Whilst I don't believe Locke hadn't been paid, I do question how the club has been getting round the salary cap. Could it be Locke expected to have a full three and a half year contract paid up after only two and a half with the final year paid up in full before being released a year early. This would make up his loss of earnings and ease pressure on the salary cap.
Now I'm not certain on the salary cap rules, but if a players contract is paid up in full and that player is released before the season begins, said players' salary doesn't count on the cap. I maybe wrong, but didn't Warrington release Hicks to sign Joel Monaghan, with Hicks paid up in full and his wage was no longer a factor on the salary cap?
Like I say, not certain on the rules, so please don't brutalise me if I'm wrong? However, I also have to question why the Warriors would sign Tomkins and release Locke. If Locke was going to make a full recovery from his injury they didn't need Tomkins, or was his behaviours causing problems for the Warriors too?
