Now that Giants season is over, will RFL get their finger out and nail them over the way they "misled" the Tribunal over Kopczak move. Kopczak and Giants Rep have admitted, under oath, not telling the truth so why the long wait.We must surely be due a larger fee from Giants, Is the delay caused by RFL, or Super League, working out how to divide the extra fee amongst rest of the Clubs?
Seriously this needs sorting NOW.

Agreed. They've prevaricated too long already - it's an open and shut case. I can see little point in interviewing them all again - they'll just tell the same old lies they were too scared to tell in the proper court in front of a judge. It's time for the rugby authorities to grow some.

Might not help the Bulls though - they could decide their actions have brought the game as a whole into disrepute and fine them directly

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..