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
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?
We are having restraint of trade standoff in this lomax saga and this stooge vlandys says a ten-year blackban is "legally sound"...he was lying and he knows it, they haven't tested shit, hence why he is now shuffling about mumbling to himself...It's vaporware
I think the end result will be they offering 500k and the courts dictating that that would be a fair amount. It won’t come down to the Storm losing a player of note.
If thats the case i can't see how the club could still hold onto the agreement as a bargaining chip.
I don't believe this hearing Feb12-13 is about compensation but just whether (or not) Parra can continue to stop Lomax joining any NRL team without our permission.
If it expands to other issues it will be dragging out for a year or so.
Yes, that makes sense badger.
If it extends past that Melbourne surely would back off.
Chiefy (above) suggest the Storm might offer $500k as reasonable and the court might "dictate" the Eels to accept that as a fair amount.
Again this is a lawyer question, but while NSW courts can "read down" clauses in restraint of trade cases, I don't think this amounts to the court being able to redraw the contract/clauses? The court can narrow temporal or geographic clauses, so for instance they might say "requiring consent until the end of Lomax' original contract termination is too broad/long" and read it down to 1 year (just an example). But dictating "accept X cash" when no cash remuneration clause exists in the contract would be a redrawing of contract?
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 11 Next