Hearts and Partick Thistle insist they aren't looking to fight with the three promoted clubs in their row with the SPFL.
The pair decided to take their case against the SPFL to court and it was referred to an SFA arbitration panel, with Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers all unhappy with the relegated clubs.
They fear that it could cost them promotion from their respective leagues and each of them submitted their own litigation to the courts that has cost them money.
That resulted in Dundee United calling for fellow SPFL clubs to support them in their legal costs but Hearts and Thistle have issued a joint statement to set the record straight.
The duo insist that they weren't going up against the three promoted sides and that it was their own choice to get involved and cost themselves money in legal fees.
The civil war in the SPFL has been ongoing since the initial Good Friday resolution vote and Hearts and Thistle insist the other clubs aren't acting in good faith.
The statement said: "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."
