The Parramatta Eels have today commenced legal proceedings against Zac Lomax. The purpose of the proceedings is to enforce the release agreed in November 2025.
We have endeavoured to resolve this by negotiations. This has included a formal independent mediation process with Zac Lomax and his legal team and representatives of the Melbourne Storm. However, no deal has been reached. Zac’s legal team have informed us in writing that he does not agree that the terms of the release can be enforced against him. Regrettably, we have been left with no alternative, but to approach the NSW Supreme Court to resolve this issue.
In late July / early August, Zac requested a release from his playing contract with the Parramatta Eels to pursue opportunities outside the NRL. After a period of negotiation with Zac and his lawyers, the Parramatta Eels agreed to the terms of a release for Zac to pursue opportunities outside of the NRL. As part of the release granted on 16 November 2025, the Parramatta Eels included conditions to safeguard the Club.
One of those conditions was that Zac could not join another NRL Club before 31 October 2028 without our express written consent.
This protected the Parramatta Eels (and its Members and fans) from a football perspective heading into the 2026 season. It ensured the Club would not lose a representative player to another NRL club without receiving adequate compensation/benefit during the period of Zac’s original contract. Zac agreed to that condition after receiving legal advice.
Parramatta Eels Chairman Matthew Beach made the following comments:
“It is disappointing that we have reached this position, but we have an obligation to the Club’s stakeholders to protect the contractual rights of our Club and the expectation of our Members, players and supporters that contracts will be honoured.
“Back in November 2025, we granted Zac Lomax’s request for a release to pursue opportunities outside the NRL on the condition that he would not return to the NRL during the period of his original playing contract with our Club, without our written consent.”
”Zac had legal representation during the negotiations of his release. Zac accepted those conditions on the basis that he told us that his interests were focused on pursuing opportunities with rugby union, particularly R360. The release documentation was registered with the NRL. 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.
“Late last year, when we were approached by Melbourne Storm, we engaged with them in good faith however we have not been able to come to an agreement that would represent sufficient value for our Club, particularly in relation to our football program. The guiding position of our Club has been to ensure a fair exchange of value for our football program in circumstances where the Storm are attempting to obtain the benefit.”
“Zac and his agent still have an opportunity to work with us to explore options with the other 16 NRL clubs. Notwithstanding this action, we remain open to discussions with any Club who may be willing to offer the appropriate value for our football program.”
“Our coaching staff, players, Members and fans would not expect us to consent to the release based on what has been offered, and therefore we have no alternative but to pursue legal action to enforce the terms of the release and protect the rights of our Club.”
Arthur Moses SC has been retained by the Parramatta Eels to represent its interests in court,” added Beach.
Replies
I mentioned as well that it will be blatantly obvious at the same time hard to prove.
It is same thing Origin selectors black list a star player from selection, we all know they are but it cannot be proven as they would just say we believe this player we chose is better.
Clintorian. Here is one for you. Eels win the case, Lomax not only pays his own fees but the court could award costs against him and he will have to pay the Eels costs
The though of tha just got me to 4th gear. I need a shower...
Does anyone think there is a chane this does not see court? Perhaps swift meetings between the Eels, Lomax and his management and Melbourne or just Lomax and his management?
Melbourne, if they really want him that bad, could give us their best offer in terms of player swap and we now have shown our cards in that we mean what we say, we are not V'Landys with empty promises.
They made their best offer. We rejected it. NRL say take it, we are going to register it. We get a quick hearing.
Melb will only play around with the money offered. We have rejected the player they offered, if there was one
In that case, he wont be going to Melbourne. They haven't offered any players to my knowledge.
$200k is definately not their best offer. That is lowballing as it comes. We get that from a day from the pokies at Parra Leagues.
I think there's a point where Storm realise Lomax is just not worth the energy, the cost, and the time it takes to settle through the courts. Their pre-season will be over which means he won't be able to learn their defensive structures.
Lomax will have to sit out the year losing his $700-900k a season, plus he has to front up the court costs, and there's likely no other teams interested in bringing this dickhead in at the cost and the noise & distraction that comes with him.
I think this is Parra's strategy and as long as they're willing to play chicken and take Lomax all the way to court, it will cost Lomax way more than it's worth.
Hold firm Parra, this is worth fighting for.
I doubt lomax pays we r taking him to court I think
Pays eels
I just seen on instagram Parra no longer follow Lomax. That's when you know shit is serious hahaha.
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 10 Next