That's what the owner said a week ago. Well another of our best players has gone and no sign of anyone arriving and frankly I cannot see anyone of quality being available so unless we are to sign 4 more Malloy standard players that are not wanted anywhere else I think we might as well keep our money for repairs to the ground and go with what we have got.

You just see the positive in everything don't you.
Who knows what is going on in the background.

Maybe the players we were targeting were bulls players and have since decided to stay there?

Or more likely is that Bradford are making it clear they could challenge anyone attempting to get players out of the club in the courts. Am I the only one who thinks the action against Hull is more of a warning to other clubs, inc us?

If that was the case then we should have held onto Smith until the deal was done. I would hope its a case of we are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's ready for a nicely timed announcement before the first home game next week.

Just guessing, but maybe its somebody Hull need to shift on to enable them to get Carvell and remain within the cap?

Alternatively, it could be a Leeds player on loan

I don't think they have any choicek in reality they are testing the validity of the situation, and quite rightly - this is hardly a clear cut decision and much info is lacking leading to mucho mucho speculation.
If it goes in their favour then it has been the right thing to do - clearly doing nothing would be a bad thing for them, if it doesnt and it shows the bulls have not acted correctly under employment law - it could lead them down a path where others wish to follow suit just as doing nothing would.

The thought had crossed my mind, an attempt to discourage both rival clubs and players tempted to leave.

Ehether that is the intent we will not know, but even that perception creates a huge risk of a massive own goal. It is not that long ago that Bradford stated very publicly that any player who wanted to leave could do so. They are now threatening legal action against a player who did, irrespective of the route he took. What impact does that have on the rest of the squad? There must be players in that squad who at least considered leaving, so what do they now think of the club now issuing public statements regarding a player doing exactly what they previously said they could. I think there must be a fair chance of them being royally thumped by Cas this week and where would morale go then?

It is a shame, as all this nonsense sets fan against fan and one of the strengths of RL is that though we all want to beat each other on the field, relations between fans off the pitch are generally good.

Aye, those were the days, standing next to opposition fans on the terraces and enjoying what took place on the field.
I think licensing put paid to any good will between rival fans, especially in the lower half of the league.
Never mind, we're in another brand new era now, with an annual relegation scrap to look forward to

Jay Pitts to WTW.

Certainly did. No longer is it related to what your team does on the field. These days it's about baby changing facilities and half time hot dogs.

As said before Carvell could be a test case. If his move is deemed ok by rfl then other clubs could move in. A Bulls friend mentioned meeting with RFL today or tomorrow. They have already ratified the transfer so could be all above board due to player protection rule that Martyn Sadler mentioned last week.

If we can bring someone in that's better or differnt from what we have then fine. If it's a Molloy type played I can't see the point.

To be honest, thats what i was thinking.

I see london have just taken their sixth player on loan. Even though you are only allowed 5 it turns out that they can get round this by saying that technically they are not all on loan?

You couldnt make this up If this is allowed.

I know WTW are stacked with back-rowers but Pitts was mentioned as potentially going to Bulls so he does seem surplus to requirements at Hull FC. It also looks like Jamie Shaul has got the nod for full back at the KC in front McDonnell so he might be on the way out as well.

The signing of J.Pitts seems very logical when you understand how Agars mind functions.

I have also heard another one of our centre/wings will be leaving and a further two more second rowers
have been lined up to sign.

I'd be happy with Pitts but as implied above I'd like to see cover in the 3/4.
I guess it depends how well Kienhorst and Briscoe fit in.

Who let cat out of bag

Do we really need another back-rower? It's the one place we have plenty of options!

I've heard we're looking at a winger and a second rower over the hill at the same club.

Pitts was a back rower when he left us but wasn't he propping at Hull?

Think he's played there a few times for them but the general consensus of the Hull fans when it looked like he was joining Bradford was that he is a good second rower but nowhere near good, or big, enough to be a prop forward.

Maybe that was before they lost Carvell, only got 3 recognised props now in Scruton, Sidlow and Manukafusi.

Don't we have enough back rowers? Someone like Shaun Ainscough who can score tries outside would be good...