Zac Lomax has reportedly engaged a lawyer in an attempt to secure an unconditional release from the Parramatta Eels so he can join the Melbourne Storm.
It’s believed his legal team will argue that the situation is unfair and that their client now simply wants to play rugby league — despite the fact that only weeks ago he indicated he didn’t want to play at all. Chasing money often comes with consequences.
It’s unclear which lawyer he has approached, but you can expect plenty complaints and noise to follow.
For mine Lomax fought against the Parramatta club in a bid to get out of the contract he chose to sign. This left the Eels in a no win situation, as if we had forced Lomax to play against his will, that usually doesn't end well. But Lomax left the club in a predicament, with more cap dollars with minimal recruitment opportunities available in his position. We were banking on him to fulfil his 4 year deal.
We made the commitment, he broke the commitment. Either we get a like for like player from the Storm or its no deal Eddie.
Replies
Frank, you cannot have suspended members publicly arguing on burner accounts with Mods and when publicly warned of the severe consequences that this would attract, you cannot have them then double down....The gig was up.They needed to delete those burner accounts. Sockpuppet-apocalypse
"Mark" would have got Wiz thwacked on any site. Often a permaban.
"Free Wiz ain't gonna get 'er done this time mate. Wiz and Fong need to figure this one out. I hope they do
Every single major sporting team in Australia is watching this very closely, or at least if they have smart people working for them they are. Hear me out. Keeping it simple, Lomax will need to convince the NSW Supreme Court that public policy (the right to work) should overrule the contract he signed. If he wins, it could change how every "release" in the NRL is written, making "non-compete" clauses almost impossible to enforce in not only the NRL but all professional sports. There is no way this is headed to the courts. Every single professional sporting team in every sport in Australia does not want case law created that is bad for them.
He does have a right to work doing anything he wants and there are other football codes such as Union which he has already expressed an interest in playing as well as having boxing fights. Even playing UK Superleague or overseas rugby are options as R360 was going to be overseas so saying he wants to stay in Australia to earn $750K year doesn't fly. He has other options so arguing his right to work overrides agreement is a weak argument.
It's an argument nonetheless. One other teams will be closely watching. Courts can obviously make random decisions.
I imagine a non-compete clause is intended to prevent competing within a domain of activity, not all domains of activity? So, non-compete within NRL, not within all league or union codes?
That's exactly what it is. He cannot sign with another nrl team. The reason every other professional sporting teams including other sports e.g. AFL is interested is because the decision of the court will affect all sports not just NRL. It will mean they effectively cannot have non-compete clauses in release contracts. For example a player playing for Sydney swans could ask for a early release, the swans can get them to sign on the basis they dont sign with another team, the player can sign it and then turn around and sign with Collingwood (or whoever) the next day and cite Lomax v Parramatta Eels (2026) as the basis. This is a big deal for all teams and all sports in Australia.
Good old parra.......it could only happen to us lol 88
I don't think he wins. I reckon the NRL agreed to the deal of releasing him with conditions so he isn't taking on the eels he is taking on the NRL and whole future of releasing players mess.
The lawyer hasn't started an action yet, it is all posturing hoping Parra fold and give in. The lawyer would be checking his contract and there is no guarantee he will take action yet. The wording will be important. Does it say not play against Parra. Can he play for another team just not against Parra, or does it say he can't sign with another NRL club. Did eels front office do the contract or the NRL laywers because of the R360 threat.
What if we don't want him? What was written into the contract if we say we can't afford him or don't want him back? Is that grounds to tear up the deal?
The best result is Stefano is home sick for Sydney and wants to come home for a swap. We will accept Howarth as a consilation prize though.
Worse case he takes court action and wins. An injunction and appeal is immediately put in place. The case draws out for a year or so leaving him in limbo anyway playing union and fighting for Wallabies jersey and boxing until R360 starts.
Likely outcome though is probably somewhere in the middle with Parra getting screwed but with 1 concession to Parra that any deal is made after we play the Melbourne Storm.
If anything, i could see it being Meaney. Lomax kicks goals so a swap there easy. Meaney from NSW. He is looking at the Perth bears deal for 2027.
As for Howarth, Bellamy wouldnt let this kid go that they have been nurturing since he was 16.
EE, Not sure if that's an issue. Team Lomax would probably want to strongarm us into submission and an out-of-court settlement. Quickly. Personally, I like our odds in court, but in any case it may be in the club’s interests to drag this out a bit more.
If it eventually comes down to a court, NRL or other ultimatum —Lomax either fulfilling his contract with us or being allowed to move to another NRL club— by April-May, you’re only talking about roughly $350k for the rest of the season. Half his salary. That should be manageable, with the future sorted later. Maybe let him leave for R360 if it's a goer in 2028 as a sweetener.
I wouldn’t budge on a free release if Lomax is kicking stones. Only a genuinely beneficial swap. Lomax is a $700k+ rep and origin player. So you’d need more than Howarth.
It's cynical but none of this is what the club wanted nor expected. Team Lomax have now sought 3 releases from 3 long-term contracts in under 2 years. That’s quite a chaotic pattern we need to navigate around.
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 10 Next