During HT on channel 9, the journalist said Lomax tried putting a clause in his contract that he can leave if BA is sacked. However eels rejected it
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"if he is any good he'll be upgraded well before we get to cash in and have him actually play a season in our financial favour. "
"Player options are fucking magnificent around here , everyone is just so happy to see the signing announcement that they don't give a shit about the minor details like players having the club at ransom . Players simply don't have to fully commit to…"
"True we need youth in the forwards. I recon Guymer is a shout for a back row spot next year. Just need a clean out of our forwards still"
"Why would you sign chritchon? Who will be 29 next year. Paid double and cost us a mint, only plays good when his contract is up. The roosters are letting him go for a reason, need young players not more players who are a year or two away from being…"
Replies
Maybe he wanted him to meet the Princess since Dylboobs didn't work out ?
Must have had a great dinner with BA 🤣
BA probably needed more support and thought adding Lomax to his senior leadership group would help him keep his job.
Hasn't he fleeced the club enough yet?
Does this "journalist" know this for a fact or like 99% of them, is he just making shit up.
Carefull , Kent might come looking for you . I dare say we have seen the last of that flog now. Him getting speartackled into the tree was pricesless.
I laughed out loud when I saw that in his article the crowd favourite Zac Lomax likes the coach and is one of the main reasons he's coming.
In my estimation his popularity just dropped like a sinker on the end of a fishing rod lol.
Coryn, no doubt Zac is keen on BA, but, thats a lot of guess work there.
BA has promised Lomax centre / fullback, and its not rare for a player to want to know who their coach is & want a coach clause.
For instance, if the club tell Lomax we can't guarantee BA, but we are chasing Bennett, he likely has no need for the clause. If the club says, we can't guarantee BA, but don't worry we have Nathan Cayless ready to go, id want a clause to get the hell out also.
Its a big move from Lomax, he wants to know who the coach is going to be & how he will be used, thats fair enough.
The fact the clause was denied & he still signed should speak volumes. Great work from the club here.
"If the club says, we can't guarantee BA, but don't worry we have Nathan Cayless ready to go, id want a clause to get the hell out also."
Thats GOLD.
Semi, the really scary part is, im not sure which scenario is more likely?
Lomax would play for any coach coming as he has signed now. If it is Bennett i bet he would not care at all. It makes sense but on top of that, BA has a knack at player management. He is great talking to players and making them feel wanted. Players do love BA, so of course Lomax would go down that route. BA would have said what Lomax wants to hear and i believe he would have put Lomax at Fullback in 2025 or 2026. But Lomax has not been in a change room with BA and the tactics he has sprooked are new to him so again he could believe in BA when many others may not at this point.
Very similar to the likes of Norman and Peats in 2014 signing with Stuart but get BA. I bet who ever coaches Parra in 2025 would love to have Lomax and use him as they see fit. Fullback is a legit possibilty with any coach due to Gutherson's fast decline and Lomax being experienced he will get a crack at some point. It is on him to succeed to keep it.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next