Fraser Wishart, the PFA Scotland chief executive, has admitted the union are in the dark about who would win any dispute between Richard Brittain and St Johnstone.

The Ross County captain signed a pre-contract to join the Perth club on a two-year deal but has since changed his mind, leading to an impasse and an exchange between Steve Lomas and Derek Adams. First Lomas accused his Dingwall counterpart of being hypocritical and not telling the truth, then Adams yesterday warned his counterpart to moderate his words or risk consequences.

"Steve should be using his intelligence a wee bit better," Adams said. "His wording and language is not the best. He's got to be very careful. You don't use the language he used. It's not up to me to decide but I don't like the way he has spoken."

At the heart of the issue is whether or not the document signed by Brittain is legally binding. "That is hard to judge because it depends on the wording," said Wishart. "I've seen various types that are proper versions of the contracts. Sometimes it can be a one-page agreement. It's an awkward situation. I hope things calm down as I don't think slanging matches help.

"Pre-contracts have no real locus in football as neither the contract or registration can be registered now. It would only become a major issue come June if St Johnstone try to register his contract. There could be an angle where if the authorities want to [they can change it].

"There's going to be further discussions but I feel for Richard who is caught up in personal circumstances which dictate where he's wanting to go next. I'm not sure where it's going to go but we hope we can find an agreement that suits all parties."

PFA Scotland are involved, too, in Francisco Sandaza's dispute with Rangers over his breach of contract dismissal, after giving information away during a prank phone call. "I know Sandaza has spoken to our lawyers," said Wishart.

"There is a lot that could be said. The focus should be more on the person who made the call. People say it is a hoax call, but they tend to have a bit of humour to them. This had no humour. It was designed to find somebody out. Sandaza was probably naive at worst. It is going through an appeals process and he will have our support.

"It's quite sad a footballer can't answer a phone call or a few questions without the threat of dismissal. Where do we go with this? If you have a player in a pub and someone comes up to speak to him, does he just not speak to anybody anymore. We feel the sanction and punishment was far too severe. It was not proportionate to the offence."