Update on Lomax situation

There is a 2 things in life we have control over . One is your reputation , the other is your legacy. Everyone has a reputation . Good , bad or indifferent . How you live your life , your standards , your moral compass . Legacy in my humble opinion is what you leave behind after every is done and dusted .
I think Zac is leaving both in tatters . People won't remember Zac for his efforts for eels , nsw or Australia . They will remember him leaving St George before he should have , K saving eels after seeking a dodgy dream and loads of cash .

it is a shame that Zac won't be instantly recognised for his great football ability . His legacy he isn't loyal , honest and can't be relied upon . Balks in your court mate ?

Randy, it seems to mean Kane is trying to white ant the Parramatta case.

1) A restraint of trade case is going to be in trouble if the employee had no idea what was going on. But Kane adds the adverb "apparently" to every instance in which he refers to what are obviously already-settled questions about Lomax knowing, agreeing to and having legal advice about the terms of the contract termination. This is not a case of "so far as we know", but pretty settled.

2) Kane asserts the Eels won't "countenance" Lomax playing for the Storm. A key part of restraint of trade cases is "reasonableness", so Kane knows he is making it seem the Eels are petty and unreasonable. See #3 below for why, but in short: not countenancing is too close to total ban on employee movement; or, legally, 'punitive'. That is, punishing Lomax for leaving. Doing so is NOT a defensible protected interest. But the Eels have NOT 'refused to countenance'! The Eels have publicly said their criteria is "appropriate value" and because they hold the contract, the Storm have to meet their criteria but have not done so. There is no 'non-countenance' happening, just not meeting criteria for appropriateness. So, Kane is trying to make the Eels sound 'unreasonable' by making up that they're being punitive?

3) Kane correctly notes the issue is going to be the reasonableness of the restraint and whether it protects a protectable interest. But it is a bit odd that Kane implies unreasonableness because, in Kane's view, the Eels have a "strangelhold" on Lomax's future. When the Lomax case came up as going to court, I was curious what courts had done in similar cases. It is easy to go to Westlaw or CaseBase (law firms and academic institutions are subscribed), and AustLII is free to access, to get a sense of how Australian courts have adjudicated on reasonabless in restraint of trade cases. Note the Eels are obviously arguing sanctity of contract but also reasonable restraint of trade. A crucial distinction in deciding 'reasonabless' - and here I am swapping in my words as the legal terminology is odd in places - is between a kind of total vs adequate restraint. Kane frames the issue as total but adequate is what counts, in the sense that if the restraint was total it probably would not fly but it's clearly a debate about adequate not total. Background info here is that the NRL's collective bargaining agreement, aside from the salary cap as an agreed restraint on trade, already includes provisions that employees (players) only play for clubs for whom they're approved to play. The written consent of the Club (the employer) is required. So the Eels are not too far from the CBA in applying that condition to a player bailing on a long term contract? Next, Kane does not really ask about "adequate", jumping straight into the more dramatic and rhetorical frame of TOTAL, by suggesting the Eels are applying a "strangehold" to Lomax. Kane had included lots of anecdotes about how tough it is on poor Zac that he does not have TOTAL access to the most highly paying league competition. It seems as if Kane is suggesting there is a TOTAL protection for the Eels? Restraints of trade that are total in scope might not be reasonable; that's a fair point (the punitive clause). The normal criteria seems to be that the restraint must be ADEQUATE for the protectable interest and no more. Why Kane ignores that Lomax tried to go to a higher paying competition (R360), and has options in regular Rugby that Lomax seems to have went cold on, is odd if there was supposed to be a fair discussion of ADEQUATE restraint?

All up, Kane's piece is odd and seems to be a white ant effort vis a vis the Eels. Also, let's imagine Kane, a journalist, wants to write some legal begal stuff re: Eels vs Lomax. Why would he not run straight to the most obvious legal precedent: Bulldogs vs Williams? In that case, the court ruled that footy players like Williams provide special services and Clubs have a valid interest in not boosting competitors by willy nilly losing stars to competitors. One would think if Kane wanted to discuss how a court might approach the Eels' position, he would start with the most obvious precedent, rather than subtly frame the case as punitive?

