To most people, me included, the Lomax thing feels pretty black and white.
He asked for a release to go to R360. He got that release on the condition he wouldn’t sign with another NRL club. He signed it. Done.
Simple. Or at least it should be.
But something doesn’t quite smell right. It can’t be that clean. There has to be something we’re missing.
He’s lawyered up, and not with someone who’s just going through the motions. You don’t dig your heels in like this unless you think you’ve got a case.
So what is it? What don’t we know?
The whole “I signed when Brad Arthur was coach and Clint Gutherson helped bring me in” argument doesn’t really stack up. He played an entire season after they were both gone and never looked publicly unhappy. And unless there’s some clause in his contract saying he can walk if the coach leaves, which we definitely would have heard about by now, that’s not something that holds much weight legally.
So what’s the angle?
Because if this was truly black and white, it would already be over.
Replies
Yeah, there must be something like that. The wording of the contract centred around Parra thinking he was definitely playing R360. The contract could be void.
I think the wording was 'opportunities outside of the NRL'. That's what Sarantinos said in the press release.
Yeah, but does that count if the opportunity never eventuated, is what I think they'll argue
Yep, but fuck I hope not. The Nrl should be on parras side here
Melbourne and Lomax thought they could dupe the Eels by saying he was signing with R360 and probably knowing all along that the competition was never going ahead but that Eels more than likely smelt a rat and dug their heelsin by putting in some very stern straight up clauses which MelMax never saw coming.
Loamx then tried to publicly show he was interested in signing for a super rugby team but that was smoke and mirrors also, so MelMax cried to the NRL who havent been able to do anything because of how public the eels have kept this whole matter and now here we are at court.
Never thought of such foul play. But it is cheating Melbourne, so I wouldn't put it past them.
One would suspect that when he originally signed with Parra, it was before he had that breakout season at the Dragons, which resulting in him playing rep footy. His contract was on less money than at the Dragons, and he probably believed he was worth more. Whatever BA promised him didn't transpire as he was sacked. Ryles moved him back to the wing as he just wasn't able to fix his defence playing centre. Seemed around this time he was not the same player. The effort was there, but his pin point goal kicking fell off a cliff.
This is about money full stop. Maybe he was also promised fullback, not happening after Iongi's breakout year. Ryles wasn't going to pay more for a winger. So in his eyes (and with what appears to be a pretty large ego) he wanted out to chase a bigger contract. Whether the Storm were implicated before he left I'm thinking we will never know that. But the dollars he wanted weren't on offer in Union, and the Storm are the only one who are that cashed up right now that could afford him.
I guess we will find out in court whether these limitations the Eels put on his release are binding or not. He thinks they aren't and I assume at the time he got this release, he felt they couldn't be enforced, or he thought that Parra would just roll over.
Our side says it's black & white. His side says it's more grey.
When the announcement was made by the Eels regarding the dispute with Lomax, the club made a very important note in their commentary- the agreement was made in 'Good Faith'. This is a very important principle in legal agreements- both parties agree to work together to come up with an agreement suitable to both. It also implies that both parties agree not to mislead the other and that the agreement is made without any hidden or ulterior motives. Both parties agree not to undercut each other.
I am interpreting barrister Arthur Moses subpoenaing the files of Lomax, Schifoske and Storm as an indication that the Eels may have a reason(s) to believe that one party, the Eels enterd into this agreement in 'Good Faith' and the other party had different ideas.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next