Rumoured Signings

[The Colonel]

wont happen. he might sit out a season sure but he wont sit out 3 and the court would not judge him to sit out 3.

rugby league career is short on average 3 or 4 seasons or around 65 games. he sits out 3 year then thats impeding his ability to make a living in australia which he is a citizen of in the career profession that he has set skills in.

no argument he was silly and a dunce but theres merits that this will be judged on and if it becomes a true restrain of trade than scope time and location are as per courts discretion. the fact theres international comp in esl is also irrelevant as it'll be judged on an aussie citizen applying his trade in australia as thats what court can judge on. thats my understanding of it anyways

I see and understand the argument of restraint of trade however the conditions that he agreed to be released under accepted and acknowledged the restraint of trade for the duration of the contract. This was presented to him, he sought counsel and on their advice signed the release agreement as it stood.

 

[MrBlack]

I see and understand the argument of restraint of trade however the conditions that he agreed to be released under accepted and acknowledged the restraint of trade for the duration of the contract. This was presented to him, he sought counsel and on their advice signed the release agreement as it stood.

In the courts eyes this doesn't matter. They will look at it to determine if the conditions in the contract are legal or not.

They will argue that the conditions were a restraint of his trade and that the contract is illegal, regardless of his willingness to sign it.

Restraints of trade are normal conditions in many employment contracts (especially in Salespeople's contract) but they hold little to no weight when challenged in a court of law

 

[Wb1234]

In the courts eyes this doesn't matter. They will look at it to determine if the conditions in the contract are legal or not.

They will argue that the conditions were a restraint of his trade and that the contract is illegal, regardless of his willingness to sign it.

No chance

That’s why he has a lawyer to explain what he’s signing

 

[SirPies&Beers]

I see and understand the argument of restraint of trade however the conditions that he agreed to be released under accepted and acknowledged the restraint of trade for the duration of the contract. This was presented to him, he sought counsel and on their advice signed the release agreement as it stood.

it doesnt matter though courts deem what is reasonable. sitting out 3 years and therefore an aussie citizen not being able to work in australia within the profession someone is qualified in isnt reasonable. 1 year sit out sure, 3 years wont go.

as i saids if nrl career is average 3 years then how can it be reasonable someone sit out 3 years. it isn't.
again cant stress this enough courts hold all the power in the discretion of judging what is reasonable based on merits of scope time and location.

scope can be argued that he is rugby league athlete and theres only 1 professional rugby league comp in australia
time can be argued that rugby league career is limited to average 3 years as per data
location can be argued that as an australian citizen he has the right to work in and pay taxes from his profression in australia.

the release contract might have been signed by lomax (based on circumstance which has now changed) but depending on angle this is come from it then the contract can be defaulted and nulled void as per australian law. once that release contract is deemed defaulted and void then it immediately reverts back to his original contract as last point of legally binded litigation. which is his original eels contract. since eels dont want him back then that contract also becomes void. he is then a free agent.

 

[The Colonel]

it doesnt matter though courts deem what is reasonable. sitting out 3 years and therefore an aussie citizen not being able to work in australia within the profession someone is qualified in isnt reasonable. 1 year sit out sure, 3 years wont go.

as i saids if nrl career is average 3 years then how can it be reasonable someone sit out 3 years. it isn't.
again cant stress this enough courts hold all the power in the discretion of judging what is reasonable based on merits of scope time and location.

scope can be argued that he is rugby league athlete and theres only 1 professional rugby league comp in australia
time can be argued that rugby league career is limited to average 3 years as per data
location can be argued that as an australian citizen he has the right to work in and pay taxes from his profression in australia.

the release contract might have been signed by lomax (based on circumstance which has now changed) but depending on angle this is come from it then the contract can be defaulted and nulled void as per australian law. once that release contract is deemed defaulted and void then it immediately reverts back to his original contract as last point of legally binded litigation. which is his original eels contract. since eels dont want him back then that contract also becomes void. he is then a free agent.

He is a professional athlete, not just a rugby league player. He asked for the release to pursue other avenues and the other avenues have offered him quite reasonable contracts so the restraint is now of his own choosing not because Parramatta won't allow him to play in the NRL.

 

[Bazal]

I see and understand the argument of restraint of trade however the conditions that he agreed to be released under accepted and acknowledged the restraint of trade for the duration of the contract. This was presented to him, he sought counsel and on their advice signed the release agreement as it stood.