"Randy, it seems to mean Kane is trying to white ant the Parramatta case.
1) A restraint of trade case is going to be in trouble if the employee had no idea what was going on. But Kane adds the adverb "apparently" to every instance in which he refers…"

Replies

- - - Randy Handlinger > Prof. Daz January 30, 2026 at 6:01pm
      
      Poppa sees the ABC as a lefty commie monolith that hates everything he loves
      
      and he haaates sycophants
    - Poppa > Prof. Daz January 31, 2026 at 7:23pm
      
      Don't worry Daz, i know you "dislike/hate" AI as well ......I am taking the piss, same as you!
paul taylor January 30, 2026 at 6:07pm

There is a 2 things in life we have control over . One is your reputation , the other is your legacy. Everyone has a reputation . Good , bad or indifferent . How you live your life , your standards , your moral compass . Legacy in my humble opinion is what you leave behind after every is done and dusted .
I think Zac is leaving both in tatters . People won't remember Zac for his efforts for eels , nsw or Australia . They will remember him leaving St George before he should have , K saving eels after seeking a dodgy dream and loads of cash .

it is a shame that Zac won't be instantly recognised for his great football ability . His legacy he isn't loyal , honest and can't be relied upon . Balks in your court mate ?
Randy Handlinger January 30, 2026 at 9:06pm

2 more, better articles.

This one highlights the potholes we face.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/zac-lomax-and-parramatta-are-headi...

This one from an HR perspective, with better framing for us

https://www.hcamag.com/nz/news/general/zac-lomax-parramatta-eels-co...
- Prof. Daz > Randy Handlinger January 31, 2026 at 5:08pm
  
  Randy, it seems to mean Kane is trying to white ant the Parramatta case.
  
  1) A restraint of trade case is going to be in trouble if the employee had no idea what was going on. But Kane adds the adverb "apparently" to every instance in which he refers to what are obviously already-settled questions about Lomax knowing, agreeing to and having legal advice about the terms of the contract termination. This is not a case of "so far as we know", but pretty settled.
  
  2) Kane asserts the Eels won't "countenance" Lomax playing for the Storm. A key part of restraint of trade cases is "reasonableness", so Kane knows he is making it seem the Eels are petty and unreasonable. See #3 below for why, but in short: not countenancing is too close to total ban on employee movement; or, legally, 'punitive'. That is, punishing Lomax for leaving. Doing so is NOT a defensible protected interest. But the Eels have NOT 'refused to countenance'! The Eels have publicly said their criteria is "appropriate value" and because they hold the contract, the Storm have to meet their criteria but have not done so. There is no 'non-countenance' happening, just not meeting criteria for appropriateness. So, Kane is trying to make the Eels sound 'unreasonable' by making up that they're being punitive?
  
  3) Kane correctly notes the issue is going to be the reasonableness of the restraint and whether it protects a protectable interest. But it is a bit odd that Kane implies unreasonableness because, in Kane's view, the Eels have a "strangelhold" on Lomax's future. When the Lomax case came up as going to court, I was curious what courts had done in similar cases. It is easy to go to Westlaw or CaseBase (law firms and academic institutions are subscribed), and AustLII is free to access, to get a sense of how Australian courts have adjudicated on reasonabless in restraint of trade cases. Note the Eels are obviously arguing sanctity of contract but also reasonable restraint of trade. A crucial distinction in deciding 'reasonabless' - and here I am swapping in my words as the legal terminology is odd in places - is between a kind of total vs adequate restraint. Kane frames the issue as total but adequate is what counts, in the sense that if the restraint was total it probably would not fly but it's clearly a debate about adequate not total. Background info here is that the NRL's collective bargaining agreement, aside from the salary cap as an agreed restraint on trade, already includes provisions that employees (players) only play for clubs for whom they're approved to play. The written consent of the Club (the employer) is required. So the Eels are not too far from the CBA in applying that condition to a player bailing on a long term contract? Next, Kane does not really ask about "adequate", jumping straight into the more dramatic and rhetorical frame of TOTAL, by suggesting the Eels are applying a "strangehold" to Lomax. Kane had included lots of anecdotes about how tough it is on poor Zac that he does not have TOTAL access to the most highly paying league competition. It seems as if Kane is suggesting there is a TOTAL protection for the Eels? Restraints of trade that are total in scope might not be reasonable; that's a fair point (the punitive clause). The normal criteria seems to be that the restraint must be ADEQUATE for the protectable interest and no more. Why Kane ignores that Lomax tried to go to a higher paying competition (R360), and has options in regular Rugby that Lomax seems to have went cold on, is odd if there was supposed to be a fair discussion of ADEQUATE restraint?
  
  All up, Kane's piece is odd and seems to be a white ant effort vis a vis the Eels. Also, let's imagine Kane, a journalist, wants to write some legal begal stuff re: Eels vs Lomax. Why would he not run straight to the most obvious legal precedent: Bulldogs vs Williams? In that case, the court ruled that footy players like Williams provide special services and Clubs have a valid interest in not boosting competitors by willy nilly losing stars to competitors. One would think if Kane wanted to discuss how a court might approach the Eels' position, he would start with the most obvious precedent, rather than subtly frame the case as punitive?
  - Randy Handlinger > Prof. Daz January 31, 2026 at 6:03pm
    
    Re-read it and you're not wrong...williams is a good point
    
    Tear 'em up Daz

of 9

This reply was deleted.

Eels Blogs