HEARTS and Partick Thistle have claimed that Dundee United are breaking SPFL rules by asking fellow SPFL clubs to help with their legal costs.

The Championship winners, along with League One and Two victors Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, were dragged into a courtroom dispute between relegated duo Hearts and Partick Thistle and the Scottish Professional Football League as they sought to block their enforced demotions.

United say they, along with Raith and Cove, have already run up £50,000 legal costs - with that figure set to spiral further if they continue to play a part in proceedings.

And the Terrors have since asked clubs to help with these costings as well as proposing a crowd funding page for fans to donate.

But now Hearts and Partick in a joint statement say the Tannadice club are "at odds with the fundamental requirement of the SPFL rules that the SPFL and each Club shall behave towards each other with the utmost good faith."

A statement read: "As a matter of urgency, we would like to clarify our position in relation to the role being played by Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers in our case against the SPFL.

"Those clubs were named in the Petition, along with Stranraer, because they are the clubs most likely to be impacted by a decision in our favour. We are not, and have never been, in direct dispute with them.

"The SPFL is opposing our Petition and will do so at the forthcoming arbitration.  Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers were not therefore required to litigate or arbitrate against us.  However, they chose to do so. 

"For the avoidance of doubt, we accept that was a choice they were fully entitled to make, no doubt having been fully advised of the risks and costs.  We absolutely know and understand that was not a decision to be taken lightly.

"This is not about two Clubs, Hearts and Partick Thistle, battling against other member Clubs. This is about these two Clubs battling against the organisation, which is meant to look after all of our interests, and holding them accountable for their prejudicial actions. We would contend that any Club in our position would be taking similar action.

"However, encouraging clubs to fund anyone’s costs in this process could create further division. We consider such an approach to be at odds with the fundamental requirement of the SPFL rules that the SPFL and each Club shall behave towards each other with the utmost good faith.  We cannot therefore let that pass without comment."