Storm chairman Matt Tripp took aim at Parramatta for what he saw as deliberately taking the dispute public, accusing the club of running to the media to control the narrative around the Zac Lomax saga. Tripp suggested the Eels chose headlines over resolution, portraying Lomax and Melbourne as acting in bad faith while ignoring the broader context — including the fact Parramatta would have gained adequate compensation for a player who had already vacated the club.
Tripp said Melbourne attempted to handle the matter quietly and professionally, offering compensation to avoid escalation, only for Parramatta to harden its stance and air the issue publicly. In his view, the decision to brief the media and frame the Storm as "villains" was unnecessary and misleading, turning a solvable contractual dispute into a drawn-out public fight that Parramatta itself helped inflame.
Replies
Quality reply 😆😆😆🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
that you wiz ?
"Ultimately, the rebel rugby competition’s start date was delayed, leaving Lomax without a club or contract for the 2026 season.Tripp defended Lomax, believing the star outside back was put between a rock and a hard place when R360 postponed their tournament."
Lomax was repeatedly warned by the NRL that R360 was flimsy and it would have been a stupid decision without more proof of a successful financial blueprint, and he also had legal advice, as well as his Managers guidance. With all that, Lomax took the risk, made his decision, and it did not pay off. There's no rock and hard place at all, dumb decisions have consequences and Lomax is accountable for his poor decision here.
Too right Clint!
He signed his terms of release well after we all knew R360 wasn't going ahead. He could've reneged on leaving and forced his contract with us whether we liked it or not . It really annoys me thst every media is framing it like poor Lomax was dudded by R360 not going ahead, (as is Tripp here) and implies we are restraining trade.
not the case and there are clauses which state he can move to rugby...tough if amount offered aren't what his previous contract amount was! He made the call!
Didn't Lomax get contract offers from the Waratahs, Reds, Western Force? There's no way he would have been without a job in rugby in 2026.
Exactly!
Yes 💯.
Arrogant club the storm. I wouldn't expect any different from them. Can't wait until round 1 ryles have them ready this will be a classic
Tripp should go into politics. That was a fairly impressive way to spin an indefensible situation. However very obviously his argument is flawed.
He's suggesting the Eels are being unreasonable and preventing Lomax from playing RL again. However the Eels have negotiated in good faith, they merely want a fair exchange of value, ie) you get Lomax, Eels get Coates, Utoikamanu or Howarth. It's very straight forward. For Tripp to suggest he's doing the Eels a favour by freeing up salary cap is so laughable it's barely worthy of comment.
The Eels also suggested that Lomax pursue the 15 other NRL clubs for a deal and Lomax flatly refused. He wants Melbourne and only Melbourne. You're restricting your own trade Lomax, not the Eels.
The only question for me is, what if Lomax says, "I want to come back and fulfill my contract and play for Parra". If the Eels say no, where do they stand legally?
I hope Parra have kept Lomax's contract money aside in case this happens as an insurance should Lomax call their bluff. That's what I would have done anyway, if it doesn't happen, they have money in the kitty for somone new during the season.
I presume they used Dylan Brown's salary cash to purchase Kelly and Pezet.
If they said give us Coates or Howarth etc, they must have space for that scenario?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next