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
Kudos to the club. Win or lose, the fact we chose to fight is a breath of fresh air and a signpost of our growth.
If Vlandys wasn't forcing the outcome why is it us going to court for enforcement and not Lomax going to seek relief.
I can't see anyway Zach wins in this case, eels have followed everything to a tee and followed the correct channels. Zachs defence is bad luck lol, which isn't really a defence. I could see Zach suing his own management but for negligence? Basically screwed him out of his 2.1 million dollar contract and thrown his career into the mud.
So glad this is going to court I like this.
Jim and the club from the very beginning have made there point of view on this matter very clear.
They haven't got sucked into the media circus and comment around it.
They have a legally binding agreement and an understanding of what that means for the club.
The NRL have tried to leverage this as clearly Melbourne have been lobbying them in the back round to try and force Parra's hand.
No the doors been slammed shut and let's lawyer up Parra have in there best interests tried to enter into a negotiation with the player and the interested club to no avail.
Thats going to be there attack point the negotiated price I feel as the legal side seems locked up in our favour to me.Restraint of trade is the only angle they have Wheather that is an over riding factor to a signed and agreed document I don't know but for the most part the club cannot be faulted here the line in the sand was drawn early as above they've tried to operate in a manner firstly to help the player and secondly to look after the clubs best interest of which Lomax hasn't so off to court we go.
I have never seen so many people backing PARRA, even mates that cannot stand PARRA are backing us. It feels weird being this backed, but I love it.
I know, i cannot believe it. Then you have the born with a silver spoon Storm fans who more likely never been told no in their lives, saying this is a desperate move by us. Pretty much saying Lomax was going to do this anyway and we just beat him to the punch. Ummmmmm if he was going to do it he would have done it by now, but no he got Melbourne to bitch to the NRL that injustice was happening and the NRL turned to them and said "Who is it? Who is upsetting you?" Then you see Melbourne, tears flowing from both eyes and a frown pointing in our direction.
Though this lawsuit is directed at Lomax, this is an awful result for the NRL and also Melbourne. As things will come to light if it does make it to court. Plus the RLPA will more likely be pissed at Parra but he is not an employee so i believe they have no grounds to support him.
I love in our statement too they mentioned the players would not be happy with how Lomax is conducting himself.
Lomax has backed the RLPA into an unenvious position. They have previously stated to be against trade windows and jumped up and down whenever it's been suggested that players don't sign deals more than 12 months in advance. Their argument has been about protecting player rights and contracts because otherwise clubs could turf players out whenever they wanted.
Well now Lomax has tried to break a contract he willingly signed with legal advice. Which probably gives clubs more ammunition to demand trade windows and immediate transfers.
It's a pity that Frankie Fong is currently serving a ban on this site. His perpetual and relentless negativity towards Parramatta's front office (some of it justified) would make this thread an interesting discussion.... I'd like to hear his thoughts on how the club has handled this situation.
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
of 11 Next