Looks like we will get shafted once again, I wonder if the NRL would step in if it was the Tigers pushing to get Lomax
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"Captain, so far V'landys has kept quiet. The implied threats are via the media. What you are suggesting is V'landys "gun to our head": our NRL licence or grants?
"
"
"Should have announced eels get 09 title "
"It was a minute of my life i will never get back. It honestly was nothing. Not a jersey, or event, or sponsor, nothing. It was just a slogan."
"But to that i will say what if we say no? What are they going to do?"
Replies
I know how life works LB, you don't need to explain it to me.
The interesting thing is LB is what sort of contract did Lomax enter into with his agreement upon release to not play with any other NRL club for the remaining period of his existing contract. If it was done properly with lawyers and lodged with the NRL, I would imagine it would be pretty watertight.
If it was a MOU (memorandum of understanding) I suspect he could get out of it. Is the original contract cancelled and the remaing MOU an act of goodwill? All these things would be known before any legalities were entered into.
The thing about the NRL supporting this in Parra's favour is important as them setting a strong example would certainly not encourage any future moves of players breaking contracts for other codes or clubs, especially with R360 raising its head again in 2 years time.
Its a precedent that works in our favour as long as the legals are intact!
What can the NRL really threaten us with? If they didn't like the clause we put in they should have said so at the time and stopped it then and there. They don't have a leg to stand on. The worst they can do is allow Lomax to sign with Melbourne regardless, but even then he would be breaking a legal requirement.
I think this mediation is more likely to be to get both clubs to sit down and work something out. Parra won't back down unless we get something of value to us.
The NRL can strongarm clubs into pretty much anything. It's annoying, but it's reality. The clubs playing in the NRL have structured their entire existence on the fact that they play in the NRL - the clubs wouldn't get the $$ they do from members if they didn't have a team in the NRL.
Yes, we have an agreement with Lomax. The NRL will not want this going to court, they want this to go away.
But here's the reality - the Storm can't force a contracted player to leave if they don't want to - and given the club is on the cusp of a premiership why would one of their great players want to leave? Not to mention uprooting family and home to move interstate.
The Eels don't want Lomax back, so that's not an option. The Storm want him, and have the cap space to do so.
I'd love to say we hold the cards here...but unless we want to go to war with VLandys and head to court to likely lose (these variations of non compete clauses are well known for not being worth the paper they're written on because they're so hard to legally defend) then we don't.
We could very well be told to just accept the cash and move on.
It sucks, it's unfair, but VLandys isn't here to create a fair competition or a great and enduring gsme. He's here to make lots of money through gambling and television rights. He will do whatever he needs to that end and having a strong Victorian team that can chip away at the AFL is a must for him.
I hate it - but I don't see us holding many cards here. I'd love to see us come away with a great player swap but it'll effectively need a player who wants to be in Sydney and to leave Melbourne on the cusp of a premiership. Most likely is we get some cash and told to suck eggs.
$200k from Melbourne as a transfer fee, plus an extra $1M per season added to our salary cap for 2027-2029 inclusive (no good having extra cap space for 2026). No need for any player transfer then.
How do you figure that? The transfer fee does not effect the cap, its just accumalated revenue, the cap stays as it is now, non inclusive of Lomax, plus it would be a once only payment, doesn't effect future years.
Sorry Iamnot, not trying to pick on you, I know your an honest poster!
I think iamnot is saying we should take the $200k transfer fee, but also ask for an extra $1m added to our cap to spend over the coming few years as a way for the NRL to "give back" for us getting screwed over. Basically give us a future advantage to make up for our disadvantage due to Lomax flip flopping on leaving the NRL.
Unfortunately 0% chance of it actually happening.
Exactly what I was saying Captain. A player transfer from Melbourne was never likely to happen, given the RLPA involvement and restrictions around existing contracts.
I also note that my suggestion of a cap increase (albeit $1M per season might have been somewhat optimistic) was mooted by Melbourne with the JAC situation in 2020 - as posted by HOE in another blog. Adding to Parramatta's cap for the contract term would go a long way to addressing compensation for us, rather than just a cash payment which is useless to a club like Parramatta.
Pretty good compromise iamnot, though I can see the other NRL clubs pushing back on this. They don't want Melbourne to gain an unfair advantage, but they won't want us getting one either.
NRL are only acting as mediators. The contract still holds. As long as we dont fold and the contract is deemed legal we still hold the cards. Allowing a player to effectively break 3 contracts in 2 years is a bad look for the game and would set a very bad precedent.
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next