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
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.
Stay strong don't let him off the hook unless we get something that's more beneficial for us but until then no we stand pat give Lomax's camp nothing.
I mean put it out there there make it even unrealistic if you want Zac it's Cameron or Xavier coming the other way if not fark off Melbourne don't waste our time.We aren't a charity.
With the speed of the courts I think Zach is going to be waiting a long time for a result lol. If I'm the eels just shove it to the side unless storm come to the table with a player they are interested in
Loved Lomax since he was at the Dragons. He was the first player that I've got sort of excited about since Semi. To see how things have panned out with him since the end of last year has been nothing short of a disappointment. He's all over the place like a mad womans shit, so I guess this is why Ryles let him go so easily. Reading the tea leaves, I don't think Ryles would be overly interested in having him back as he could quickly change his mind again and want out.
Has Bellamy had the 'chat' that he does with all new prospective players? I doubt it, as no point till Eels give the ok for him to sign. I do wonder though does Lomax fit the Storm culture. Not on an ability front, just what's between his ears. His track record the last few years from an integrity point of view leaves a bit to be desired.
The Badger raised the analogy of Israel Falou vs Rugby, an undisclosed settlement, which is quite interesting. If we take the Falou case as an analogy to Lomax's purported legal case, both the analogies and the disanalogies don't suggest a favourable outcome for Lomax?
Rugby cited commercial reasons for their settlement. For Rugby most of their base support is wealthy corporates and the wealthy, conservative private schools, and Falou opened a schism. By contrast, V'Landy's has already noted a "let them eat cake" for those breaking contracts to pursue Rugby360. The commercial reasoning for NRL is more likely to hang Lomax out to dry?
In the Rugby case, the settlement involved Falou not being eligible for the Wallabies or available for a Super Rugby side. Falou went to Catalans Dragons, tried and failed to re-enter NRL (eligibility issues),'turned back to Rugby for Tonga. The Eels already have that clause in play: no NRL team without their approval.
Some sports lawyer can of course be more specific about whether the Eels clause is going to hold up, including that Lomax agreed to it, but the precedents don't support any kind of idea that the Eels' position is highly vulnerable. The Eels look solid, legally?
Daz, excellent expansion in my statement. May I add that Folau was sacked and thus took RA to court for unfair dismissal reasons. RA probably felt the court costs and commercial issues outweighed 'winning' in court.
As you stated, this settlement included the no play clauses. These are already included in our release from contract agreement.
I am of a similar opinion that we are not in a vulnerable position and the other party is hoping similar commercial issues that were of concern to RA impact us as well.
More to play out, I reckon.
i dont understand. He agreed to the terms before he left. Can you possibly have a leg to stand on? Is he going to say they held a gun to my head and thats why i signed it?
Storm prob advised no problem we can sort that es given the circumstances of Katoa being out they'll be very confident thry can work that. Reckon he sought legal advice before signing can't imagine his manager be thst stupid not too.
it's so much of a dirty pool act to wait until we've confirmed new signings!😡 absolutely blows my mind that we'd even consider helping these arseholes including Lomax. We must not let ourselves be the suckers A gain!
reckon every fan in nrl would be hoping we stand up strongly to this!
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 10 Next