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
Good Blog Pops.
Lomax wanted out because he absolutely hates playing Wing, he grew up in rep teams playing fullback. He switched to centre to crack first grade and has stated publicly that he is a centre and that's his favourite position.
When you stop and think about it the Eels are restricting Zac's trade, the real question is, is this restriction lawful.
To be lawful the Eels must show that the restriction is 1. Reasonable and 2. Neccessary to protect a legitimate Business.
Normally courts hate that a person, can't work elsewhere,and the employer dosnt want them.
The Eels still have an argument though, because 1. They released him for a specific purpose. ie R360. Lomax stated he didn't want to play NRL again.
2. The Deed of release was negotiated, not forced, with legal representation.
3. The Eels are protecting their
Salary Cap Integrity ie Lomax can't fit under the cap anymore in our roster,
The Player market value, ie getting return on investing in Lomax, like player for like player.
And their Competitive Balance. Giving the opposition a leg up to compete against them without a fair return.
If the court agrees the restriction was clear,voluntary and limited in time, then the Eels may very well win.
He has also said in the past that he wanted to play Five-Eighth.
Zac isnt a bad human, he seems impulsive but he puts his body on the line when he suits up, very unique situation indeed.
I really hope he plays in the NRL again as I hold no anomosity to anyone, let alone a misguided young man.
Hopefully Storm get a breach from the NRL for their misdealings. A struggling club like the GC Titans enquire and we get a deal done quick.
I think we ask for Cooper Bai, which hurts the Strom as they want him, and he is clearly a future superstar. They'd agree to that in a heartbeat.
I hope he plays again myself, but i also hope we get a like for like player in the process.
if we could afford stefano on 800k we could afford lomax
And that Mongolian would be Lomax's sensible response at court to help his case.
Yeah it seems team Lomax and storm have balls'd this up. If it is true that they have been in negotiations before he was even released then everything else is null and void. That is the exact definition of tampering and if Storm are caught in this public manner sorry they need to be punished severely. Seems to me for once Parra have done everything correctly and the other parties involved are getting their pants pulled down, won't just be in a court of law but already in the court of public opinion. 95% of people are saying parra hold all the cards because they have gone about it the correct way. Courts would be silly to agree on the side of Lomax.
Lomax already stated he doesn't want to play in the NRL anymore.
Why would Parra take him back?
For one reason only, he is a bloody good player.....I stress one good reason.
Why would you take someone back who doesnt want to be there, he'll just mope around dragging his bottom lip and will most likely have more injuries than the team combined
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next