If he was in contract until November then he would be entitled to the money for it and so probably a deal will have been done with either us/Howarth or both in order for all 3 parties to be satisfied.
Similar to deals done I suspect for the likes of Tim Smith and Arundel.

Or we have just taken over his contract as in most deals of this type.

Do think MC would take over a Hull player contract in full?
I think it will have been a matter of we will take him off your books but on our terms ie they pay some of his contract or we don't take him. Hull wanted him off their wage bill, so the foregoing scenario reduces their wage bill and WT don't pay the full wack.

Where does it say Hull wanted him off their wage bill? Just maybe we approached them for him and they released him. Adam Pearson has already said after Arundal that he wouldn't be subsidsing any more wages of players leaving, there is zero change he will be paying anything towards Howarth.

Have we got some clandestine link up with Hull going on or what?

Yes I understand that and it is speculation on my part, but if a player has a contract then he still has some bargaining power whatever AP says. The player could simply say that he is staying and I want my contract payment, usually some compromise (give and take) is made. I know it is a different club, but do you think that Tim S left Salford and is on less money than his Salford contract? and I can't imagine that WT are paying it all.

That comparison has no relevence given the size and length of contracts we will be talking about here. Tim Smith was on a large whack at Salford and had a full year left on his deal. Howarth was a late signing to give them a bit of cover, he will have been on peanuts anyway, so them part paying would free up no cap space for them and save them next to nothing. And his contract ran until the end of this season, we have signed him for an extra year on top. Why would Howarth sit on his Hull deal and possibly lose his employment chance for next year?? We will have likely just taken over his contract for this year and stuck an extra year on top.

Who pays what is of no relevance to me the fact that he is considered a good signing does. I don't remember many complaints when we did not extend his contract and I have not seen anything to change my opinion recently.
I fear we are somewhat tieing Smith hands before he even takes over if Howarth is the best we can do. To have signed him on loan was bad enough but 18 months suggest we are looking at a replacement for one of our current squad.

Underlined is the part of my post that you are clearly upset about, if you cannot comprehend the meaning of the word hitherto, I'd be happy to explain it, the way you are playing atm is a credit to your club and fair play to Radford for that, I hope the first three words in your last sentence are a typo, because as you say you are much improved but brilliant nah don't think so, I watch 8 NRL games live every week and I would not even describe those games in that vane, and certainly not in SL and even if you do manage to get in the top 8 describing your club as brilliant is stretching it a bit.

Be nice if he went on bench to spell McShane freeing up Godinet to play at 6

Could he play at hooker with McShane allowing Godinet move into the halves????

Hope Brian Smith was involved in the decision to sign Howarth...

I meant to say not brillant!!!

Possibly freeing Miller up to leave, which complies with recent and rumoured departures of overseas players making room for B Smith recruits.