Eels Blogs

One sliding door moment could tip the scales. That is why it matters that Supreme Court justices approach equity seriously and are not swayed by even the loudest of drumbeats. Especially now, after Peter V’landys, the NRL’s Commander-In-Chief and self-proclaimed custodian, along with national coach Kevin Walters, have ventured into territory that invites the Eels’ case to be nuked or trimmed down.

As an Eels supporter of more than 45 years, disappointment barely covers it. I can’t recall ever feeling this let down by the game’s leadership.

For months, V’landys assumed near-biblical authority, publicly championing tougher new anti-tampering laws for contract sanctity, player loyalty over R360 money grabs, and ten-year bans for any player who entered into agreements with R360.

Court discovery documents have been revealing. They shows Zac Lomax entered into a provisional contract with R360 prior to his release from the Eels. Then, after R360 collapsed, he entered into another NRL contract with the Storm, which was officially uploaded before the Eels’ consent and in breach of the release terms. Those matters are capable of supporting an inference of a fait accompli and bad faith.

Against that backdrop, V’landys’ apparent backflips, and the willingness to look the other way —because Lomax is "human" and one of the game's "best players"— is striking. That begs a question: how does contract sanctity, bad-faith deeds, anti-tampering, and tough talk apply to all the other humans in the game?

Prima facie, the Lomax case initially seemed simple.

Lomax wanted out early to leave the NRL and play rugby union with R360. The Eels agreed to a conditional release on strict and express terms that were clear, lawyered, made in good faith, and registered. If he wanted back into the NRL, he needed the Eels’ consent. That was the deal. Everything was by the book.

The restraint was not designed to punish him arbitrarily. It was designed to protect the Eels from a very real and foreseeable risk: losing a contracted marquee player for nothing, only to see him immediately resurface at a rival club. That is a textbook legitimate business interest.

The uncomfortable truth is this case is not a slam dunk. That likely explains why, after weeks of radio silence assessing where the case sits, the game’s regulator weighed in to help frame the public narrative.

The NSW Exception and the Two Limbs

In Australia, restraints of trade do not live solely in contract law. They sit firmly in the courts of equity. The question is not simply what does the contract say, but whether it is fair to enforce the restraint in these circumstances.

NSW is different. Unlike all other states, its courts have the power to read down or trim restraints. A restraint that is too broad or unfairly applied can be narrowed, modified, or set aside altogether. A three-year exclusion is therefore not immune from scrutiny.

Under the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW), the Supreme Court may uphold or read down a restraint only if two limbs are satisfied:

• the restraint protects a legitimate business interest and goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest; and
• enforcement of the restraint is in the public interest.

V’landys and Walters did not merely support Lomax. They fired missiles at both limbs underpinning the Eels’ case.

“Look, it’s always been my view to keep our best players,” V’landys told Code sport yesterday in a passionate defence of Lomax.

“I’m looking at it in two ways. Firstly, Zac is a human being and secondly, as far as rugby league is concerned, my job is to have the best players playing rugby league,” directly engaging the public-interest limb.

“We all make mistakes. He’s made a mistake in thinking, but let’s not crucify the guy.

“Zac went down a different path, but at the same time, don’t over-penalise him," implicitly cautioning against an overly punitive restraint.

Walters echoed that position. On a nuclear megaphone.

“I bet Zac Lomax is playing in the NRL this year,” Walters said on his Inside Ball podcast dated 4 February.

“Is it fair on them (Parramatta Eels) to say to Zac Lomax you cannot play in the NRL ...(but) it’s a restriction of trade."

“This guy has a timeline of his official capacity to earn money."

“Contracts don’t mean anything. I had a contract with the Broncos (when Walters was dismissed in 2024). I didn’t get paid out. I got paid nowhere near the amount I was owed."

“Yes, Lomax asked to leave. He could go back to the Eels but they don’t want him."

“The clubs don’t care about players, all the time they are getting them on the players’ market."

“I’m defending Zac Lomax (right) to play the game."

“Zac Lomax will be playing for the Melbourne Storm ... but he won’t be playing in round 1 against the Eels."

The good news is none of this decides the case. But in NSW, it is not irrelevant either.

The Central Plank

The case may hinge on a narrow but decisive window — likely sometime in December 2025 — from the moment R360 delayed its launch to the point at which Lomax is proven on the evidence to have committed to the Storm.

If Lomax first approached the Eels seeking to return, but was rejected, as claimed by his camp, it could be problematic. Equity courts may be reluctant to enforce a restraint that effectively says we do not want you and you cannot work at the same time. In that scenario, a three-year restraint running to 31 October 2028 may begin to look punitive rather than protective and could be trimmed or other relief granted.

If, however, Lomax first committed to the Storm, the ground shifts the other way. That would point towards bad faith, a breach of the release agreement, and an attempt to present the Eels with a fait accompli. Equity does not generally protect parties who seek to have it both ways.

Discovery materials points in that direction, as does Lomax’s provisional R360 contract entered into prior to his release.

It also remains an open question whether Lomax was acting in good faith when he allegedly asked to return to the Eels was raised, or whether it followed a familiar pattern shown by court discovery. That question should not be understated. Under Jason Ryles, the Eels have demonstrated flexibility for short-term arrangements such as Jonah Pezet’s one-year deal, and second chances for players who have strayed, such as Bailey Simonsson.

Matt Tripp, Storm CEO, also told the SMH on 4 February 2026, “I engaged with Zac over the two weeks leading up to Christmas (around Dec 11th around the time Lomax was exploring Super Rugby options) and it wasn’t until the new year that he agreed that if Parramatta would release him, he would come to Melbourne, but only after trying to do the right thing by asking Parramatta if they’d take him back."

The key point is the suggestion Lomax approached the Eels after talking to Tripp about his future. It stretches credulity that there wasn't some form of provisional or conditional agreement even if it was verbal. Storm's subsequent lodging of a contract with Lomax without formally approaching the Eels for consent adds more weight to the fait accompli bad-faith argument.

In the end, it may all come down to proof of who moved first.

That is the fork in the road. And whatever the surrounding noise, equity will not be distracted by spin or sideshow. It will ask whether the restraint protects a legitimate business interest, or whether it operates to punish a player who, on one view, had nowhere else to go.

Strip everything else away, and that is the question that matters.