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
You seem very well informed on Wiz and Fong, Randy. How is that? Are you a burner account for someone "in the know?"
If indeed they both have been banned again, can you please definately confirm that here as it will confirm that this place has become a a thing of left wing "cancel culture", where if you don't have a left wing idea we will ban you. I enjoy the banter on here both footry and politics but if they have been banned again. I'm out. (yes, I can feel that door banging me on the arse)
Parra Tragic, its sounds like you're being a snowflake. The fate of two members was explicitly discussed by Super and HOE so it's public knowledge, so no need for conspiracy theories about Randy. But as for cancel culture, there is censorship on the basis of cause-incongruency and censorship on the basis of civility.
I am here using civility as a short form reference to codes of conduct, or norms of discourse. Most civility ideals ban hate speech and discriminatory talk. Based on publicly available knowledge on the site, a few members met a deserved fate for constantly falling foul of civility and for sock puppet accounts post-suspension.
If you truly wanted to test whether the site has gone lefty, which for you is a apparently a sin (censorship, much?), why not test it by defending free speech absolutism without being uncivil? Because one can defend free speech absolutism with civility, and my bet is that's fine, because others are free to disagree and defend speech that stops short of hate speech or discriminatory speech and to do so with civility. My bet is that conversation would just roll on, though some would get bored etc. It's when you decide civility is not needed, and the code of conduct is optional, that a problem arises. And there is very little that is lefty about that move. Did you know where our notions of civility come from? They come directly from very conservative political cultures in France and Germany in the 1500-1800's, and were largely reflective of upward social mobility and managing the tensions between classes. The historical irony is that those most likely to reject civility were elites wishing to close down social and political spaces to newcomer entrants.
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.
Thx Nitram. Do you think it true that because the Eels only applied the non-compete to the NRL, and otherwise did not stand in the way of Lomax going to Rugby (etc), any restraint of trade argument might fail due to demonstrated intent?
Good old parra.......it could only happen to us lol 88
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 10 Next