Rumours and Stuff

[Eelogical]

If this is the case then he probably doesn't have a leg to stand on.

NDIS to the rescue.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I feel like if lomax wins it will open up Pandora’s box. What’s then stopping Cleary from saying I want to go play R360 and then defecting to the Roosters. I doubt the contract would have said anything about him going to play R360 just that he is being released to go look at other opportunities outside the NRL and he can’t play NRL for another club unless Parra agrees.

It’s not Parras fault R360 fell through and Parra would have been of the belief he wasn’t coming back. Zac took a big gamble and it didn’t work out Now he has to just deal with it

Ultimately you don't want a player at your club who doesn't want to be there. Whether he said he wants to leave early to join a rival NRL club or play in another competition, the club with the contract still has the power to say no. The problem is paying some bloke to hang around doing the bare minimum because he's unhappy. That's why many soccer clubs sell players before their contract is up. They usually don't need the money, they just want to get rid of some merkin whose heart is elsewhere. The money they're paying him could be better spent elsewhere. In our case we signed Kelly and extended JAC. I'm sure there's youngsters we could extend with a sweetener on top of their 2026 value that will keep their price down in later years.

 

[Eelogical]

Ultimately you don't want a player at your club who doesn't want to be there. Whether he said he wants to leave early to join a rival NRL club or play in another competition, the club with the contract still has the power to say no. The problem is paying some bloke to hang around doing the bare minimum because he's unhappy. That's why many soccer clubs sell players before their contract is up. They usually don't need the money, they just want to get rid of some merkin whose heart is elsewhere. The money they're paying him could be better spent elsewhere. In our case we signed Kelly and extended JAC. I'm sure there's youngsters we could extend with a sweetener on top of their 2026 value that will keep their price down in later years.

In essence, from what you're saying it's quite obvious that a 4 year contract is a stupid deal to sign from either party.

 

[Stevie]

My mate who has a law degree but does not work as a lawyer reckons we are no chance, Restraint of Trade and we will lose. He points out that just because we put something in a contract, it doesn't mean it's legal, and the courts will agree with Zach. I disagree but of course, my training extends no further than Yr 12 Legal Studies in 1995 which admittedly I was very good at.

Is your mate Denis Denuto?

 

[Stevie]

I am not a legal expert, but I would wager that our defence would be something along the lines of, "It's not a restraint of trade - you can go play lawn bowls for all we care. But you cannot play for another NRL team until 2029 without our permission, as per the deal that you agreed to in writing."

If the courts would side with Zac because he's been negatively impacted, surely that same line of thought applies to the club - we've been screwed by his behaviour.

We didn't have to agree to release him - we could have made him sit out his contract.

But we let him go.

And now, he's being an absolute merkin about it.

I hope a steps on a billion pieces of Lego.

Dick first.

 

[Soren Lorenson]

Is your mate Denis Denuto?

Hmmmmm @Stevie do we know each other?

 

[Stevie]

Yes but that is what he agreed to when he seeked a release.

By entering into a contract you are making your trade exclusive for a period of time.

Surely agreements between parties need to actually mean something or as a society we are in a bit of trouble.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

In essence, from what you're saying it's quite obvious that a 4 year contract is a stupid deal to sign from either party.

Not necessarily.

 

[Chipmunk]

So, Lomax just purchased what was I believe a second property for $4million, no bank or lender would approve a mortgage if he didn’t provide proof of income. Now he could have paid cash, but unlikely, so who was paying him - sponsors, scum who knows.

Didn't he buy it in October?

 

[eels_fan]

My mate who has a law degree but does not work as a lawyer reckons we are no chance, Restraint of Trade and we will lose. He points out that just because we put something in a contract, it doesn't mean it's legal, and the courts will agree with Zach. I disagree but of course, my training extends no further than Yr 12 Legal Studies in 1995 which admittedly I was very good at.

