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
In all essence this case is very black n white but Lomax's lawyers will be looking for avenues that will highlight different that's the key here is for us not to get drawn into the Lomax arguement but to stay on track and highlight what's been signed sealed and delivered by the club all along.
Restraint of trade is his only out of which unfortunately for him isn't really the clubs problem as already discussed in great detail the clubs acted in good faith and basically has given Lomax everything he wants in his release clause in the same breath the club has had to do what's also best for itself and members and has done so.
It really is that simple as first stated Lomax's lawyers will take you on the merry go round and will be trying there very hardest to sidetrack this process.Parra just have to stand firm restraint of trade isn't the clubs problem it's Lomax's his decisions have created this no one else has.
We did the opposite of restrain his trade, we encouraged and facilitated his trade.
However, this is not about winning or losing of Lomax plays NRL again in the next 3 seasons.
This is about us receiving something in return for his services. Under the table player trades happen way more often than people think.
We need a player or multiple players to be released to sign for us from the Storm and then he can go.
im also hoping the recent season long injury to Joliffe in the GC reopens discussions for Matterson.
If you lost Joliffe would you replace him with Matto?....it's like replacing your car with a banana
Though Hannay might like the experience of Matto. Move Tino to Prop and Matto at Lock. Plus Matto is off-contract, bloke will perform to get one more deal.
I have seen no evidence that Matto CAN still perform, for any reason...it's in the past
If it involves a chance to get more money could be surprised.
He's done but if some team dumb enough is out there think they can get something out of him good luck.I'd hold the door open for him to leave if we got something in return red carpet roll the club would have fleeced whomever made this deal.
In Lomaxs mins he has little to lose and a lot to gain by trying his luck.
R360 didn't happen, rugby has offered him a fraction of what he was on in the NRL. The dude is shellshocked by how quickly his life has gone from on top of the world to seasons on the sidelines.
Also remember this is Lomax who has demonstrated that he's not great at as assessing risk and is taking yet another gamble only thinking of the potential winnings.
As soon as you remember that Lomax has made a series of poor and kneejerk decisions without truly weighing up the consequences...this action makes total sense.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next