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
I thought all assistant coaches would have a get-out clause if offered a Head role, so why would we consult with this entitled-billionaire fuckbumper
True, Ryles would have a get out clause and he would have been the one who applied for the Eels job, Parra didn't need to do sh!t with the Storm. He's trying to compare apples with oranges.
When that's what's coming out of their pieholes you know they are flapping.
It's not even another fruit, it's like comparing Apples & Dildos
( I see that you have overcome your crippling Porn addiction Kurupt...good on you)
Didn't Ryles have an additional clause in his contract relating to Bellamy? That is, if Bellamy signed on for another season, Ryles weas free to just walk?
From memory, they let Ryles leave early once he was announced as Eels coach, on the condition that he not approach any storm players for 12 months, which he abided by
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
I'd like discovery of V'Landy's emails to see why he suddenly backflipped on the R360 ban. Eels already requested emails from the Storm, so emails between Storm and V'Landys should be in there also.
I found these quotes in a Nine news article:
"Peter V'landys declares the NRL's proposed punishment for R360 defectors is legally sound, assuring the governing body has thoroughly vetted it"
Probed on the NRL's legal standing, V'landys declared the policy is legally sound, assuring that the governing body has thoroughly vetted it from every angle.
"Look, we won't do anything without getting it tested legally, ourselves. We're very confident in our legal position," he told Nine's Today.
Did the Storm contact V'Landys to get him to change his mind on those who "signed" with Rugby 360? Surely the Storm would want permission to approach Lomax before doing so.
Yobz you said the following: I'd like discovery of V'Landy's emails to see why he suddenly backflipped on the 360 ban".
Why would the discovery of these emails have any influence over the courts decision? i.e Melbourne is being talked about joining the Eels petetion, but the NRL has not been included. The reason Melb are to enjoin is because they have not acted in "good faith".
The matter of when and how they prosecute Melb for acting without Parramatta's approval and the ongoing threat of Vlandy/s that you quote, would be after the court decides and be a different matter to the court upholding its position on the contract.
Do not confuse the "legal matters" of upholding the contract with the after events as this then becomes an NRL issue not joined with the contract issue. We don't know where the NRL actually lies on that matter, but your points then become valid, but not with the courts.
So you don't think that emails between the games governing body and the Melbourne Storm (that directly relate to Zac Lomax's contract and terms of release) are relevant?
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 11 Next