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.
I'm no snowflake Daz and enjoyed the previous site incarnation of the cut and thrust of some political blogs, even though anything right of hard left was deleted including entire blogs. It is no longer worth entering into any type of political debate on this site becuse it will ultimately be deleted unless you support the left view. It is a sin (your words) if you censor views unless they agree with your own. You are a champion of the left Daz which doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I have friends who range from communists to Trump supporters and we all have debates and a laugh at the end. Banning people who just so happen to hold a particular political view is dangerous and I want no part of it. Cancel Culture by definition is deleting people who have a different political view to your own. There is no place for personal insults (unless they are endearing comments between friends). I had one prominant poster on here call me a "twat" because I could remember the names of who passed the ball to who from games in the 1970's. lol...I showed that to my wife who said "isn't this a Parramatta Eels supporters site?" I just don't engage with that person any longer because I like the country philosophy way of "if you don't get on with someone just don't talk to them". I am not the one arguing to ban people, that is unless they are constantly using foul and abusive language non stop. No one wants to see that.
This site has just taken a massive swing to the left and it will become unreadable and without balance.
That's interesting. You're against Woke "censorship" but then happy to "ban" people "that constantly using foul and abusive language non stop." Mmmm.
Sorry, Parra Tragic, I still think you're being a snowflake.
You're going on about no non-left political speech allowed, which is at first blush ridiculous. Most social blogs are started by those with conservative views wanting to have a crack at something. That is just a fact. You're being a snowflake for not handling the counter arguments without thinking the world is ending because, you know, some (usually 'the left') dissent.
Bit, ultimately, by refusing to grapple with the distinction between banning on the basis of cause-incongruity and banning on the basis of incivility, you end up pining for a safe space where some can vilify, harass and troll. Put differently, you can't quite manage to grasp why some want some more civility while disagreeing. You then threaten to throw the toys out of the cot (leave the site) because you find those calls for greater civility so unsettling. It is, literally, textbook snowflake.
Again it is worth repeating that civility was initially a broad cultural form to open up class relations to greater social mobility. The early opponents of civility were established elites - often nobles and landed aristocracy - who deemed the emerging merchant and middle classes as not worth tolerating and as mimicking them strategically. To now say calls for greater civility is some inherently leftist move is plain historical BS. The deep irony here is that civility was always a way to avoid systemic suppression of views! Every right winger complaining woke or cancel culture is about suppression is just being so superficial they don't even know how superficial they're being.
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?
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 10 Next