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.
Note: This piece is based on informal discussions and spitballing with an experienced lawyer practising in restraints, equity and contract law. It is speculative opinion only and not legal advice. The analysis may change as further discovery and evidence emerges.
LOMAX TIMELINE
BACKGROUND
• 02 Apr 2024 — Lomax granted early release from Dragons (2025–26)
• 16 Apr 2024 — Signs 4-year deal with Eels (2025–28)
R360/ CONDITIONAL RELEASE PHASE
• July–Nov 25 — Signs provisional R360 contract, conditional on Eels release
• July–Aug 25 — Requests a release from the Eels
• 15 Oct 2025 — ARLC announces 10-year R360 bans on players with R360 agreements
• 16 Nov 2025 — Eels grant release, registered with NRL
• 19 Nov 2025 — Lomax agents cut ties with R360
• 29 Nov 2025 — R360 delays, announce launch in 2028
RUGBY UNION FALLBACK OPTIONS/ STORM TALKS
• 02 Dec 2025 — Meets Western Force
• 11 Dec 2025 — Trip says he talked to Lomax about his future (Tripp tells media)
• 11 Dec 2025 — Lomax tell Tripp he will approach Eels first do the "right thing" (says Tripp)
• 12 Dec 2025 — Rugby Australia confirms interest
• 18 Dec 2025 — Super Rugby offers reportedly ~$400-450k + top-ups
R360 / CONDITIONAL RELEASE PHASE
• July–Nov 25 — Signs provisional R360 contract, conditional on Eels release
• July–Aug 25 — Requests a release from the Eels
• 15 Oct 2025 — ARLC announces 10-year R360 bans on players with R360 agreements
• 16 Nov 2025 — Eels grant release, registered with NRL
• 19 Nov 2025 — Lomax agents cut ties with R360
• 29 Nov 2025 — R360 delays, announce launch in 2028
RUGBY UNION FALLBACK OPTIONS/ STORM TALKS
• 02 Dec 2025 — Meets Western Force
• 11 Dec 2025 — Trip says he talked to Lomax about his future (Tripp tells media)
• 11 Dec 2025 — Lomax tell Tripp he will approach Eels first do the "right thing" (says Tripp)
• 12 Dec 2025 — Rugby Australia confirms interest
• 18 Dec 2025 — Super Rugby offers reportedly ~$400-450k + top-ups
STORM MAKE CONTRACT MOVES WITHOUT EELS CONSENT (Court Discovery)/ESCALATION
• Early Jan — Storm lodge contract BUT DO NOT formally ask for Eels consent (court discovery)
• 06 Jan 2026 — Lomax seeks Storm move + unconditional release (media release)
• 15 Jan 2026 — Eels refuse unless “appropriate exchange of value” (media release)
• 22 Jan 2026 — Eels commence legal action to enforce Deed of Release
CRITICAL EQUITY WINDOW
• Dec 2025 likely
• Lomax camp says: Lomax/agents asked Eels first about returning
• Eels' allegedly says no (restraint evolves to NRL ban)
BUT
• Discovery shows a Storm contract was uploaded to the NRL “Gateway” portal
• Discovery shows upload occurred before the Storm formally approached Eels (bad-faith)
• Suggestions of bad-faith and possible contract breaches
• Lomax appeared to be in talks with Storm prior to asking the Eels to return (Matt Tripp, Storm CEO)
• This sequencing could be a key equity question
COURT / DISCOVERY
• 03 Feb 2026 — Moses SC tells court discovery shows:
* Provisional R360 contract pre-release (bad-faith move)
* Storm agreement pre-consent (bad-faith move)
* NRL portal upload expecting a fait accompli (bad-faith move)
• 09 Feb 2026 — Directions hearing
• March 2026 — Hearing anticipated (or 12–13 Feb)
Replies
particularly given PLV is discretionary and selective...that is a super polite way to describe corruption.
were introduced “to preserve the integrity of NRL...difficult to acheive when the man at the top is discretionary and selective.
a club who may not get V'landys' rub of the green...back to the congenial corruption
If V'landy's is prudent...that is one big IF.
I have been wondering whether Walkers statement, as Aust coach, seriously undermine our argument re Plank 2: enforcement of the restraint is in the public interest. There are many angles of public interest to choose from.... Does our large fanbase count as "public interest"? Would the justice give walkers public statements weight?
It worries me that the national team holds a large "public interest" factor
At the end of the day, V'landys thoughts on the matter won't play apart, the courts will go with facts & what's right. I think Lomax might get a shock & see out his arrangements with Parramatta but with a lighter sentence. The courts not there to tell Melbourne they need to release a player, it ain't the to sort out the mess, it's there to see if Lomax has been unfairly treated. He will play again, the Eels will lose out, but he won't be playing straight away. That then gives the Eels time to negotiate with the Storm for an early release, if the Storm refuse to give in to the Eels request, Lomax will not play for the Storm anytime soon.
I think you are out of control Randolph....
I like you and think you add value to the site, but you are so biased and poisoned in this process, you have lost any sort of objectivity.
I think you protest too much....if you think the likes of the NRL Heirachy are going to take any notice of your pathetic crusade, you are pissing into the wind.
PS The language and hype you use gives no credit to this site and any outsider looking in would see you quite simply as a "nutter"......pull your finger out Randy, your an embarrassment.
Randy, it’s a difficult balance here. We try to allow people to express strong views and even author their own blogs. But it still has to sit within some conduct standards.
TCT is a great site and it has structured itself differently, so it’s probably not surprising that some people’s conduct differs greatly across platforms.
Sixties was a great poster here once upon a time as with the other TCT guys. In part, he left this site to set up TCT (though not solely) because he was regularly vilified by some members here, including some who were recently suspended. We have to draw the line somewhere. The conduct that led to those suspensions isn’t something TCT would tolerate either.
At the end of the day, if some members feel more comfortable posting there, or posting in both spaces and elsewhere, that’s not a problem.
TCT produces some great content. We’re both a home for Parra people just different spaces.
PS: Gentlemen, maybe we can take this in elswehere, or start a new blog if you don't mind. There are some interesting points you raise Randy.
Sorry for the threadjack Hoe, I should have done a seperate blog...wasn't thinking
It’s okay, Randy. I know you didn’t act in bad faith. I admire your passion and intelligence, and how much you care about this oft-dysfunctional little community of ours. Like Pops, you express your views boldly. Chin first, lol.
"TCT produces some great content. We’re both a home for Parra people just different spaces."
That's a great one liner (comment) Hoey and it shows how far we have come maturity wise as a credible site, worthy of our views as Parra supporters and the "intrepid" way we record doing it so......
We seem to be our normal selves within character but maintaining our unique way of expressing same.
Just so there is no confusion, I deleted my own comments
Self modification is admirable Randy,.......................keep up the good work, I am always happy to give you a pass market from Randy my friend to Randolph you fool to Rudolph you dope to Randic you dick!
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
of 8 Next