Rumoured Signings

[Barney Stubble]

But they are. By rejecting a reasonable offer and then making demands that he can't make happen in asking for a player in return. It changes from acceptable to unreasonable.

You're also not considering the player that Parra wants, may not be willing to go to Parra. That's part of the equation as well. Some players would see Parra in a rebuilding phase, and not want to be part of that journey, or feel that it isn't the right opportunity at that stage of their career. A lot more goes into this as opposed to your black and white judgement on the contract release conditions. Thank god we have pretty strong employment laws. Parra can't own him forever (2029) if they continue to be unreasonable.

The offer wasn't acceptable to one of the parties.

case closed

 

[Vic Mackey]

The Tigers sought no conditions to release those players , thats on them , their business
Parramatta did it differently

thats how it aint the same

Ahh so its because of how the clubs reacted, not because its a release, thank you

 

[Barney Stubble]

Your Honour
we didn't agree to release Mr Lomax & weaken our roster only for another of our opponents to pick him up & strengthen theirs.
We have no issue with Mr Lomax earning a living outside the NRL , but we released him in good faith with conditions , that he agreed to , that his release would not be detrimental to our club.

 

[Barney Stubble]

Ahh so its because of how the clubs reacted, not because its a release, thank you

Yea
eels smart

Tigers dumb

now you're getting it

 

[SirPies&Beers]

Based on the legalities of contracts & what BOTH parties agreed to
Absolutely it is acceptable

It is not a restraint of trade when Parramatta are not stopping Lomax earning a living

courts have all the power of discretion for interpretation of what is acceptable in regards to restrain of trade.
this means they interpret it based on reason in scopes like time, area and activity that the trade falls in.

the issue here is courts in australia will only look at it relating to matters in australia (area) for this. therefore esl and overshore rugby is irrelevant. the relevancy is based on the fact nrl is the only rugby league pro code for the sport in australia and loax is a rugby league pro athlete.

lomax team will argue that rugby league player employment cycle as athlete (activity) is finite and limited in time spent playing and earning from playing. court will then dissect that reason and whilst they might favour eels for 1 season or even half a season they wont rule in favour of eels for all 3 years because at that point it becomes unreasonable to withhold someone from applying their trade (time).

because lomax hasnt been banned by the organisation and business that operates and runs nrl (which eels operate within) then the arguement will go beyond just the eels. whilst eels are protecting their interests as their ceo said in his statement, their interests are ultimately dwarfed by the interests of the nrl (which eels operate under). the interests of the nrl is for the best available players to play and their stakeholders pay for the product to which the best players play in. so by eels protecting the interests of their stakeholders then are in fact underlining the interests of the nrl stakeholders who pay for the game and that payment goes towards clubs like the eels to operate in.


i think ultimately the courts will favour eels for a year max but thats all theyll get. any more and it becomes unreasonable as per interpretation of retain of trades based on the above.

 

[Bazal]

Going to another code, or going overseas, is easy enough to type. The question is whether that will be deemed reasonable, we actually don't know. It's quite interesting.

This is basically it. It's going to be a fascinating precedent tbh. And I doubt it ends today (or whenever an actual hearing an decision is issued). I can see both parties appealing if it goes against them

 

[Vic Mackey]

Yea
eels smart

Tigers dumb

now you're getting it

Being smarter then the Tigers isnt exactly the brag you think it is. FWIW Im team Eels on this, f**k Lomax and f**k the NRL if they step in.

My argument was that Eels fans are clinging on to 'he agreed to this' as their whole arguement, when every player who wants to quit a contract 'agreed to it.' One is a release contract, one is a playing contract, there is no difference.

2022 the entire year Parra fans were saying Papalli should break his deal with the Tigers and stay on, when they thought they were getting Galvin they were literally making '6. Galvin' Eels jerseys up. This was all whilst they were under contract with a club who had no intention of releasing them. If you cant see the huge hypocrisy in this then you're clearly just looking at this through one yellow and one blue eye. But hey thats sports fans, we all do it.

The entire reason the Eels havent caved yet is because Lomax isnt at training taking the 'mental health' bullshit route that Matterson did with us, Lomax and Molo did with Saints and taking up a large chunk of their salary cap. Like I said if I was him Id be rocking up to training on Tuesday and in kit and then disrupting the whole place. He'd be on a plane to Melbourne by COB Wednesday.

 

[Bazal]

Being smarter then the Tigers isnt exactly the brag you think it is. FWIW Im team Eels on this, f**k Lomax and f**k the NRL if they step in.

