Hearts and Partick Thistle 'incredulous' after Scottish FA charge over 'dispute'

Hearts and Partick Thistle hit by notice of complaint from SFA. Picture: SNS

Hearts and Partick Thistle have been hit with a notice of complaint from the Scottish FA which has left the clubs “incredulous”.

The duo are set to see their legal challenge against the SPFL go in front of an independent tribunal through the SFA’s arbitration process in the coming days

However, the governing body have notified the clubs that they have allegedly breached ‘Disciplinary Rule 78’ which states: “No member or Associated Person shall take a dispute which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99 to a court of law except as expressly permitted by the terms of Article 99”.

Hearts and Partick Thistle took their case against the SPFL to the court of session to have their relegation overturned following the termination of the 2019/20 season on a points-per-game basis and the subsequent controversy over the Dundee vote and failed league reconstruction.

If they are not reinstated in the Premiership and Championship respectively, the clubs are seeking compensation totalling £10million.

Lord Alistair Clark QC referred the case to the SFA’s arbitration process.

In a twist, the SFA have set a principal hearing date for 6 August for their complaint. If the clubs are found guilty of breaching Disciplinary Rule 78 they could be punished with a small fine of £500 which rises to £2,500 then £5,000 with the maximum the drastic, and unlikely, measure of having their SFA membership terminated or suspended and/or a fine of £500,000.

The complaint has left both clubs perplexed.

A joint statement read: “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.”

During the court of session hearing earlier this month, Lord Clark noted Article 99, believing, in his opinion, the existence of possible membership termination “is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.”