"sold" I don't think this will involve a sale.

What if he isn't sold but picks up an injury?

Bollox.

The club has made a statement and it is clear.

If players were obliged to make statements about every rumour / story / leak / then it would be ridiculous. Most of such stuff is made up. Some has some foundation in fact but where there is substance then we find out the truth soon enough.

All anyone ever did by denying a rumour is fan the flames. And the ones stirring are never persuaded by the statement anyway so it is futile. Finally even if he did say "No I have no plans to leave" today, someone could come in with a £1m bid tomorrow and he'd be gone. We all know how it works.

As for the TUPE point it is correct that an employee needs to be told of the proposed change in ownership (there are provisions for consultations etc though like last time, there wasn't the timescale to permit that to happen but after the change, an employee doesn't have to sign anything, they can continue the relationship by conduct. Bottom line is you could decline to be TUPE'd, but you'd have to do it quickly, and of course unless you have somewhere lined up to go, (a la Kopczak) no sensible player would do it for the obvious reason that you already have a job and a wage, why on earth would you walk away from that, to the uncertainty of being an unemployed player looking for a job when everyone's squad is pretty much filled up for the start of the new season? It would be a majorly dumb thing to do.

Whoosh and a half for me there I'm afraid.

Hull seem to think they can get the player for free.

From what I remember from the Kopout saga is that a player can legally refuse to transfer his contract, but the new company actually owns his SL registration. This registration is part of the assets that the new company purchased from the old company.

Huddersfield then had to pay a fee for the transfer of the players registration.

Bulls could essentially let him walk away from his contract, but then refuse to transfer his SL registration for the 2 year contract duration.

Bitterly disappointed by recent events, Carvell was the big signing that everyone was looking forward to see.

Just need the hairy cornflake DLT to get cleared now

If it was a my mates brother told me last night down the boozer rumour. Then yes I wouldn't expect a statement but when you have journalists making statements regarding player and agent brokering a move, social media going into meltdown, one club issuing a statement adding fuel to the fire by declaring an interest whilst the other issues a statement that although says players not for sale when clearly a sale is not the issue.

A united front from player and club would put this to bed I believe but I see it dragging on for sometime.

If you think that's bollox that's up to you. personally I don't and that's up to me.

At the end of the day why would you. Sometimes you just have let it go and move on as Hull did when the same player backed out of a 3yr contract to move to Warrington. Anyway its about a £50 admin fee isn't it transfering a reg.

I’m sure that if Carvell was definitely staying some sort of player statement would have been in the press by now. It takes a second to write it and run it past the player along this scenario:

Club- Ere Garreth are you ok with this statement going out? “I’ve no wish to leave and am looking forward to 2014 playing for the Bulls”.

Garreth – Yes

This doesn’t constitute any real effort and would placate long suffering Bulls supporters and sponsors. While you can’t go into the media to address every rumour we already have on this one…

I’m pretty sure he’s gone. Which is a big blow and leaves the pack much weaker than last year, even if we get Pitts in exchange (which is suggested). That’s likely to leave us fighting for our lives with Wakey and London.

Its obvious that Hull need to offload Pitts to create room under their cap. We just need to refuse to take Pitts - then they can't fit Carvell in. Simple!

And you're left with a seriously de-motivated player on a fair whack in your squad. I'd take Pitts to be honest. Besides, he's actually a very good player, just probably not in a position that you need.

We need a prop. Hull need to offload at least one player to get Carvell under their cap. And are not offering props.
So I would think we're going to drag this out until we can source a replacement prop.

Look at Luis Suarez at Liverpool. He wanted to leave before the start of the season, the club refused, now he's the leading goal scorer in the league!

Nonsense. When he goes we'll get a replacement in, probably via a loan, defiantly not of the same quality, but the loss of one prop wont determine if we finish above London/Widnes/wakey.
If it was that tenous we were done for anyway.

I agree, but Gareth Carvel should quit being a vagina and tell us fans and the club that he either wants to stay or leave. If he wants to stay then great, if he wants to leave then we should allow him to leave and use the money to strengthen areas of the squad where it's needed to the best we can with what is and may be available on the market.

What about Danny Sculthorpe?

imo think hes on his way, if you get pitts you have a good player if played in second row or loose forward, i would be sad to see him leave hull,

Can't understand why we would want Pitts or why any deal would likely feature him. We don't need back rowers. If GC has refused TUPE, and Hull need to offload players to avoid SC breaches in order to get GC, then that would leave GC in limbo if Hull can't create any space.

We don't want Pitts. Decent a player as he is, he isn't a prop and never will be. We are 'suited' for SR and loose and don't need more so, if Carvell were to leave our money will be better spent on another prop. Agree entirely, if Hull have agreed to take another player which will take them over the top, well it's their tough luck.

As I understand the live salary cap situation it would mean the RFL refusing to allow the deal, whether we allow it or not. Which basically means Carvell stays here with no fault attached to us so maybe Carvell could build bridges and get back in Franny's good books.

Or maybe the whole story is a pile of smelly stuff?

Does anyone know whether Carvell's agent represents any other Bulls player?

I agree on the first part, on Pitts as part of any deal, that sounds like it would suit hull better than us. However, it depends on the figures involved, which none of us know. A straight swap carvel for Pitts with no change in our costs is a poor deal for us. But if the deal was Pitts, and we could get a decent prop in and reduce our overall costs then it's not too bad.
Carvel=Pitts, nope
Carvel=Pitts+a.n.other prop+lower costs. Yes.

But we'll never know the full facts to make a proper judgement.

speculation we are releasing Shannon Mcdonnell to make room

Shouldn't this type situation be simple? If he has transferred across he is our player until we decide otherwise or in 2yrs, if he hasn't he can walk, we can't do a lot about it as I understand? If we don't have a watertight contract Tuped across the bulls website statement saying he ain't going anywhere could look foolish

I guess we'll have to wait and see.