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
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?
If the Eels were going along with the publicised 10 year ban, and Lomax approached them to come back, they would not be able to accept him back. The timing may be relevant to Melbourne's argument that "Parramatta didn't want him back".
However, because the NRL did a backflip, the court case is against us instead.
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
This situation is as fcked up as your head.
Bobbin' Bob's Knobbin' Jobs
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.
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
of 12 Next