A high-stakes court spat over embattled NRL player Zac Lomax could mean Melbourne Storm end up with a hefty legal bill instead of the star on their team.
Four-time premiers Parramatta Eels have filed legal proceedings to stop their under-contract winger jumping ship to the Melbourne Storm.
The Eels initially released Lomax amid speculation he would move to the R360 rugby union competition.
When R360 postponed its launch, Lomax was left in limbo before eyeing a move to Melbourne.
The switch to the Storm for 2026 onwards has been reportedly valued at $1 million.
Melbourne had indemnified the State of Origin star and could be on the hook to cover his legal bill if the Eels emerge victorious in the case, the NSW Supreme Court heard during a brief hearing on Friday.
In December, Lomax's lawyer Ramy Qutami said the winger could play with the Storm, Perth Bears or Canberra Raiders, Parramatta's barrister Arthur Moses SC told the court.
Whether the Eels' withholding of consent to move to an NRL rival was reasonable or not depended on the conduct of both teams and Lomax, the barrister said.
The 26-year-old contends this contractual restriction cannot be enforced while Parramatta claims it is legal and valid.
Mr Moses argued the NRL player would need to be cross-examined in court and a two-day hearing set to begin on Thursday would not be sufficient.
Earlier on Friday, Lomax's barrister Adam Casselden SC pushed for the matter to be heard swiftly.
Justice Francois Kunc told the barrister to explain why there would be consequences for Lomax if the hearing was heard over a week from March 2 instead.
"You will have to do some work to persuade me why the world will end if we push this back to the start of March," he said.
This would mean the legal spat is held beyond the start of the NRL season, stymieing Lomax's chance to play in round one.
The parties will return to court on Monday to lock in the next steps.
Lomax, a three-cap Australian international who scored five tries in six Origin games for the Blues, only joined the Eels for the 2025 season after seeking a release from the final two seasons of his contract with the Dragons.
The NRL season kicks off on March 1 in Las Vegas, with the first Australian match on March 5 between the Storm and Eels.
Replies
The switch to the Storm for 2026 onwards has been reportedly valued at $1 million
What?
The?
Fuck?
How could Melbourne possibly put him on the books for a mil? "TPA's"?
Papenhausen and NAS. At least 1.5 there
How good would it be if the Storm lose the case, and then the NRL consider that part of Storm's salary cap as payment to Lomax 😆
lol they won't do that. Why? Cause it's Melbourne we need them good in the game. But remember according to fans they are the punching bags.
If PVD doesnt come out publicly in Blue and Gold pom-poms then the Eels should file a motion of "no confidence" in PDV management and demand a EGM to seek a new Head.
I honestly don't see any valid points that favour Lomax or the Storm. The Storm were in negotiations with Lomax whilst he was still playing for the Eels. As well as Lomax in discussion with R360 whilst he was still playing for the Eels and under contract. Then there is V'Landys being absolute about the 10 year ban for any NRL player going to R360! Either a contract is legally binding or it isn't and if Lomax gets out of this and is allowed to play for the Storm or any other NRL club without the approval of Parramatta and the Eels receiving equal compensation of a player swap as the $200k or $500k is an absolute joke then ALL NRL contracts should just be flushed down the toilet as they're worth nothing if Lomax wins this! There is NO restriction of trade in this whole issue. Lomax made his decision with obvious management assistance and surely some legal advice and it's gone pear shaped and Lomax must face the consequences of a wrong decision like we all do in life.
V'Landys initially made two claims about NRL players leaving for R360. First was a very general threat: he said if they negotiate with R360 they get a 10 year ban. The second was a specific, legally-vetted threat: if they sign they get a 10 year ban.
So we COULD say Lomax did NOT sign and thus is not subject to the 10 year ban?
BUT no, V'Landy's reasons for the ban mitigate against letting Lomax walk back in. Especially because V'Landys said no player is irreplaceable so he would not accept a player back if R360 folded.
V'Landys is a complete hypocrit.
Let's look at the three reasons V'Landys offered for why that 10 year ban is warranted.
1) R360 is an unsanctioned competition. They are pirating the NRL product.
2) The ban ensures players do their due dilgence on R360 and their playing future.
3) Fans expect the NRL to be custodians of thee game and protect the game.
Reply to #1: If the problem with R360 is that it is unsanctioned and pirating the NRL product, the general issue there is R360 gaining a competitive advantage at the expense of an asset controlled by the NRL. Well, Lomax is an asset controlled by an Eels contract. The Storm are attempting to gain a competitive advantage at the expense of an asset controlled by the Eels. So, V'Landys is a hypocrit.
Reply to #2: Lomax has not done his due diligence on what it means to make a contract with the Eels, have a request to be released from that obligation honoured with new secondary obligations/conditions, and then desire to break even those secondary obligations/conditions. None of that is due diligence. V'Landys is a hypocrit.
Reply to #3: being a custodian of the game surely does not mean letting a star run off chasing money and when it does not pan out, that star gets to stroll back in having doubly screwed over his team? V'Landys also explicitly said he would not let a star return if R360 folded. V'landys is a hypocrit.
All up, V'Landys is a hypocrit and is torching his credibility over a traitorous turncoat. Total brain fade.
EVIDENCE FOR V'LANDYS REASONS: Ben Sutton, 7News, 17 November 2025. https://7news.com.au/sport/rugby-league/peter-vlandys-issues-blunt-...
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next