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
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.
Well to start with Randy is not renowned for his comparative summations but apples and dildoes can work!
Thanks for your comments Badge, you obviously have a better understanding of building a house than i do!
That said I think I know where you are coming from about him "coming back" and being welcome.
Badger, I reckon the builder is toast but regardless, Lomax is the definitely the dildo in this story
1. I sincerely doubt Lomax asked to return to Parra. From what I can pick up on the timeline sequence he had already signed a provisional contract with Storm and submitted it in the NRL Gateway. This story doesn't add up unless it's specifically used to sway the legal case their way, which is what I think Moses is saying has been a dishonest request.
2. I can see Parra not wanted him back around the team after he verbally confirmed he won't be back in the NRL, hence requesting the release. But, they should have called his bluff so he'd have to try a different approach.
Poppa, your argument is as follows: "We are actually taking action against him for damage that does not exist by our admission" (Poppa).
No, the damage was initiated by Lomax's breach of contract, rather than terminating with said breach. The breach creates the damage, both as an ongoing deprivation of a special service to which the Eels were owed, and potential reputational damage were the Club not to seek protection of their interests.
Ar least that's the outline of the rebuttal of the above argument.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO BELIEVING WHATEVER I SAY
I said in another blog i hope for christ sake im wrong but i just a hav a gut feeling we are going to get screwed one way or another over all this
Hector, let's not denigrate getting screwed. Where would humanity be without getting screwed?
Worst case here is that everybody hates Melbourne even more than they already do (hard to fathom but possible), and shock horror many league fans have sympathy for the Eels' inability to consummate their interests.
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 centre nd 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, the employer dosnt want them.
The Eels still have n 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.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next