https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/factually-incorrect-raiders-deny-interest-in-lomax-after-courtroom-claim-20260206-p5o042.html
Canberra has vehemently denied expressing any interest in Zac Lomax after it was alleged in court that his lawyer had presented to Parramatta the Raiders, Storm and Perth as potential landing points for the star winger.
The Eels’ legal stoush with Lomax was back in the Supreme Court for the first of two directions hearings on Friday. The biggest revelation was that, by Christmas Eve, Lomax’s lawyer had claimed three clubs were potentially interested in taking him for the 2026 season.
However, the Raiders were incensed with suggestions they ever had any interest in acquiring Lomax.
“That is absolute bullshit. Nobody has spoken about him, he’s never been mentioned,” Canberra chief executive Don Furner said.
“We haven’t got any space in the cap and we’re not looking for outside backs. I don’t know how they can make that up. That’s a lie.
The parties will return to court later on Friday in a bid to determine when the matter will be heard.
Replies
HOE, I don't think special services and reasonability can be neatly disentangled? Establishing the former as a protectable interest will prima facie legitimate the latter? If so, wouldn't the Eels be more likely at that point to have most of their restrictions honored vs having most of their restrictions taken away?
Fuck Yeah Mr Turner...he didn't have to come out in the media and loudly state that but he did...“That is absolute bullshit" is pretty unequivocal. "That's a lie" pins it right on their chest.
This is a righteous fight with an outcome that will affect most clubs.....Allies will appear
I think you mean Furner, but I will go with a typo!
wow...I need glasses
I think mid to back end of the season he joins a struggling or injury ravaged Storm side.
It'd be cool if Broncos are in need of an O back and Pezet is killing it, maybe negotiate a way to hold onto Pezet whilst Broncos get Lomax.
The Lomax camp have just been caught-out on a pretty big lie which is critical to their 'reasonable restraint of trade' argument in court. It shows they never enetered discussions with any other teams, and just lied about the one's they said they did.
If Raiders were never part of their exploration, who are the Bears going to offer... 'Russell'?? GTFO here Storm.
This is a small but important win for Moses, and a blow to any legal standing Lomax's legal team might have had.
Don't lose sight of the fact he can go and play Rugby any day of the week, he doesn't have to pay a cent in transfer fees then, cancels his legal fees ...... if he had half a brain he would be playing Rugby this year, it would give him the opportunity to learn the game and maybe make the Wallaby side for next years WC, not to mention RC360 if it happens.
He is obviously not very bright!
Correct
Clintorian, do you mean to say if Lomax's team lied to the Eels about other offers, that impacts their claim the Eels were unreasonably restraining trade?
It's a question for the lawyers, but if Lomax was in fact in negotiations prior to being given permission, that would count against him from sanctity of contract perspective but what impact would that have on the reasonability question? Also, regardless of whether Lomax was telling the truth about offers/interest, is it a threat to the Eels' protectable interest that Lomax is even saying to the Eels he is looking to re-enter the NRL?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next