The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?

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.

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • 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

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Parraborn1 replied to Johnny Suede's discussion What player each NRL club would need to cough-up to snare Lomax
"I'd argue that nobody wants Lomax except for Melbourne who are desperate for short-term acquisitions. "
20 minutes ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"that's on Lomax, his agent and his legal team, not Parramatta. If R360 made promises to him they couldn't fulfil, its on Lomax to take R360 to court. "
47 minutes ago
Randy Handlinger replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"If you lost Joliffe would you replace him with Matto?....it's like replacing your car with a banana"
48 minutes ago
iamnot replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"R360 didn't exist at all when Lomax requested, and obtained, the release. It still doesn't. Lomax never had a contract there, as neither did any other player, including RTS. So, Lomax doesn't have an argument that his circumstances have changed. And…"
50 minutes ago
More…