https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-29/zac-lomax-eels-contract-case-lawyer-agent-storm/106284054
You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!
This reply was deleted.
More stuff to read
"I'll stop rhyming when you stop blowing goats.
I liked it
"
I liked it
"
"Ive said from the get-go that controilling Lomax after this year is unlikely, as is a good player swap.
I will call it a win if Lomax sits the year out
"
I will call it a win if Lomax sits the year out
"
"maybe a musical instrument or knitting Randolph......I heard you were once in "bandcamp"???
NB Maybe give the poetry thing a miss?"
NB Maybe give the poetry thing a miss?"
Replies
Offering Lollypops to children is not creepy at all
Get back in your shoe or I'm telling your sex-doll what you're up to with kids....Oh, wait, your sex-doll is a lifelike PumpTrump. That nasty old thing won't care at all
Same Randy, just taking action in itself is a win for me. I wish I shared your optimism in the Courts Poppa, but historical bias doesn't have me feeling too confident. We. Will. See.
I don't want to prolong this as we have all said our peace but what "historical bias" exists in the courts? Jarryd Hayne took him 3 goes to get it right, we might take it to "appeal" if we lose and are not being satisfied for the reasons why....... For the same reasons the NRL maybe behind us, its a disaster for them if we lose!!! cannot emphasise that enough!
So you can appeal a state Supreme court decision now?
To who?
You can appeal a Supreme Court ruling, typically by taking the case to a higher court such as the Court of Appeal (a division of the Supreme Court) or the High Court of Australia. Appeals generally require demonstrating an error of law, new evidence, or a miscarriage of justice. Strict time limits apply, and some appeals require special permission to proceed.
It's a disaster for the (NRL) if we lose. That got me thinking Pops. Because that just seems logically correct from any view point, but I'm actually wondering if what we perceive to be a disaster for the clubs and the fans alike is actually the same for the NRL, or from a purely NRL perspective.
Im suspecting that the NRL may see it differently and "there disaster scenario "comes from having a current Australian representative unable to play in the NRL fullstop. The loss of revenue to see the Eels smash Lomax "figuratively speaking" and who gets the last laugh each year etc when the Eels compete against Lomax and his new team! That tribal / traitor warfare mentality on game day brings in huge revenues across the league each and every week. Plus the NRL want the best of the best playing their trade within the NRL not in union or the like. Is this more important to the NRL heirachy as such. I don't have to agree with it or condemn it. Contracts vs $$.
'Just a thought.
Im also not convinced that we will win this outright, ie as it stands right now. I feel the restraint of trade to Lomax virtually having no other way to earn $650 -$800K in the sporting football world ie his "trade", may very well outweigh the Eels losses argument. I think there may be some middle ground where the courts may deem a $$ figure payout, not the player swap we are after as the way to proceed.
I must say I hate what Lomax has done, and he can go %^7& himself, but take that emotion away and at the end of the day it's fair and reasonable that he should be able to work within his trade. Hope im wrong.
Maybe Bluey, never rule out anything,........... but a wise lawyer once told me, you cannot control the uncontrollable.
We are starting to jump at shadow's me thinks! careful because we should be the shadows, not jumping at them.
Ive said from the get-go that controilling Lomax after this year is unlikely, as is a good player swap.
I will call it a win if Lomax sits the year out
pretty sure the nrl dont have any shares of melbourne anymore
The Storm is owned by a consortium of wealthy business owners:
Executive Management | Storm
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
of 12 Next