In IR law, where for eg an unfair dismissal matter resolves through mediation or amongst the parties, they will sign a deed of release. Generally that will include a mutual release or similar, a clause where each party agrees to release the other from all current and future actions that might otherwise be available to them.

Excepted from that release are Workers Comp claims (under relevant legislation) and unpaid super claims. Those are tied to other statutory entitlements and cannot be contracted out of for that reason. Workers Comp, for eg (and at a very high level only) is inherent in the definition of a "worker", and you can't contract out of that status because that would be ridiculously open to abuse.

So a person could add those to a release, and it would have no effect. The release, or at least those sections of it, would not be lawful even if the deed was executed and agreed.

I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily, but the point really is that it's not agreeing to and executing a contract that necessarily makes it lawful or binding. Agreeing to an unlawful clause doesn't make it lawful or enforceable, and it's for the court in this case to determine whether it is.

My expectation is that it will, but probably not to it's full extent. That's certainly open to the court to rule.

 

[Captain Apollo]

In IR law, where for eg an unfair dismissal matter resolves through mediation or amongst the parties, they will sign a deed of release. Generally that will include a mutual release or similar, a clause where each party agrees to release the other from all current and future actions that might otherwise be available to them.

Excepted from that release are Workers Comp claims (under relevant legislation) and unpaid super claims. Those are tied to other statutory entitlements and cannot be contracted out of for that reason. Workers Comp, for eg (and at a very high level only) is inherent in the definition of a "worker", and you can't contract out of that status because that would be ridiculously open to abuse.

So a person could add those to a release, and it would have no effect. The release, or at least those sections of it, would not be lawful even if the deed was executed and agreed.

I'm not saying that's the case here necessarily, but the point really is that it's not agreeing to and executing a contract that necessarily makes it lawful or binding. Agreeing to an unlawful clause doesn't make it lawful or enforceable, and it's for the court in this case to determine whether it is.

My expectation is that it will, but probably not to it's full extent. That's certainly open to the court to rule.

The reason why I think it will fail is that there are plenty of fixed employment contracts within other Australian industries which have a non-compete clause as part of the contract if someone choose to exit that place of work whilst under contract. They often refer to the employee not being permitted to work at a rival firm during that period. As far as I'm aware, those have mainly been upheld. For Lomax to be successful in getting his set aside, would require the courts to view the world like it was at the run of the 20th century.

 

[SirPies&Beers]

He is a professional athlete, not just a rugby league player. He asked for the release to pursue other avenues and the other avenues have offered him quite reasonable contracts so the restraint is now of his own choosing not because Parramatta won't allow him to play in the NRL.

so a soccer player can suddenly be a basketball player? because they're an athlete?
lomax is an athlete but his discipline for all his life and career is rugby league.

Its like engineering. an electrical engineer is an engineer but he cant just move to hydraulics or structures or civil because he falls under "engineer" title. theres levels and disciplines to it.

The reason why I think it will fail is that there are plenty of fixed employment contracts within other Australian industries which have a non-compete clause as part of the contract if someone choose to exit that place of work whilst under contract. They often refer to the employee not being permitted to work at a rival firm during that period. As far as I'm aware, those have mainly been upheld. For Lomax to be successful in getting his set aside, would require the courts to view the world like it was at the run of the 20th century.

but reasonable time is factored in. 3 years or remainder of contracr length is unreasonable. thats why it might be 1 year sit out non compete at most. after that itll be deemed unreasonable. plus other employement you can do that profession for decades plus. athlete in rugby league has professional shelf life of ave 3 years. as i keep saying scope location and time form basis of merits in restrain of trade cases when judging reasonable vs unreasonable resolutions. bloke sitting out the entire average time frame of his profession (3 years) from the one pro league he is a professional too (nrl) in the country he is citizen of (australia) is unreasonable.

makes good chat

 

[The Colonel]

so a soccer player can suddenly be a basketball player? because they're an athlete?
lomax is an athlete but his discipline for all his life and career is rugby league.

Its like engineering. an electrical engineer is an engineer but he cant just move to hydraulics or structures or civil because he falls under "engineer" title. theres levels and disciplines to it.

So, rugby union were just chasing the bloke for shits and giggles because he has devoted all his life to play rugby league?

 

[SirPies&Beers]

So, rugby union were just chasing the bloke for shits and giggles because he has devoted all his life to play rugby league?

its pretty irrelevant who is chasing him. only relevant what his professional employment space is and what his profession has applied to.

