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
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.
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.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next