attempts to buy the club with consortium partner Brian Kennedy were unsuccessful.

Grier has denied he knew the extent of the money Whyte wanted Ticketus to provide – initially £24.4million – or that it would fund his entire takeover. But Clark said Duff & Phelps had nothing to hide and accused Murray of trying to derail Green's takeover.

"I don't think I would have any problem with a full investigation of the process," he said. "But the reality of that is that Paul Murray was suggesting it should be immediate. As far as we're concerned, enough is enough.

"Go back to the early stages: we were appointed by the Court of Session and that appointment was effectively endorsed by HMRC. They had put forward their own nominees then withdrew their own nominees for us to be appointed.

"To my knowledge, there has been no suggestion the HMRC as the principal creditor would go back to court and alter that. We are at a fairly important stage of the administration now, three-and-a-bit months in, and after some significant time we have a party moving forward, we have CVA proposals almost complete and hopefully out in 24 hours or so.

"My real fear is that having tried to upset the process throughout this is just another attempt [by Paul Murray] in some vain effort to put off the current bidder who has made a huge amount of progress since they have been involved, who is at Ibrox almost daily, and who is working with my team to get ahead of the information curve. Is this some attempt to just derail that process?

"I wouldn't know why someone who is acting apparently as a fan of Rangers would want to do that. If Paul Murray wanted to bid with whoever it was, and go head-to-head and bid whatever he could, he had 11 or 12 weeks to do that."