Listen mate KM was awarded 167 which will increase when his legal cost and expences are callculated in so he his looking at about 200, then the barristers will have to be paid plus the insurace plus the cost of the trial and that will bing the cost to about 300 and unfortunatly the Giants will have to foot that bill happy days for KM.

Sorry have i gone about this all wrong? should I have gone on their board and had a dig? Wasnt quite sure of the protocol

And not only that Mr T and the giants will be in more trouble when they have to answer to the RFLfor the lies that was told to them in a previous hearing.

oh dear, Huddersfield are a small club stuck in SL.....well done Keith.

There is £35 k court costs ie the time of the judge etc etc

The costs of the legal teams will probably be borne by the losing party i would guess that both teams had a minimum of a barrister plus a junior and a solicitor in attendance. They would have been paid by the parties at the private rate that would be a minimum of £2k a day for the barristers ( anyone half decent would have been charging £5k a day).

that for two days doubled adds up.

The legal advice and conferences held before the trial would also have been at the same rate. I would be amazed if the legal fees were less than £50 k

Durham trust me when i tell you the Giants will be looking at a final payment of nearly 300k.

The Judge was definitely a Leeds fan fed up of the kickings.
We need an extra 10000 fans to turn up to pay the ridiculous payout.

The club statement from Ken Davy was very good and laid out the standards that the club expects, and I applaud him for his stance.
The Judge in the case was very soft and too liberal, although I liked Mason, he let the club down.

I disagree. Past players have been found guilty in court of criminal acts and not been sacked. A photo of a backside is so trivial it it brought about a whopping 4 complaints (some of which may have been suspect, according to the court report). This just smacks of trying to take the moral high ground to detract from what appears to be bad management.

A question to ponder. Do people not think that the decision to sack and then oppose Mason's claims were taken at board level? ["Mr Mason appealed his sacking but club vice-chairman Dr Paul Morgan dismissed it."

[It is purely a question and not intended to ask for the abuse and bile of recent times!

Really not sure how people manage to see some justification for the clubs actions in this. It has been proven in court that KM was treated very badly indeed. The sacking was out of context with punishments for other players misdemeanours, he is entitled to his compensation.

The club was wrong, KM was right, I for one have no issue with him over that and I suggest that in his position many of us would also have pursued a claim.

Embarrassing for the club, though not related it is not going to help perceptions in the Town re the stadium shares and all told another blunder in showing the club in the correct light to attract new fans.

Ken Davy has done great things for the club, things we should all be grateful for, but on this and in respect of his official statement he is wrong. Ask yourselves this question, would we have taken the same action against say Leroy, Eorl or Danny Brough? The court said not and I am inclined to agree, that is why KM won the case.