 

[The Colonel]

its pretty irrelevant who is chasing him. only relevant what his professional employment space is and what his profession has applied to.

It is relevant because that was the whole basis of his initial release..... if he can't move between professions, why move?

 

[SirPies&Beers]

It is relevant because that was the whole basis of his initial release..... if he can't move between professions, wh

its not relevant cob because the restrain of trade part wont care or factor that in.

it'll only factor what is and what is is a rugby league pro athlete wanting to play in the only professional rugby league comp in his country of origin australia within the limited career time he has left to play it. the average career shelf life is 3 years or 65 games. thats it.

also lomax hasn't been barred by the organisation or code from playing pro rugby league in australia has he? have the nrl banned him? nope.

so again it might be a case of him sitting out a year, sure cool. that might be deemed reasonable. but its unreasonable for him to sit out all 3 years. thats what im getting at. its not hard to understand it cob. this is of course if thats the angle his argument comes in with.

its also likely his release contract gets voided which then means his contractual obligations revert back to the last standing contract which is his eels playing contract but since they dont want him back that too would become void and he becomes a free agent anyways.

 

[Trifili13]

the average career shelf life is 3 years or 65 games.

Given that he has played over 130 games since his debut in 2018, is the average career life of an NRL player relevant in this instance?

 

[hindy111]

The Nrl were quick to threaten Lomax and any player who sign for 360 they will be banned for 10yrs. Fair enoughbut Lomax and Papenhauzen are the only two who's names kept being mentioned.
Where is the NRL now? Shouldn't they be standing by the Eels? It’s hypocrisy

 

[Trifili13]

The Nrl were quick to threaten Lomax and any player who sign for 360 they will be banned for 10yrs. Fair enoughbut Lomax and Papenhauzen are the only two who's names kept being mentioned.
Where is the NRL now? Shouldn't they be standing by the Eels? It’s hypocrisy

Agree, PVL was quick to flap his gums and tell the world that he would be slapping 10 year bans on anyone even having a coffee with R360 but crickets in support of Parra. Why did he change his mind and is now welcoming Lomax back? Not sure of the timeline, but did it have anything to do with Storm lodging a contract (?) for Lomax in the NRL portal?

 

[Maximus]

In the courts eyes this doesn't matter. They will look at it to determine if the conditions in the contract are legal or not.

They will argue that the conditions were a restraint of his trade and that the contract is illegal, regardless of his willingness to sign it.

Restraints of trade are normal conditions in many employment contracts (especially in Salespeople's contract) but they hold little to no weight when challenged in a court of law

These non compete clauses generally need to be to protect business interests, so trade secrets, IP etc to be enforceable. I don't see what argument Parra would have.

It's odd that PvL came out and tried to pressure Parra because if this does go to court, and Lomax wins, he's just f**ked the NRL. The only protection clubs would have from players walking out is the NRL refusing to lodge a contract with a new team, but he's just given players a precedent that they can walk out and immediately sign somewhere else.

 

[Vic Mackey]

so again it might be a case of him sitting out a year, sure cool. that might be deemed reasonable. but its unreasonable for him to sit out all 3 years. thats what im getting at. its not hard to understand it cob. this is of course if thats the angle his argument comes in with.

Agree with this. People saying 'he agreed to this' dont seem to get it, it can still be deemed unreasonable. For instance you can sign a 12 month Exclusive Agency Agreement for a Real Estate agent to sell your house. If after six months you decide you want to change Agents, they refuse to let you our so you take them to NCAT you will win every single time as 12 months is considered an unreasonable time. Doesnt matter that you both signed off on it.

 

[Red&BlackBear]

Hass to Souths is interesting if true.

 

[Fangs]

Huge news.

Club Statement: Payne Haas

The Brisbane Broncos can confirm that Payne Haas and his management have advised the Broncos that he intends to depart the Club at the end of the 2026 season.

www.broncos.com.au

The Brisbane Broncos can confirm that Payne Haas and his management have advised the Broncos that he intends to depart the Club at the end of the 2026 season.

A signed contract reflecting that position has been lodged with the NRL and the Broncos will make no further comment on the matter until the expiration of the normal ten-day cooling off period.

---

Wayne's parting gift to Souths. Haas and Murray make that Souths pack look a lot better. If they can get Fifita rolling as well then even better.

 

[kurt faulk]

.

I wonder if he got his $3m per year?

.