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
That would be so fucking sweet
Wouldn't it
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?
Nowadays, we usually leave some powder dry for mid-season opportunities (e.g. Walker & TDS last year), so I suspect cap space isn't the biggest issue at play.
Lomax will be around 350-400K in 3-4 weeks for the 2026 cap.
PLV would also know our cap space. If he was trying to swing it Storm way, or push Parra, he could have publicly screwed us with "you don't have the cap space, take the settlement money."
Good point too HOE
Exactly my thoughts, we're going to need to pay whoever comes in, so it proves there is some stashed money aside.
If Lomax came back I would not allow him to be goal kicker
Lomax's goalkicking:
2023 — dropped to 68%, a career worst; following partner issues.
2025 — dropped from 83% to 67% from late June to the rest of the season; following R360 interest and seeking a release.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 10 Next