Melbourne Storm boss slams Eels over Zac Lomax contract saga ahead of court hearing
Storm owner Matt Tripp has launched a rousing defence of the club’s pursuit of Zac Lomax, slamming the Eels by claiming they’ve “grandstanded” Melbourne’s offers to make them look unreasonable.
Melbourne chair and majority owner Matt Tripp has launched a rousing defence of the Storm over their pursuit of Zac Lomax and accused Parramatta of grandstanding as the NSW star braces for a
court showdown with his former club.
Lomax’s
bid to join the Storm is set to reach a tipping point next Thursday as the 26-year-old and the Eels face off in room 8A of the Supreme Court. In an ideal world, Tripp would like the matter resolved before then, having already tried and failed to reach a settlement with the Eels.
However, their
failure to come to an agreement has prompted a legal showdown which leaves Lomax’s fate in the hands of the courts. Tripp has stayed silent on the issue until now, having become frustrated at the backlash his club and Lomax have received.
“The world now sees Zac as a guy who deliberately walked out on Parramatta with bad intentions,” Tripp said.
“The reality is, he was unreliably informed that R360 was going ahead. When he asked for a release, he genuinely had no intention of joining anything other than R360.
“Parramatta
happily gave him that release providing he didn’t go back into the NRL. When it became apparently that R360 wasn’t happening we contacted his management – as did six other clubs – and we all got a flat out ‘not interested’.
“I engaged with Zac over the two weeks leading up to Christmas and it wasn’t until the new year that he agreed that if Parramatta would release him, he would come to Melbourne, but only after trying to do the right thing by asking Parramatta if they’d take him back.
“He’s been crucified for being sold a dream that ended up a nightmare. Given R360 has become moot, and Parramatta didn’t want him back because they were thrilled to get him off their books, I’m not sure what the young man was meant to do?
“I feel like Parramatta are looking at this through the wrong lens. They should be saying to their members – with the assistance of the Melbourne Storm, we have freed up $1 million of salary cap space thanks to Zac’s departure.
“I think if they surveyed their members and asked them if they’d accept $1 million in salary cap benefit to release Zac Lomax – who didn’t want to be there and they didn’t want to keep – 99 per cent of them would say yes.”
The fight for Lomax is the latest stoush between Melbourne and Parramatta, who are due to meet in a matter of weeks in the opening round of the season.
Tripp is quick to point out that the Eels have already benefited from Lomax’s release at the expense of the Storm – it helped them sign former Melbourne playmaker Jonah Pezet.
They also raided the Storm nearly two years ago for coach Jason Ryles when he was under contract, a point not lost on Tripp given the current spat.
“Parramatta were clearly trying to free up cap space to get Jonah Pezet, which they did by moving on Zac,” Tripp said.
“If he didn’t go, could they have secured Jonah? I’m not so sure. The other big thing for us was that Jason Ryles was halfway through a contract at Melbourne and Parramatta came along and made him an offer.
“They didn’t contact us, they just did it. We allowed that to happen. No compensation. No kicking and screaming. We just accepted it because we cared for Jason and wanted to see him do well.
“Now the shoe is on the other foot and their behaviour appears a little odd.”
While the Storm have offered a financial settlement to free Lomax from his agreement with the Eels, Parramatta have instead asked for players as compensation.
“I’m not sure why they think we’re the bad guy in all of this,” Tripp said.
“We have made an offer to Parramatta that would see them realise $1 million in salary cap space. Instead, they’re saying we should hand over
some of our best players.
“It’s just not right. Every time we’ve made them an offer to resolve this matter they’ve leaked it to the press and grandstanded by trying to make out we were being unreasonable. I think it’s pretty unfair.
“At the end of the day though, both clubs are doing what’s best for their squad and their members. It’s not personal. I really like (Parramatta chair) Matthew Beech and still hope we can reach a resolution before next week’s court hearing.”
Parramatta chief executive Jim Sarantinos had no desire to get into a slanging match with the Storm but did pose this question.
“How would they, or any other club for that matter, handle this situation if a representative player approached them to move to a competing club with three years to run on a contract?” Sarantinos said.
View attachment 109353
