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
Not saying it is going ro happen but if melbourne storm deleted something...
see Section 254 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Parra are going after them. I guess it is possible parra know something ... Pure speculation (basically guessing) by a parra fan of course.
Also, read section 254 again... even if one of the parties (clinton, solicitor or mel) deleted an email before yesterday...
My guess is they have nothing to hide though. Surely melbourne storm cannot be this dumb. If they did speak to clinton schifcofske (about lomax) before lomax signed the contract then surely they would have "forced" Xavier Coates, Stefano Utoikamanu or Jack Howarth by now to avoid potential criminal charges. Why risk possible criminal charges over this? I refuse to accept melbourne storm ceo etc would be this dumb. My guess is they have nothing to hide.
We will find out if one of the three parties tries to fight the subpoena. Or at least we can speculate what underlying meaning that has... If you have nothing to hide you just provide everything right?
Cooper bai has backflipped and looks like he will stay on the coast after he pretty much was going to the storm in 27
Maybe more to the story that Storms are most probably no a good destination atm for players. They haven't recovered since Ryles left he was the reason why their attack was fluent and challenged players daily. Things I've heard about Ryles he should have been the storms coach ages ago and Bellamy should have retired 2 years ago.
I'm not sure that Melbourne did anything unlawful, up until last week. The anti tampering rules until February 1 this year state that only formal negotiations were prohibited, informal inquires and chats were allowed as long as they didn't produce formal offer.
With the scope of those rules worded as such, the Storm have nothing to fear. I surmise that last week the Storm made a full offer with the NRL's blessing, meaning the NrL won't go after them for anti tampering.
I do consider that the Eels feel they have uncovered some deception by Lomax and his management when indicating why they wanted a release from the 4 year Eels contract. I assume that Lomax is not the brightest tool in the corporate shed, that informally the Storm knew Paps was a huge chance of leaving at the end of 2025, they had an opportunity to informally speak to Zac during Origin time. Zac's preference is to play centre or fullback as it's worth more $$ if he can get a contract under those terms. He has made it known since 2020 that this was his preference.
R360 was real to him and he wanted the dollars, but he also understood via his management, there was a huge chance it wouldn't get off the ground, his fallback was to sign with Storm, knowing they had a chance of players "Paps" , Pezet, Solomona, Welch leaving and that Wishart and Meaney hadn't resigned extensions after 2026. Thus leaving a huge warchest for Storm to spend on elite playing talent and pay Lomax an increased contract payday, in the long run.
The only reason the Eels went to the Supreme court, to verify the exit contract clauses and that they own Zac's NRL playing rights to 2029 was that Zac and his management sent a formal indication of sorts that stated they didn't acknowledge the clauses and that the exit deed or contract was invalid and that they were not going to abide by it. That Zac was going to sign with another NRL club. Negotiations took place then formal mediation took place with both parties unable to come to a resolution.
Melbournes 10am press conference that never took place was to possibly to advise that with the backing of the NRL Zac Lomax had signed with the Storm effective immediately and that they were paying a $200k transfer fee . The NrL indicated they thought that a $200k transfer fee was adequate.
This was neutralised when the Eels disagreeing with this outcome, hastily made an application to the supreme court to verify Zac's exit deed "contract" clauses were legal and were binding.
At the end of the day the NRL may have to provide some answers to refute if they broke their own rules and possibly contract laws whilst shall we say assisting the Storm and pressuring the Eels to release Zac.
One gets the feeling that the full court hearing in the Supreme court may not eventuate and that a better compensation agreement for Zac's services may be in the offering.
-
23
-
24
-
25
-
26
-
27
of 27 Next