The article can be found on Fox Sports.
For the more savvy legal eagles on the site, what does this mean and does it implicate the Storm as it proves they engaged in illegal dealings with a player under contract?
Not only is this looking real bad for them, it looks increasingle poor optics for Lomax who showed little regard for the contract's worth and value not only with Parra, but also the NRL.
It would be nice to see a little backbone here by the NRL and not screw over Parra for doing the right thing by the player, even though Storm and Lomax look Guilty AF.
Bring in the Integrity Unit for this one and buckle up, I think we're going to see even more shady shenannigans.
Replies
Muttman, do you think the court will outline what that fair exchange should look like, or just each prospective club must agree?
I have read sports lawyers suggesting the case could set a precedent, in the sense of establishing players as a tradeable asset that retains value, and outline what transfers should involve. Say, financial compensation prefigured in advance. Of player swaps. Etc etc.
Obviously, leaving fair exchange to financial compensation would not truly cover this scenario, where cash does not obviate the competitive disadvantage involved with losing a rep player from a long term contract.
If i can jump in a little. Im not sure that the court can rule on fair exchange. The petition is for an Eels perspective only.
Ie: are the terms of the contract binding or not.
The whole process would need to be expanded for the court to consider fair exchange. So Lomax or the Storm would have to petition or cross sue the Eels to get a ruling on that. This is exactly why the matter may not proceed on the 12 o/13th February. All parties would now be re considering their positions and what they intend to do from this point. Here is small excerpt that appeared in the Brisbane Times, where Justice Kunc dosnt think it will go ahead on the 12th/13th.
One thing's for certain, the NRL want this done and dusted before it opens up their multiple decades worth of dirty laundry. Interesting times...
As you said BE, the 10 year ban could very well be threatened and acted on. However, could the NRL be on to say to Melbourne that they could act on it, if they want him make a deal. Melbourne, if desperate enough and want this to not go further could pressure a player to come to Parramatta or try and see who would be interested. A player would be interested if an extra $200k a year was offered.
I don't think the courts can assign value either. For them it's just a question of the validity of the terms of the release. Ie) are they reasonable and therefore enforceable. In that sense I believe the Eels are in an extremely strong position. The discovery documents highlight poor behaviour on behalf of Lomax and Melbourne given they signed a contract when Lomax was still under contract at Parra. On all arguments Lomax position is very weak.
If I'm Sarantinos I'm asking myself what is the outcome I can reasonably expect here?
Right now Lomax is merely a piece of paper to the Eels. Surely a player would be better than a piece of paper so in the end we may not get a rep quality player in exchange.
But I'd be digging my heels in with the Storm. If they're refusing to offer up any player I'd be speaking with other clubs and putting a deal together without Lomax's approval, at least superficially. Lomax is arguing this is a restraint of trade but there are 15 other clubs in the NRL, I'm sure a deal could be done somewhere. Poor old Zac may not love it.
LOL Melbourne 😆 🤣 😂 sad cunts, fake fans, always the bridesmaids.
This is also putting pressure on the NRL to investigate dodgy proceedings with clubs approaching players knowing they have no rights to do so. They have known about it but want to keep their head in the sand. Well done to Parra here. The NRL will make life difficult for us here, but hopefully the majority of clubs will be on our side.
It's been us against the NRL since 23.
There are other clubs in same boat too not just us.
Well Longfin, the nrl certainly have not acted well in this case at all. Hope they've learned something about their okaying Lomax back to sign up with storm stance too. It was absolutely disgraceful form from nrl.
I noted in wording of Beach's email where he states beautifully ...
"The NRL are aware of the conditions associated with the release.
“Our Club believes in the importance of observing contractual obligations. Contracts allow Clubs and players to operate with certainty and within a framework of rules. Contracts are the very stuff that any member of the community and companies have to honour in order to ensure that there is fair dealing. The same applies to the NRL,Clubs and players.
reckon that was a dig at nrl too :)
btw the current wording in that last sentence has now been altered as posted on parra website haha maybe the nrl did not like it. But Beach was totally right!
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next