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
Thanks for posting this Badger.
interesting!
so, I'd love someone to clarify for me, is it really restraint of trade tho when he was offered a contract to apply his trade with Union (albeit in a 450K deal)? It might be less than he was on but that was entirely Zac and his management choice and what was agreed contractually to.
one would not think so as he clearly understood the terms of release
From what Ive read it only hit 450k with an ARU top up and they refused to come to the party. The average SR player earns significantly less then the equivalent NRL player in Australia.
Tough, he took the chance and if he was asking for a release back in July R360 "mirage" was more uncertain for him than months later. Still despite terms he continued on with his release request. Just wanted out of his contract no matter what by sounds.
geez I hope it comes out that he had some other offer lined up (storm) if R360 failed.
Restraint of trade is a week argument given that:
- He signed fully informed with legal advice
- He has employment opportunities and has received offers from outside the NRL.
I think a likely outcome will be perhaps the restraint is shortened or narrowed in scope somehow as some sort of compromise.
Muttman, do you think that we are in fact forcing a full 'restraint of trade' when he agreed on contract that playing in ru was a viable option and he did persue that option and was offered an RU contract?
can it just be seen as agreeably applying your trade to another code as written in contract?
To my thinking, simply adhering to your contract is a restraint of trade. That's sort of the idea. By releasing him we afforded him more freedom than what he had before, the only proviso being he couldn't join one of our competitors.
No, I think his argument for restraint of trade is extremly weak.
Thanks all!
was just a bit concerned that according to this article, that's the basis of his argument.
love Moses' word used that him wanting to re-enter the nrl under the circumstances appears to be bit of a 'mirage', guess we can go about showing that in fact now 🤞...go 'Arty' stick it too them!
I'm hearing that the matter is also listed on the 29th January as well as a full hearing for 2 days from the 12/13 February.
The 29th may have been made available because the Eels may be looking into Zac making false or misleading statements to them about R360 to get his release. This has come about as the Eels subpoenaed documents from the Melbourne Storm, Clinton Schifcofski and his lawyer Qutami. It's possible the Eels may now expand their case after viewing new material that came to light. Update: Now Being reported in the Canberra times .
All is not what it seems apparently. Things are starting to make sense why Ryles dosnt want Zac back at the club.
Has there been some type of collusion to get Zac out of his original Eels deal, "not just R360" and has the Storm been involved.
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
-
22
of 23 Next