It's a real possibility - BUT - if the release contract is invalid, then Lomax is legally not released and is still an Parramatta Eels player. Lomax doesnt want to play for us, we dont want him either, so we therefore retain the right to shop him to whomever we want, for a player in return - so from Zac's perspective he remains in the exact same position.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Uno reverse ffs!

 

[Tiger5150]

Be wrapped up by 12:30

Friday arvo just before a long weekend.

Feels like an early knock off type of day to go celebrate our court win with a few beverages.

are you going to tell them Legal_Eel?

 

[Tiger5150]

This poll on the newscorp site is damning really.

Only 17% want the prick back

Polls like this are never one-sided like this one

View attachment 109151

The court rests your honour

 

[Tiger5150]

Unless the NRL want to pressure Scum (or another club) to firstly take Lomax and secondly release a suitable player to facilitate, and then pressure that player to accept that as well, as well as pressuring Lomax to accept whoever it is signing him, then the NRL now have no say.

Only ways this doesn’t progress is we decide we can’t win (unlikely) or Lomax believes he can’t win and agrees to abide by release (more likely - although trusting Lomax under the circumstances seems a bit gullible).

But beyond that, even if it risks us losing, I think every other party (NRL, other clubs, RLPA, agents & players) all want this to progress to get a precedent

or the court rules that the release agreement in not legal/binding.

I dont know why the Eels arent making a bigger deal that he is welcome back.

 

[Tiger5150]

Actually decision will probably be 13th.
12th will probably just be making sure subpoenas have been returned.

No way there is a decision 13th.

 

[Tiger5150]

My mate who has a law degree but does not work as a lawyer reckons we are no chance, Restraint of Trade and we will lose. He points out that just because we put something in a contract, it doesn't mean it's legal, and the courts will agree with Zach. I disagree but of course, my training extends no further than Yr 12 Legal Studies in 1995 which admittedly I was very good at.

This by 1000. The agreement could easily be overturned............or not. Completely depends on the consideration under the Contract, which to be honest, none of us knows. Genuinely could go either way, but if it goes AGAINST Parra, management needs rooting.

 

[Tiger5150]

He’s a professional athlete and has apparently had 2 offers from union to play and get paid, he signed a document with legal advice. Which only related to playing NRL , it hasn’t been a full restraint of trade. As a professional he has opportunities, interesting that within the NRL the only club willing to break such a contract is the Storm, no surprise really given how they have always behaved.

Are you busy on the 12th Delboy? You seem to have it worked out?

 

[viole02]

Ultimately you don't want a player at your club who doesn't want to be there. Whether he said he wants to leave early to join a rival NRL club or play in another competition, the club with the contract still has the power to say no. The problem is paying some bloke to hang around doing the bare minimum because he's unhappy. That's why many soccer clubs sell players before their contract is up. They usually don't need the money, they just want to get rid of some merkin whose heart is elsewhere. The money they're paying him could be better spent elsewhere. In our case we signed Kelly and extended JAC. I'm sure there's youngsters we could extend with a sweetener on top of their 2026 value that will keep their price down in later years.

I think the key difference between us and soccer clubs they can actually redistribute the money back into signing players. Due to the set up of nrl and its salary cap the 250k or whatever we wpuldve got from selling lomax doesnt apply to our stack of money in signing players which is probably why we were reluctant to do so.

 

[Tiger5150]

I am not a legal expert, but I would wager that our defence would be something along the lines of, "It's not a restraint of trade - you can go play lawn bowls for all we care. But you cannot play for another NRL team until 2029 without our permission, as per the deal that you agreed to in writing."

If the courts would side with Zac because he's been negatively impacted, surely that same line of thought applies to the club - we've been screwed by his behaviour.

We didn't have to agree to release him - we could have made him sit out his contract.

But we let him go.

And now, he's being an absolute merkin about it.

I hope a steps on a billion pieces of Lego.

What was his consideration to sign that Contract?

 

[Tiger5150]

Yes and no. Courts can always be directed to individual circumstances, but it’d certainly be a guide

Not sure you understand Common Law.