The reason for the 20K has been outlined on this thread - I suggest you read them.

The RFL have at least two issues to consider.
1. If the Huddersfield representatives under questioning by a RFL official had told the truth about the recruitment of
Kopczak - would they have agreed with the BUll's case that a transfer fee was due and how much would they
have awarded

2. If the Huddersfield representatives did lie to the RFL official, as they appear to have admitted in the high court,
The RFL will take a view on the seriousness of those representatives telling lies to the RFL. both personally and
on behalf of the club

The credibility of the RFL as a governing body is at stake.

Interesting reading this post and I hope Hudds get there just rewards,

Do you guys remember a player called Harris who played for the Bulls?

Yeah I always liked Ben.

Yeah, remember him. Super player, though he got a few brickbats from some fans about his attacking capabilities, he was second only to the immortal Scott Naylor as a reliable defender and the sort of player I'd have in my teams every time.

Think he went back to play in the NRL, didn't he?

I'm pretty sure Ben Harris had to/chose to retire didn't he?

I`m sure he went back and played for the Cowboys. I know he did because he played in the first serious match at the Titans new stadium for the Cowboys. I was there.

He played two seasons back in NRL for NQC but missed a lot of game through injuries and eventually retired due to them

I think you are right the RFL should take action, the same action taken against the Bulls a team that's lied to them not once but numerous occasions with regards to salary cap and licensing and won trophies on the back of it.

They should buy our ground and bail us out, think thats what your after isn't it?

I don't think the OK Bulls should of received anything in all truth unless they have taken on and settled all debts that were still outstanding from the old Bulls.

What do you reckon?

Why is any of that linked to your clubs dirty laundry?

You got your 1M bail out in 99 mate.

It's not, it's simply a poor attempt to deflect attention away from how Huddersfield actively lied about the deal with Kopczak by dragging up things like Bradford's breach of the salary cap about 10 years ago that was dealt with by the RFL at the time and in fact when appealed against the RFL agreed that the breach was of a technical nature and not an attempt by Bradford to purposely break the rules due to there being grey areas regarding 3rd party payments to players.

Or Bradford's financial troubles which were caused by a number of factors that were at the time of franchising could not be conceived of happening
However, Huddersfield LIED. They were untruthful. They bore false witness. They fabricated the truth.

In fact, as they're so used to changing their name, then maybe that should be their new club name "Huddersfield Liars"

Ahh, that's what's winding you up - worried the wheels have fallen off and nothing to show for it

We should concern ourselves with, the fact the RFL did not establish any facts before saying they (Huddersfield) should pay us £20k compensation and basically use the Gentlemans agreement clause by accepting it and moving on. We have done that, and from a politically good perspective , I admire that Omar Khan has taken a very honest and dignified stance on the whole sorry mess.

Basically we as the older supporters knew what it was to have the litigation situation held over your head for many years, ie the Harris affair which was in essence far less immoral than the CK affair.

I sympathise with the fans of Huddersfield and they do not deserve the uncertainty and additional angst brought about by poor management decisions not of their making.

I think that whilst we should continue to put the pressure on the RFL, particularly in light of the fact that Huddersfield get an extra £43k of our SKY compensation money per year.
Perhaps it's time the RFL behaved like a proper regulatory body and gave us our £600k back for 2014.
I would suspect this may well placate our board of Directors and our fans?

I think a lot seem to forget that Iestyn Harris had his own legal team which had gone over the papers and [presumably]told him he wasn't tied to Leeds and then a man as experienced as our then chairman, who presumably should have known the score, came to the same conclusion it was was a pretty big surprise lose the case, if we're honest. Though it never actually came to a full conclusion as, to have lost, would have risked bankrupting the club, chairman Hood had no choice but to concede.

An experienced guy like Chris Caisley and Harris' team both thought Iestyn was free to sign - the judge indicated differently. Rogue decision or two legal blunders? Was the law an ass? What would have been the outcome if the Bulls hadn't conceded and had had the cash to take it to an appeal under another judge? Rhetorical questions which we'll never know the answer to, but an interesting thought, never the less.