Wasn't aware of that, evidently the spanish hector isn't as ruthless with clubs

"Aye,bit whitaboot them over there"
Since when did two (or more) wrongs make a right ?

The Spanish governement were apparently ready to wipe the Spanish clubs debts till Germany stepped in.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

To be fair, that situation has actually escalated into a full blown political affair.

The German people are asking why it's their money that's bailing out the Spanish football teams. And rightly so.

If that's the case why do UEFA allow them into their competions ?II know they have huge debts, as do 90 % of clubs outside the Bundesliga but if they have fiscal debts they should not be allowed into UEFA cups.

We dont have to go to Spain to look at Motherwell, Livingston, Gretna.......anyone remember rule changes whilst they were in administration?
This is turkeys voting for Christmas; long term, no one benefits.

UEFA let the Spanish teams in to European comps because TV tells them to..

Rangers not in Europe means nothing in the big scheme of things.

Nothing new here- UEFA making it up as they go along

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

yes the spanish clubs owe quite a lot of money. However they did not try to hide their players wages by making illegal under the table payments which gave unfair advantage.

Althletico have not been charged with bringing the game into disrepute because they did not use illegal methods and presented their financial statements on time.

They can still play in europe because they did not break any rules.
These alledged undisclosed payments to players by R.F.C are illegal under the rules as Derry City found out when such payments where discovered, banned from europe for 3 years and relegated a division.

Athletico have not gone into administration because their income more than covers the interests on their debts, as such they remain a going concern, same as Man U in the E.P.L, Man U debts 600 mill or so but they can keep up the interest payments so no problems.
The only reason a title would be reclaimed was if there was evidence that the club invovled used methods to obtain the title that resulted in an unfair advantage.

So while you maybe outraged at the S.F.A and S.P.L they have the right to challenge the practice that lead to the tax liability, and as these practices were at best underhanded then the charge of bringing the game into disrpute is a valid one.
Rangers are not charged because they owe money but because of the way the handled their financial affairs, how they made payments to their staff and how such payments when discovered resulted in a hugh tax bill.

Attempts to hide the practices that lead to the S.F.A charges by focusing on the financial situation ignore the reasons why the club finds itself in such a situation and do nothing to help the club prepare for an uncertain future.

Questions should be asked of Mr Murray, was it not during his reign that these practices came into effect?

eder - you have missed the OP point a bit.

The fact is that those clubs listed currently owe money to their local tax authorities. Overdue in many cases.

This is one of the reasons that UEFA can with hold the license. But of course, as it would be financial suicide, they do not.

Eder, I think your outlook is a little blinkered...

I hate repeating this fact, but Rangers clearly reported on their payments to the EBT's. They were a publically listed company, so their financial reports can be viewed online by ANYONE, if you want to go and check the facts.
The EBT's are not illegal, and by their very nature are not "payments" either, as they are classed as loans.
Whether the loans ever get paid back is up for debate however and it is a misuse of the EBT's that the HMRC are trying to base their case on. If it was a simple case of "illegal payments" as you try to make it out to be, then they would have opened and closed the court case months ago.
What Atletico, and many other Spanish clubs are doing, however, is far more blatant.
They are simply not paying their tax, much like Whyte with the smaller tax case.
This means they are paying players wages they cannot afford.
And it is definitely not the case that they are earning enough to cover them, because they have a number of high profile players on ridiculously high salaries and long term contracts.
They have to keep paying them and therefore the gulf between what they get in and what they have to spend out, actually grows.
They choose not to pay tax to be able to fund this.

Financial Fair Play rules, which were introduced 5 years ago, were meant to combat this problem.
However, UEFA, as always, will opt to make it "one rule for one, and one rule for another" if the case with the Spanish clubs comes to a head.
I think the OP was simply pointing the indifference between media and parliamentary treatment, to a series of clubs in a VERY similar predicament to ourselves.