Happy Monday, if anyone wants a good laugh to start their week, skip to 32:50 mark and listen to this f***wit talk. It is laughable seriously. Claiming the offer of $300k was a great deal and we can put that into our junior system. But said we can put some money into the cap but at same time said they cannot break the rules in regard to cap as it is unfair. But can break the rules with contracts?
Replies
This guy has lost me now ....did some good things over Covid...maybe that was just a coincidence. Getting to realise hes a grade A dope
I am beginning to think that the courts have no choice but to uphold Parra's contract and say Parramatta can negotiate anything with Lomax regarding him returning to the NRL..... i.e the contract stands. Further to this the circumstances of the R360 contract has no bearing on the terms of the contract. The reasons Mr Lomax chose this course is subject to his original agreement with Parramatta.
Mr Lomax decided his own fate in signing the contract under legal advice. Parramatta's only interest is the terms of same and Mr Lomax can persue any number of options outside of the NRL on his own veracity.
In saying this I am assuming that Storm are not looking to join the case and the same goes for the NRL. Anything else in the forementioned matters is what we (the court) are ruling on.
End of subject.
PS the public and the ARL can rule on the commentary's (not the courts) that have come from both Storm and the executive management of the NRL. I believe the ARL has every right to censure the NRL executive comments and request an investigation over the correspondence entered into by the NRL CEO and his counterpart at Melbourne Storm, the acceptance of the original contract lodged with the NRL by Parramatta and the "notional" contract by Storm in the "portal".
Though i wonder Poppa, i am generally asking as law is not my strong suit, if the court uphold it and Parra win the case that means the NRL can then be involved again since it is out of court. Will they abide by that too or can they still favour Melbourne and put the heavies on?
As V'Landys said $300k is a great deal.
I think they can still point the "blowtorch" at us but it won't be lit. Melb threatened NRL cap sanctions if we didn't play nice. That shit is off the table. They can suggest, encourage, incentivise and state their unhappiness toward us, but they cannot coerce us.
Hopefully they will pay for that after the event Randy, ARL needs to get involved once the court room drama is finished. An ounce of brains means that they should stop the court process and just revert back to the process as if Parra wins it. It would be a move that gains respect on all sides and avoids the potential embarrassment to Abdo and PVL.
Lomax will get to play, "somewhere".
Well I summarised it like I did to simpfly the process as to where it is at, all the issues surrounding Storm and the NRL are supplementary at this stage given the brief.
Answering your specific question if the court rules to abide by the contract then there is nothing the NRL can do outside of an appeal against the decision, which as crazy as it would be in no ones interest and specifically they, the NRL are not party to the decision made.i.e unless they are enjoined they are not involved.
Once up held Lomax will have 2 choices, go somewhere/anywhere outside of the NRL and lastly negotiate with Parra's permission to negotiate a deal that suits him and is acceptable to Parramatta either accepting a player/s or cash settlement. This would mean as always should have been, a situation open to any NRL club that want's in!
They were not relevant to this blog. For further information, please contact Super.
Seriously? This is where we are at with moderation?
If this is the new normal, fuck this
Randy,
This is an NRL-related thread. We don’t need to hijack it with American politics or broader political grievances, which unfortunately, all too often escalate into socio-politico war zones or worse that undermine the common bond within this community.
If a group sits down to discuss one specific issue and someone repeatedly introduces unrelated topics, asking to stay on topic isn’t censorship, it’s simply maintaining focus for the benefit of the group. I'd also add American politics is often a very highly divisive subject.
If you want to discuss US politics, please open a separate blog in the social section or other appropriate space. Personally, I don't have issues with such discussions.
Let’s keep things on topic and avoid unnecessary escalation.
You should have lived in my marital home HOE
There was more hi jackings in family convo than 9-11
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
of 6 Next