This is my fear/expectation.

It could depend on whether the RFL were genuinely misled, or whether it was all just a charade. The "suggestion" that the Giants pay the Bulls £20k didn't exactly seem to be grounded in due process. If people at the RFL really knew what was going on between the player and the clubs (they were obviously keeping close tabs on the Bulls situation) they might not be too keen to re-open the issue.

www.superleague.co.uk/article/28 ... pczak-deal

www.superleague.co.uk/article/28 ... pczak-deal

Based on the above 2 sentences, I would expect the RFL to re-open the case!

Oh sounds good. So what is the likely outcome? A few million in compensation would do for starters please...

"Decided there was no case to answer" - either i missed that, or it's the first time it's come out.

"Huddersfield had denied any wrongdoing". Note the word "denied". If true, that is an active thing they actually did (as opposed to a passive thing, like keeping schtumm).

Still not clear why if there was no case to answer, a £20K deal was brokered - why would you agree to pay 20K if you have been vindicated?

The whole thing is about as odd as the RFL/lease of Odsal thing. Loads of questions, but a dearth of public answers.

I'm pretty sure FA, that the £20K was for breaching the "gentlemen's agreement" made to prevent any 'poaching' of the players after the admin was announced, and absolutely nothing at all to do with the entirely separate issue concerning rules about approaching contracted players.

Or as a gesture of goodwill by the RFL, Keith Mason with nothing counting toward the salary cap

Further evidence emerged today in the form of CCTV footage of Thewlis and Davy picking up the player outside Tong on the morning of 4th August. A still is shown below...

Priceless

Well, I suspected that, but when I thought about it, I couldn't recall it ever having been explained what it was for. So I did some digging (not that much, tbf) but haven't been able to find anything which states what it was for.

AFAIR, it was just a deal for effectively our agreement to transfer the registration, which we presumably agreed to. One could be forgiven for presuming that we only agreed to it perhaps after having been tipped the wink that no breaches were going to be found proved, but of course that would be pure speculation.

Anyway, a seeming penalty for a breach of RFL agreements or protocols etc would sort of be by way of a "fine", and surely any such are paid to RFL, not to a club?

Can anyone find a link to any report that confirms what the £20K was actually for, specifically?

I of course entirely agree that the "illegal approach" thing is an entirely separate issue. As are donkeys, though I wouldn't fancy being one at Scarborough this week

I think this is the only reference found to the 20k

[urlhttp://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/keith-mason-lawyer-reveals-huddersfield-5116317[/url