My argument was that Eels fans are clinging on to 'he agreed to this' as their whole arguement, when every player who wants to quit a contract 'agreed to it.' One is a release contract, one is a playing contract, there is no difference.

2022 the entire year Parra fans were saying Papalli should break his deal with the Tigers and stay on, when they thought they were getting Galvin they were literally making '6. Galvin' Eels jerseys up. If you cant see the huge hypocrisy in this then you're clearly just looking at this through one yellow and one blue eye. But hey thats sports fans, we all do it.

The entire reason the Eels havent caved yet is because Lomax isnt at training taking the 'mental health' bullshit route that Matterson did with us, Lomax and Molo did with Saints and taking up a large chunk of their salary cap. Like I said if I was him Id be rocking up to training on Tuesday and in kit and then disrupting the whole place. He'd be on a plane to Melbourne by COB Wednesday.

Pretty sure that fella is a Milk fan

But in any case, as an Eels fan who was always against the Galvin shit and pretty much thinks Gus used us as pawns the whole time, no dispute that our fans especially are generally very dumb.

 

[Fangs]

Intriguing discussion.

But I really don't see the Lomax win angle here. This is all of his own making. He already has union offers and is chucking a tantrum because they don't offer big coin anymore.

In any event if it goes to court it will be a long process. Its not getting done before the start of the season. The best result is Melbourne or another club offering a fair trade and getting this sorted out. They are the ones stalling this.

And also, I'm telling Melbourne that Lomax is barred from playing round 1 and 11. Just for a laugh.

 

[Delboy]

Lomax asked for a release to specifically play outside the NRL which was signed under legal advice. Those options remain, he can play NRL if signed approval is given by Parra, his ability to earn a living as he asked outside the NRL , has not been denied. Any surprise the first and only club looking for advantage is the Storm, history suggests otherwise.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

Lomax asked for a release to specifically play outside the NRL which was signed under legal advice. Those options remain, he can play NRL if signed approval is given by Parra, his ability to earn a living as he asked outside the NRL , has not been denied. Any surprise the first and only club looking for advantage is the Storm, history suggests otherwise.

im telling ya the aus courts wont care about overseas and nor should they. thats outside their jurisdiction and has 0 impact. this will be based on if theres potential to earn a living here and theres opportunities for it here which there is. nrl operate nrl, not eels.

aus courts will go through it like i said in my post above. they have all the power of interpretation

 

[Barney Stubble]

courts have all the power of discretion for interpretation of what is acceptable in regards to restrain of trade.
this means they interpret it based on reason in scopes like time, area and activity that the trade falls in.

the issue here is courts in australia will only look at it relating to matters in australia (area) for this. therefore esl and overshore rugby is irrelevant. the relevancy is based on the fact nrl is the only rugby league pro code for the sport in australia and loax is a rugby league pro athlete.

lomax team will argue that rugby league player employment cycle as athlete (activity) is finite and limited in time spent playing and earning from playing. court will then dissect that reason and whilst they might favour eels for 1 season or even half a season they wont rule in favour of eels for all 3 years because at that point it becomes unreasonable to withhold someone from applying their trade (time).

because lomax hasnt been banned by the organisation and business that operates and runs nrl (which eels operate within) then the arguement will go beyond just the eels. whilst eels are protecting their interests as their ceo said in his statement, their interests are ultimately dwarfed by the interests of the nrl (which eels operate under). the interests of the nrl is for the best available players to play and their stakeholders pay for the product to which the best players play in. so by eels protecting the interests of their stakeholders then are in fact underlining the interests of the nrl stakeholders who pay for the game and that payment goes towards clubs like the eels to operate in.


i think ultimately the courts will favour eels for a year max but thats all theyll get. any more and it becomes unreasonable as per interpretation of retain of trades based on the above.

The law must be seen to be fair to both parties & also balance the validity of contracts
Clubs don't have to release players from a legal contract , they choose to for a myriad of reasons ,
Some choose to hold their ground too & hold players to what they signed..
The Raiders are case in point with young Chevy Stewart
He was off to the Dragons , pretty much out the door. Saw he could not get enough NRL time at the Raiders & his future was elsewhere where he was about to become a regular 1st grade fullback & increase his profile & earnings. But the Raiders for whatever reason changed their mind very late.

