I hope the RFL don't re- evaluate Kopczaks value based on his performance v Warrington or we might have to refund Huddersfield some of the fee!

No way (though I'm an old cynic and wouldn't actually be surprised). The Bulls complained Kopout had been tapped up. Shudds denied it. It turns out they lied to the RFL's investigator. The RFL presumably brokered the deal at the fee we go on the basis of what they had been told, and so now that we know they were lied to, and he had been tapped up, that figure would have to be revisited, if there is any justice.

But I am not holding my breath.

I would view the issue of having lied to the RFL's investigator as a quite separate thing, for which they should be punished. But it IS separate. The question of our fee for Kopczak is not a penalty, it is just business between clubs.

:13jse8ri
I agree that, in theory, it [i:13jse8rishould[/i:13jse8ri be a straight business deal between the clubs but the fact that RFL, in your words, "brokered the deal", means that it wasn't [i:13jse8riexactly[/i legally binding contract. IIRC, didn't another club get into a bit of a hot water over something of a similar, if not exactly the same, nature a few years back?

cost them a bob tor wo, as well iirc.

If they had been able to take the gamble. my employment law mate reckoned the Bulls would have won that, as well.....

mind you, his hourly fees make me wince

I've often thought the same myself to be honest. After Leeds dropped the 'cohersing' bit, it was always about the alleged 'loss' that Leeds suffered, which can't have been more than, what a 50K transfer fee? It's a pity he didn't go back to Leeds, to let them quite probably not take up their option to re-sign. Still, water under the bridge now..