Explosive courtroom documents obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed that the Melbourne Storm asked the NRL to "apply the blow torch" to Parramatta to release Zac Lomax.
A slew of documents released in the Supreme Court revealed that during a phone call between Storm chair Matt Tripp and Eels supremo Matthew Beach on January 13, that the Eels again rejected a $200,000 release fee.
“During the telephone call, Mr Tripp referred to the possibility of punitive steps being taken by the NRL against Parramatta Eels in relation to its salary cap if Parramatta Eels did not agree to the proposal being put forward by the Melbourne Storm,” according to a document the Eels tendered to the court.
“This assertion by the Melbourne Storm was intended or had the tendency to exert pressure on the Parramatta Eels in circumstances where the NRL had never communicated such a stance to the Parramatta Eels.”
It was further revealed that an alleged text from Storm CEO Justin Rodski to NRL CEO Andrew Abdo on January 21 was used to try and have the NRL pressure the Eels into a release.
“Hi Andrew, not getting anywhere at this point, can you apply the blow torch on parramatta [sic] to get this done.
Rodski added: “Lomax staying in the NRL is obviously a win for the game.”
It's what we always suspected. The Storm trying to bully their way into a deal that would favour them. They should be expelled from the competition.
Replies
There's blood in the water, the situation is very serious, not just for us (although we are the catalyst) but for everything from TV rights, corporate responsibilities and the running of the game. The financial obligations of the business.
Before we get too excited we need this to be managed to get results, the reality is that corruption exists in every organisation and yes big business does run it. Parramatta was part of that corruption in the 2012/14 period, a microcosym but still part of it.
We/ the NRL need to clean this is up amd ensure there are no repetitions of this sort of events happening as part of everyday management.....I don't think we have seen anything like the bottom yet but the last thing we need is to see the "game" lying in the bottom of the sewer, where Parramatta was lying in their day.
Presumably most of us fans love the game and whilst our involvement is very tribal we have to be comfortable about its survival rather than the revenge we would like to see.......
We can still have our day in court and win the day, but we have to be careful or more importantly the ARL has to restrict the fallout and collateral damage.....with the real meaning of the word collateral coming home, not just a few "bigends" at the top of the tree.
You are still thinking restriction. Mr Arthurs is in expansion mode. We have made enemies here. We need this conflagration to consume them. Fan the Flames, Throw them on the Pyre. Feed them into a Parlimentary Commission Woodchipper.
All Gas, No Brakes....Make things untenable. We are shining sunlight into their dank club and they have shown they will gang up on us.
Burn Vlandys Down
Burn Abdo Down
Burn Tripp Down
You have long painted me as too aggressive toward Vlandys...Turns out Nope. I am exactly the right amout of aggressive
Burn the fucking joint to the ground! The NRL is corrupt and the rugby league community clearly have no faith in the current leadership. Heads (including your beloved PVL) must roll.
Spot on Pops, this really could end up anywhere, or it could all get resolved before the March court date, if a team makes a good offer that Zac and Parra are comfortable with. Many twists turns ahead for sure. So so interesting to watch.
Surely the Australian Rugby League Commissioners being Wayne Pearce OAM, Kate Jones, Allan Sullivan , Tony McGrath, Dr Gary Weiss and Professor Megan Davis must now follow their charter and question their Chairman in Peter V'Landys. and there NRL CEO Abdo. Surely this is exactly something the Commssion was introduced to tackle should it ever arise. They are Rugby Leagues independant custodians with enormous power within Rugby League.
On that point BE and since Storm clearly aren't willing to transfer a player we want; or they can claim no one wants to come I guess also- are storm able to just tear up the alleged signed contract they have with Lomax, in order for us to try negotiate with another club?
what I mean is that unapproved contract just not valid from here, or somehow is it a still legally binding deal between Lomax and storm?
A player has to be willing to transfer, which they can claim none of the ones we asked for want to I guess is their only argument. So, in that case it's no deal storm and we take Lomax for a swap somewhere else suitable.
coz if that's the case storm just don't get their man haha
yeah it's super interesting for sure esp when we are right morally. Hope the law sees it that way but who knows.
Macy, great point right there, i hadn't considered that contract, i dismissed it(probably wrongly) thinking it was an illegal contract..Great pickup. Even more interesting to watch.
Blue Eel do you think that contract could be just thrown out if we win at court though? Is it always regarded, or does it remain legally valid between the two Lomax and Storm?
might be a silly question as I don't know about that side of stuff at all.
I'd really love to know that, coz I wondered if that is why nrl overstepped the mark of whats right on our side of case. ie storm in ugly situation.
...and most importantly if we can actually and validly shop the grub away from his co-grubby club? Coz that'd be very satisfying and we might get someone who fits with who Ryles would like 👏
Thanks for your kind comment ;)
The NRL has to register it first so it is only a preliminary contract pending registration by NRL.
So if the court rules in our favour then I reckon it will not be registered.
Ok well that is a relief! Thankyou Badger!
hope we get this win, be great to find a club that has someone willing to come to us tgat we want wouldn't that be fab ...maybe not this year but next hahs tough luck Lomax.
Yep Badger, that sounds about right. If the Eels hold Zac's legal registered rights 2006-2008 to play NRL, then the Storm contract would be considered invalid as it goes against the strict conditions of the Eels release contract.
If the court was to rule the Eels contract as restraint of trade then the storm contract probably holds.
In essence Another club could meet the Eels and Zac's conditions, but as it's now a very messy situation that a court has been asked to rule on, i can't see any other club entering the fray till a decision has been made by the court.
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
of 18 Next