Now Stewart isn't taking the Raiders to court for restraint of trade is he , his position would be I can get more $ elsewhere now & in the future , so Im being restrained
nope... contracts are still valid & their terms upheld right across society

 

[Barney Stubble]

im telling ya the aus courts wont care about overseas and nor should they. thats outside their jurisdiction and has 0 impact. this will be based on if theres potential to earn a living here and theres opportunities for it here which there is. nrl operate nrl, not eels.

aus courts will go through it like i said in my post above. they have all the power of interpretation

nope

they won't

 

[Bazal]

im telling ya the aus courts wont care about overseas and nor should they. thats outside their jurisdiction and has 0 impact. this will be based on if theres potential to earn a living here and theres opportunities for it here which there is. nrl operate nrl, not eels.

aus courts will go through it like i said in my post above. they have all the power of interpretation

It's interesting in this case because the nature of the employment or work is so very narrow, does have a global component and because the terms of the release has regard to that global component. In fact it was entirely based on Lomax seeking non-competitive opportunity overseas

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment by any means, my view is that the clause is likely to be enforceable and enforced (at least for a period of time) either way. But it's interesting because there is scope for a court to consider "restraint" in a holistic sense and there is a global component to that in this case. I'm not sure it will be considered or if it is whether it will form part of the determination, but I think it's likely to be addressed and it'll be interesting to see what if anything the court says on it anyway

 

[Munky]

Lomax should challenge the salary cap as part of his day in court.

That'd make for fun viewing.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

The law must be seen to be fair to both parties & also balance the validity of contracts
Clubs don't have to release players from a legal contract , they choose to for a myriad of reasons ,
Some choose to hold their ground too & hold players to what they signed..
The Raiders are case in point with young Chevy Stewart
He was off to the Dragons , pretty much out the door. Saw he could not get enough NRL time at the Raiders & his future was elsewhere where he was about to become a regular 1st grade fullback & increase his profile & earnings. But the Raiders for whatever reason changed their mind very late.

Now Stewart isn't taking the Raiders to court for restraint of trade is he , his position would be I can get more $ elsewhere now & in the future , so Im being restrained
nope... contracts are still valid & their terms upheld right across society

youre wrong here. like very wrong and have no legal idea it seems lol,

eels will still be here in 7-10 years. lomax will be retired due to his applied trade (rl player) being finite and limited. (time)
eels will continue signing players. lomax has limited time to be signed elsewhere in nrl as rl player. (trade)
eels bring players in to sydney within australia. lomax only options now to continue playing rl is to go overseas? (area)

courts take time trade area as reasons of scope in restrain of trade. this is just how it works. interpretation is 100% their discretion. not eels, not lomax.

chevy stewart has no precedence to this. worthless comparison. might as well compared abduls lamb kebab with garlic sauce since it has as much relevance to this cob lol

 

[Delboy]

im telling ya the aus courts wont care about overseas and nor should they. thats outside their jurisdiction and has 0 impact. this will be based on if theres potential to earn a living here and theres opportunities for it here which there is. nrl operate nrl, not eels.

aus courts will go through it like i said in my post above. they have all the power of interpretation

Lomax was offered a union contract by 2 franchises, so he has the ability to apply his trade as a professional athlete here in Australia. Not sure he can plead povertyhaving just purchased I believe a second home for $4 million. Judges act in curious ways at times, just he doesn’t seem to have been shut out from earning as an athlete, just as he signed to play outside a certain code having signed an agreement with legal advice, that must count for something, otherwise the judge will ignore what lawyers offer as advice, interesting.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

It's interesting in this case because the nature of the employment or work is so very narrow, does have a global component and because the terms of the release has regard to that global component. In fact it was entirely based on Lomax seeking non-competitive opportunity overseas

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment by any means, my view is that the clause is likely to be enforceable and enforced (at least for a period of time) either way. But it's interesting because there is scope for a court to consider "restraint" in a holistic sense and there is a global component to that in this case. I'm not sure it will be considered or if it is whether it will form part of the determination, but I think it's likely to be addressed and it'll be interesting to see what if anything the court says on it anyway

whatever reasons lomax wanted doesnt matter.
what matters right now is lomax wants to continue playing rl (his professional trade) at home (australia) for the remainder of his available athletic time frame (time).

the reasonable time away will be 1 year of the 3 years max i reckon. anymore and its unreasonable. nrl career is 3-4 year or 66 game average. if lomax sits out 3 years its equivilant to an average nrl career time wise.

 

[Trifili13]

And to think people on here were backing PVL that he had legal advise that 10 year bans would stand up in court.

 

[Trifili13]

And in other rugby league rumours (spottings) saw Gus (my wife and son also said it was him) at Gold Coast Airport this morning. Titans could be about to enter panic mode.