It's quite remarkable to contrast the way Cas just released a very professional statement as soon as an agreement had been reached to those two gobsh**es.

Reprehensible set of s, honestly they sound like the aggressor in an abusive relationship "we did nothing wrong."

They're right of course - no precedent has been set; and a settlement means that nobody has 'won' - so it's SOP for both sides to claim that they have.

They do however, sound like a pair of arrogant pricks.

Whilst no legal precedent has been set, they've set the tone for how they should be dealt with by anyone, and IMO only the most one-eyed Sale fans won't have slight misgivings about the way they make their club and code look.

I thought the BBC is supposed to be impartial - the is undiluted lying aided by the weakest interviewer I have ever heard. Its a pity we can't have Paxo or Andrew Neil ripping into those dishonest scum. I realise its local radio but surely Cas have a right of reply of equal length on this program.

Obviously I don't expect anything better from Sale but shame on the BBC.

This case was not about setting a precedent. This was about enforcing an existing precedent.
The precedent is that fees have to be paid for contracted players and this is still the case as Sale have paid a fee for Solomona.

The uncertainty this has created is whether a player can move clubs whilst under contract, without the permission of the club he is under contract to, before a fee is agreed rather than after the fee has been agreed. It seems that the RFU are happy to let this happen, so RU clubs can sign under-contract RL players, without the need communicate with the player's current club, and negotiate the fee afterwards.

However, even if Castleford had gone all the way to court and won, this problem would not have been resolved. This case was about Castleford receiving an acceptable fee, as is the precedent, for a player who was under contract. It's now up to the RFL and RFU to explore a reciprocal agreement that a player cannot be registered to play for another club until their previous club has agreed the transfer.

That's not strictly true though is it - by settling out of court, there is no 'guilty' party and there is no legal judgement that can be relied upon in future cases; which is why both parties are running to the media claiming victory.

I don't know if Cas were originally offered the 200 grand they've ended up with - but for Sale to suggest it's cost them the same as their original offer is face-saving at best, because if they've paid costs, that figure is probably doubled.

Moral victory for Cas - and it may give RU clubs pause for thought when they see that the mouse will sometimes roar - but in legal terms, it hasn't achieved anything.

Surely it wouldn't be difficult for RL clubs to just write clauses into players contracts saying they are forbidden from playing professional rugby union during the duration of the contract.

It seems to be coming from a Wakefield fan who is either bitter or is trolling. Either way, in my opinion, the only time Cas should ever need advice from our Wakefield friends on our legal matters is if we one day find ourselves in administration.

Moving swiftly on, a good conclusion for Cas, hopefully that's the end of it as I feel it's been an unwelcome distraction and right at the beginning I said I wanted to see a fair offer to settle the case - last thing needed was a Iestyn Harris length dispute.

Looking to the future I'd like to see the RFL refuse to allow Mr Clarke to have any involvement in the sport, if that is not under their jurisdiction, then it would be nice to see all clubs and players use their morals and refuse to deal with him. Unlikely I know. Clubs might also want to insert clauses in contracts to prevent players 'retiring' from the sport but again not sure if this breaches any kind of law.