Beware of Matt Tripp, he is not a politician, why would he want to be one, when he has more power than many?
PT's story is relevant and a huge argument for the lack of justice in a legal system that has "stunk" for ever. Unfortunately it hold's no weight in this discussion which also involves justice, but of a different style! The incumbents are both "heavyweights".
Back to the relevant point the situation has two bearings, the court approving Parra's right's to me are "bombproof".i.e a legally binding contract, signed by the defendant and lodged with the authority under legal guidance. The Plaintiffs (us) are acting in good faith.
The second aspect is if Lomax did offer to come back to play for Parra (as suggested in some statements) and we said no (which again is being stated), then are we restraining his trade in the NRL by admitting we don't want him anyway?
We are actually taking action against him for damage that does not exist by our admission.
Preventing his release on such terms some could be argued as unreasonable and not disadvantaging us?
Summating that differently Parra has a player on 700k and we have cancelled his contract, by admitting we don't want him we are already have benefited by that factor.
In the eyes of an objective judgement that ruling is therefore on a contract that could be unreasonable.
I think that this is Tripp's real course of action, he has just stuffed it up with the "dates" and all the other bullshit with Pezet and Ryles.
Summarise Parra loses a player costing them 700k, then show/say they don't want him.....where are you disadvantaged Parra?
Finally in making this a blog a strong argument is why not put it with the myriad of other posts on this subject?
My rationale is twofold and bears a different view, i.e is that last point of us not having an argument on the basis of no damage done, salient and finally is why did we refuse Zac Lomax the opportunity of returning......I always felt there was a reason unstated of why he wanted to leave and without insulting his character completely which will be most arguments to come forward.....
MY Question still stands WHY????
PS I see the NRL involvement ancillory at this stage and a lot more interesting after the court rules.
Replies
Because
And if it doesn't its shitty
I love a strong fact based argument, just ask Daz!
Well said
I was listening to Braith Anasta who basically said that some of Tripps comments aren't correct but that Tripp is used to getting what he wants. As Anasta is manager of Pezet and everything between Pezet joining Parra was done legally and by the book and was after Lomax had already been released by the Eels.
Good blog. Here's my view on this Poppa.
Lomax wanted out. Made his intentions quite clear. We agreed to it with conditions and we get the sugar hit of having his salary available for another player or players. Lomax's "supposed" plans fall flat, he apparently asks to come back and we say no.
Are we restraining his trade? There are 15 other clubs that might be willing to negotiate. There are endless options in Rugby, which after all the R360 noise, is apparently of no interest to him now.
We can't just go out and buy another Lomax, they don't just grow on trees, so we have been significantly disadvantaged by this process. If he really did ask to come back, why would we want him? He's made it quite clear he is a mercenary and doesn't want to be with us. Boohoo, he made his bed, now go lie in it.
The one point that seems real suss in all this is that while he was publicly saying he wanted to go to R360 and negotiated a release with us, it seems he was also working on a plan B with Melbourne. He agreed to the conditions of release, with legal guidance and his manager. Again, boohoo.
I get your point about us not wanting him back potentially restraining his trade, but on the other hand we are not talking about trading normal goods like potatoes for carrots. A football team is a dynamic organism, and when someone wants out for money, you don't want them back. I think Parra have covered their bases very well in this.
by admitting we don't want him we are a̶l̶r̶e̶a̶d̶y̶ h̶a̶v̶e̶ b̶e̶n̶e̶f̶i̶t̶e̶d̶ b̶y̶ t̶h̶a̶t̶ f̶a̶c̶t̶o̶r̶...saying the manner of his departure has destroyed trust, souring the relationship beyond repair. It has lowered team morale and would do so further if we allowed him to return.
Fuck That Guy
also, how does PT balance his experience with Predatory Entitled Billionare with his support for The Pedophile President, who in addition to being a rapist (court determined) is obviously a Thieving Lying Predatory Silver-spooned Prick Billionaire with "bonespurs".....
"When I supported the "Leopards Eating Faces" party I never imagined that they'd eat MY face" seems to apply
So, if you contracted a builder to build your house and after laying the slab he says I want out so I can build a shopping centre. You both agree that he can on the proviso he doesn't build houses in your neighbourhood for the duration of the original contract timeframe.
You then hire other builders to do the job. They aren't supposedly as good but are cheaper and will do a good job anyhow.
The shopping centre funding falls through. Old mate gets offered to build a house on the other side of town but it's only half the value. He says, fuck that! He then signs a contract to build a house at the end of your street. After you find out he says, will you please let me build your house at the original contract conditions. You tell him to fuck off.
Him and the other guy he is trying to contract to then cry to the MBA saying you have restricted his trade and the terms in the document he signed agreeing to break the original contract are onerous.
You start court proceedings to hold him to the terms of the agreement.
Do you think his trade is restricted given he can work in any other neighbourhood?
Apples and dildos, as Randy says.