Rumours and Stuff

[Soren Lorenson]

I like the look of that team.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Let's put it this way what if the "I don't want to play league" was just a ploy to get out of our contract and go and sign with the Storm? How do we benifit at all from this?

If there was no benefit to releasing him to R360, why did we do it?

 

[Soto]

The guy is toxic... can we stop talking about this turncoat until there is a definitive outcome...
Let's talk footy...this guy can GF

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Just because he thought he was and it wasn't doesn't mean at the time the benifit wasn't there....

Yes it does. It wasn't our fault that there was no benefit in the end, but it wasn't Lomax's fault either. In this case, 'fault' is irrelevant.

How do we benifit getting rid of a representative winger

So why did we agree to it in the first place?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So if you buy a car from a car dealership sign that nice contract take their finance deal and a month later don't want the car you can just take it back? Get your money back...

No but the dealership can't stop you selling it to someone else.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Did you sign a contract for a certain period set by your employer as well?

It's irrelevant. I don't do my job because that's what I want to do, I do it because I need the money. Presumably like Lomax does.

 

[Lemon Squash]

If there was no benefit to releasing him to R360, why did we do it?

There was no benefit. It was only to negate the ill effect of having someone on the books who didn’t want to be here and the baggage that would have come with him.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Again which representative winger did we replace Lomax with?

Merkin! Cobbos contract ended at the end of the season with the Broncos..

We replaced him with Kelly plus a bunch of upgrades to other players.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

People do indeed enter into contracts against their interests, and these are unenforceable in some circumstances.

That much is true.

As is the submission that they are in fact enforceable even when they are against one’s interest.

There’s a large body of law, which is ever evolving, about these circumstances.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Yes it does. It wasn't our fault that there was no benefit in the end, but it wasn't Lomax's fault either. In this case, 'fault' is irrelevant.

So why did we agree to it in the first place?

It is Lomax’s fault because he had the option of insisting on the deletion of the clause before he signed it.

He took the grave risk that 360 would commence as scheduled and it didn’t.

That he relied upon representations made by 360 is his problem. Nothing to do with the eels.

In the back of his mind he could have felt that Fitz was still in charge and that you wouldn’t take a stand. It would be worked out in a car park somewhere.

Mind you, it could still settle.

A nice bit of lawfare between Ryles and Bellamy. The master v the apprentice.
The young Mario Fenech being shirt fronted by Ken Stewart.

 

[85 Baby]

We replaced him with Kelly plus a bunch of upgrades to other players.

Wasn’t that the discussed the other day? We didn’t replace anyone with anyone. We have salary cap rules to abide by and we have to 30 players. We also have our own internal commitments to run a successful club as possible.
Lomax having sort a release and saying he’ll never return, can’t expect us to save a spot and some cash for him, and he certainly can’t expect it mere months after the release when he left us scrambling to fulfil obligations.
And something that hasn’t been discussed is if he returned, to what contract does he return? Is he expecting the one he just quit to be reinstated? Or having reportedly agreed to a contract with Scum for almost half that amount, would he allow us the same offer? Because regardless of the club’s personal or professional opinions about him, Lomax for $400k? Are you f**ken kidding me? Course we take him back.

 

[JokerEel]

No but the dealership can't stop you selling it to someone else.

Not the point merkin

 

[Poupou Escobar]

There was no benefit. It was only to negate the ill effect of having someone on the books who didn’t want to be here and the baggage that would have come with him.

And now we are trying to claim the benefit of not having to play against him. Having our cake and eating it too. If he ends up at the Storm before 2029, this is likely to be the argument that gets him there. If we’re not willing to take him back, we won’t be able to stop him playing for someone else. I hope I’m wrong. I hope the merkin suffers financially for f**king us around, but I’m a childish, vindictive fan. Justice Kunc probably isn’t.

 

[JokerEel]

It's irrelevant. I don't do my job because that's what I want to do, I do it because I need the money. Presumably like Lomax does.

Then why doesn't he go do his job in Rugby same as you I guess he doesn't do it because that's what he wants to do...

 

[JokerEel]

If there was no benefit to releasing him to R360, why did we do it?

Fairly sure the benifit was him signing that contract

 

[King-Gutho94]

 

[Soren Lorenson]

I still like Rheed.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That much is true.

As is the submission that they are in fact enforceable even when they are against one’s interest.

There’s a large body of law, which is ever evolving, about these circumstances.

There is indeed 'a large body of law, which is ever evolving', and it is obvious that there are qualifiers that impact whether a contract can be enforced. One is 'fairness', which is a subjective standard: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/contracts

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mind you, it could still settle.

A nice bit of lawfare between Ryles and Bellamy. The master v the apprentice.
The young Mario Fenech being shirt fronted by Ken Stewart.

This has gone well above the coach's pay grade, other than any veto Ryles might have about taking the player back.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Fairly sure the benifit was him signing that contract

I'm talking about the benefit to us.