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
Do you understand what step in and mediate means Randolph.
I agree with Anasta the NRL doesn't need to be involved, we assume those statements were made before the court case and Parramatta's statement.
The smartness of Parra's move is so the Storm cannot back door Parra. What the NRL's view on the matter is, we don't know.....and to this point neither does Parramatta....the smartness of the move means we don't need to know what the NRL think, whatever that was or is.
Its now just a case of Parra gaining the injunction. The other matters now arising is for the NRL to react to Storm breaking rules. The court themselves will not be interested the domestic issues of the NRL.
The courts matter will be the civic aspects of the contract being enforceable and nothing more.
yawn. you see what suits you.. We will see
We can win in court and still get strong-armed by Vlandys to play nice, just not with Melb
Funny how they can do that but Ryles must steer clear of Melbourne for a year.
Sounds like what this whole fight's about in microcosm...they can but we can't
I read on the socials that same thing happened with Utoikomanu (I can't spell his fucking name). Bellamy was on the blues coaching staff, next thing he wants out of the tigers early and heads to Melbourne.
LB, I am assuming that the Ryles distancing himself from Melb is for a season, not a year, technically he is past a year from him leaving Storm anyway. Also contact has already been established via are us contracting a Storm player already.
It was he could not sign any Melbourne players for 2025. Yet mid 2025 it could be Storm tried poaching Lomax.
Although selected at centre for round 5 against the dragons I'm pretty sure he actually played wing and he looked very unhappy in that game even though he played very good. To me it stuck out like a sore thumb how unhappy he looked.
Yep, just checked the highlights from that game, lomax played right wing and Russell played left centre.
He played a hybrid game that week HKF between Wing and centre didn't he. He wore 4 on his back as well.
Things are getting interesting now that new material has come to light via subpoenas against his manager Schfcovski and the Melbourne Storm, that may give the Eels an oppurtunity to expand their case on the basis of mis truths possible told when securing his release. Something in the documents points to not all is as it seemed.
-
20
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
of 29 Next