I don't think anyone can doubt Locke's willingness to commit to Salford - he's stepped up in a couple of games and played (and scored!) when obviously well crocked so I think Dr K's comments are somewhat unfair - after all nobody forced him to sign Kevin Locke on the terms that he did - if he now regrets the contract then who's fault is that?

I think the way which Koukash has treated Locke since his injuries is a disgrace. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot and Locke has been fit every game, was absolutely killing it in Super League was going to the local papers trying to manufacture a move to RU or claiming Salford weren't a big enough club for him the supporters and Marwan would be up in arms.

Quite agree with your comments, I think it's all about money, I fear a fit Kevin Locke playing again't us

Agreed. Instead of keep throwing the bloke in for game after game when he's clearly unfit, or trying to rush him back, we should have given the proper rest and treatment we needed as soon as possible. By now he'd have been long since fit and we'd have got the best out of him.

The way he's been handled off the pitch has been unfair as well. The Barcelona incident being the big one that sprung to my mind yesterday.

Perhaps Marwan should have done a little research into his marquee investment. His time at the Warriors was blighted with injuries in fact 2014 he missed 7 rounds with a knee injury 3 rounds with an ankle injury. He has bags of ability but is injury prone sadly.

Although I agree with all the comments on the treatment of Mr Locke, how do we know why he has singled him out for replacement? Was it in response to a direct question from Mr Barker? If you read this link, you will not see any direct quotation from the owner but a lot from others: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... or-9330572 This link www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-9322561 states "‘‘I will even listen to offers for Kevin right now,’’ says Koukash" which suggests, from the word "even", that it is not the top priority. Then we have his comment in today' paper: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ns-9323201 gives the impression that Locke is a big name Charlie. He needs to clear this up.

Although I agree with all the comments on the treatment of Mr Locke, how do we know why he has singled him out for replacement? Was it in response to a direct question from Mr Barker? If you read this link, you will not see any direct quotation from the owner but a lot from others: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... or-9330572 This link www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... sh-9322561 states "‘‘I will even listen to offers for Kevin right now,’’ says Koukash" which suggests, from the word "even", that it is not the top priority. Then we have his comment in today' paper: www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ns-9323201 gives the impression that Locke is a big name Charlie. He needs to clear this up.

I assumed that the reference was being made more towards the likes of Gareth Hock...........

I think you have to question the background checks or possibly lack of that went into the Locke signing. Was he signed purely on the back of a handful of good performances for New Zealand?

I think you have to ask:-

1. Were his medical records evaluated or was important information withheld?

2. Were sufficient background checks made on his emotional state and lifestyle choices?

3. Has Locke just been extremely unlucky with several injuries since he arrived? Or has it just been a general fitness and attitude issue?

4. Have the club handled the player correctly and respectfully to the media? Would he have been much more effective playing for other Superleague clubs?

Considering the substantial investment in Locke's services I'd be astounded if the necessary due diligence was not carried out properly by the club. I'm still not sure if we have signed an unmotivated crock (living it up on the big contract) or simply a very unlucky lad with a burning hunger to show us all what he can do, when he eventually regains full fitness? I'm hoping the latter but patience must now be wearing very thin for everyone connected with the club.

the issue isn't whether they are overseas signings or UK based .
its the QUALITY & FITNESS of those signings and whether they were actually required by the club to fill a POSITION in the first place .
As ever the biggest fault lies with the guy with the wallet.
Steve Rapira, Tim Smith , ,Michael Dobson , Kevin Locke, Jones -Bishop, all arrived after time off serious injuries or medical issues.
Chase, Hock , Hauraki we knew had reputations for copping bans.
Puletua is taking up a quota spot and isn't playing and the one of the players I guess they would have liked to have stayed ' Tasi ' is on his way.
so we've spent a fortune on halves & full backs when we already had quality in our squad. Liam Foran , when we already had Snyed. Jake Mullaney when they had Evalds on loan up a Barrow.

Of all of them Locke was the only one worth taking a chance on, as if we could have got him fully fit , his opening performance last July V Huddersfield would have been commonplace , why the club waited until May to put him in for a clean out opp ?

to paraphrase - the club has in the main taken huge risks on disruptive , injury-prone & unproven signings in key positions over the past two seasons and has received no dividend. now it seems the ire for all this bad judgement ' and a proportion of bad luck ' seemingly has been hoisted on the ' star ' signing Kevin Locke

This season has been a mixture of self inflicted damage and some bad luck with injuries. On the plus side the effort and commitment in recent weeks is evident and we are getting very good value from some of our lower earning players. What we need now is Dobson & Chase back to give us some attacking guile. The question is will it be too late to rescue our season?

Problem i feel with your recruitment is purely down to fitness.... baxically your sigings baring a couple are way past there best, morley, puletua, dobson and paterson are taking a hefty wedge of cap space for little impact, sau and bjb, well the jurys out on them 2 for me......locke, i cant honestly comment, but the guy looked a stand out at the warriors but they soon got rid and paid a massive fee for tomkins.... says it all for me.... the guy looks on a downward spiral at Salford and looks lije a scapegoat for the wasted cash by the good doctor......

The great thing about living in 2015 is that everyone is allowed an opinion regardless. The trouble is, not every opinion is equal or valid or factually correct. Them's the breaks.

So let me be the first to thank you for your opinion, but in this case, it's not really up to any standard of offering...

a. Any talking points.
b. Little factual basis.
c. Anything original.
d. Anything at all.

If I avoid the poor construction of the opinion, and base my conclusions off your 'points' it fairs little better. While Morley is getting on he's certainly not unfit. TP has fallen out of favour but was very good in all the games he played for us. Dobson is 28 and Cory Patterson is 27 which is unlikely to be 'over the hill' by anyone elses standards. Patterson in particular has been great so far this season. Sau has been great for us and BJB has been nothing but solid, so I'm not sure what the jury being out means. Locke has been dogged with injury since he arrived, and if fit and on form would be in the top two FB's in SL.

You see, there's always two sides to a story...

For sale, expensive under achiever. |

Buyer must be willing to relieve Salford of massive wages and pay ridiculous transfer fee.

Could it be that the operation has revealed some intractable problem? Or would that just lead to a retirement on medical grounds?

I'm minded here of that great film, Citizen Kane. Very obviously referencing the paper campaign that led to the Spanish American War, the hero of the film manipulates public opinion to blacken or support others. The MEN has had little other RL news this week.
Why the spotlight on Locke? Shouldn't we be looking wider?

Nothing I've seen on the field suggests he isn't trying very hard. Nothing I've seen on the field suggests he has only average talent. So why focus on him?

Also I question conducting such a media campaign on an individual who has not been tried and found guilty by any legal process. Three major stories in a week that has only just reached its mid point, suggests a campaign. So I call upon the doctor to stop it dead now. If he wants rid of Locke, there are better and less public ways of doing it. If he does not, say so.

And if I were representing Mr Locke, I would be filing away the press comments, and lack of media-wide response by his employer, with a view to charge them with constructive dismissal.