SFA TURN ON M8 ALLIANCE

decision to send them down. It included a demand from Hearts for an £8million compensation package if they were forced into the Championship with Thistle looking for a £2m parachute for being sent into the third tier – as well as a threat to serve an interim interdict on the SPFL preventing the top flight kicking off on August 1.

But even though Lord Clark kicked it back to Hampden for an arbitration process which is now under way, the compliance officer has ploughed on with the plans to throw the book at both clubs.

At 4pm yesterday Scottish football’s governing body announced the rebel clubs had been hit with a notice of complaint for taking the matter to the courts without first asking for permission from the SFA board - a rule breach that carries the threat of being kicked out of the game.

In a joint statement released minutes later, Hearts and Thistle revealed they had requested a delay to any compliance officer action until after the arbitration has been resolved.

They hit back: “We are incredulous to have received a notice of complaint from the SFA in the circumstances.

“It is oppressive of them to require submissions from both clubs by 20 July when we are, in terms of their own articles of association, actively engaged in arbitration.

“As our focus must be squarely on that, we have already requested the SFA to review the timing to allow us to be properly prepared and represented.

“That is the very least we should expect from the process.”

But both clubs will now be hauled back into the dock at Hampden for a hearing on August 6 when their fate will be decided

Under article 99 entitled ‘Resolution of Disputes between Members’ the SFA insist any such dispute should be brought before the governing body for arbitration rather than taken into the law courts.

Also, any club wishing to raise a legal action at the court of session must ask for permission from the SFA before doing so.

A breach of the articles of association is punishable by a raft of sanctions ranging from cash fines of anything between £5k and £500k and/or ‘suspension’ and even ‘expulsion’.

A Hampden source told us last night: “It’s obviously a sensitive issue but the SFA had no choice but to stick to the letter of the law where its own rule book is concerned.

“The fact that this matter has already been taken to the Court of Session is in itself a prima facie breach of the SFA articles of association. As awkward as the timing might be, the compliance officer was really left with no option but to be seen to be applying the rules.”

But the Court of Session lawlord, when delivering his judgment on July 3, questioned the legality of the petitioners facing further punishment from the SFA.

Lord Clark said at the time: “In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members.

“I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute to a court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99.

“The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action is raised.

“In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

“In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove, accepted this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed.”