Rumours and Stuff

[85 Baby]

People are starting with restraint of trade, did he or did he not start talking to the scum and union as early as June whilst contracted to us, basically signing a tentative agreement, and did he not have lawyers present when negotiating a release, ONE year into a four year deal? and when u ion fell apart he goes to scum first, but gets desperate and comes back crawling to us???

The restraint of trade is on him as he chose to leave league, that’s where it ends for us in my opinion

Whether he went to Scum first is related but still separate to whether there’s restraint of trade.
The thing with all this and @emjaycee voiced it yesterday, we as fans should realise there’s the legal outcome and the rugba leeg outcome. Those 2 things are unlikely to align.
This is Docky Strange in Infinity War where the outcomes even based on the absolute truth of the case are going to have multiple variations. There’s probably one reality where we legally win and NRL doubles down in favour of us (beyond just Lomax can’t play). I foresee way more realities where we win but to no real benefit.

 

[JokerEel]

Not necesssarily.
In most RoT cases (at least in NSW) there is the option for the judge to apply a Reasonableness Test in which case it might be determined for example that the conditions of the release are valid, however the duration for which it applies is unreasonable. It might be that the judge says "Can't play NRL for 2026, but free agent for 2027 and beyond."

Where is the restraint though? We haven't said he can't play in the NRL just that we require a reasonable trade.

 

[gaffer]

Well, in the context of the Storm succeeding in Victoria, I'd argue that it's important.

But absolutely - fans not being in the team's home state doesn't disqualify them. Or, at least, it shouldn't.

During our Darwin home game years, we got decent crowds up there.

My point is that, given that we have been starved of on-field success for 4 decades, and the Storm are regularly top 4 finishers, I am fairly confident on saying that if we went on a tear, similar to what the Panthers have done, it would do far greater good for the NRL, than what the Storm currently do for the NRL.

one year we might get a favourable draw

 

[85 Baby]

Not necesssarily.
In most RoT cases (at least in NSW) there is the option for the judge to apply a Reasonableness Test in which case it might be determined for example that the conditions of the release are valid, however the duration for which it applies is unreasonable. It might be that the judge says "Can't play NRL for 2026, but free agent for 2027 and beyond."

You motherf**ker….

Na all good I practically said it in my response to old mate that I edited.

I reckon especially after the judges comments regarding starting trial, this outcome is what I would put short odds on.

Then again I think our biggest struggle is getting the judge to apply NRL circumstances as they overarch regular business.

 

[hineyrulz]

Sounds familiar

I just hope they had a better ride to the stadium at least.

 

[The Predictor]

Whether he went to Scum first is related but still separate to whether there’s restraint of trade.
The thing with all this and @emjaycee voiced it yesterday, we as fans should realise there’s the legal outcome and the rugba leeg outcome. Those 2 things are unlikely to align.
This is Docky Strange in Infinity War where the outcomes even based on the absolute truth of the case are going to have multiple variations. There’s probably one reality where we legally win and NRL doubles down in favour of us (beyond just Lomax can’t play). I foresee way more realities where we win but to no real benefit.

I get what ur saying, but not really a win, so either way it’s actually a loss, if we win and don’t benefit

 

[85 Baby]

Where is the restraint though? We haven't said he can't play in the NRL just that we require a reasonable trade.

The restraint has already occurred. He no longer works for us, but in leaving we’ve said he has to ask our permission to go to another NRL team.
The question is were we allowed to do that, and if so, are the terms currently enforceable.

 

[85 Baby]

I get what ur saying, but not really a win, so either way it’s actually a loss, if we win and don’t benefit

The English cricket team may congratulate us on a resounding moral victory.
At the end of the day, if Lomax isn’t playing in NRL, we’re in no different position to when we released him. This is 3 parties all trying to turn a neutral position into a net positive for them at the expense of 1 or 2 of the other parties. However legally and morally we also probably have the most to lose and the least to gain compared to that neutral position

 

[Stevie]

Crawls has not missed LoGrub or Scum here. Nice.

 

[JokerEel]

The restraint has already occurred. He no longer works for us, but in leaving we’ve said he has to ask our permission to go to another NRL team.
The question is were we allowed to do that, and if so, are the terms currently enforceable.

Don't think that's technically a restraint.
Especially if he signed a contract we both need something from it.

 

[lingard]

The restraint has already occurred. He no longer works for us, but in leaving we’ve said he has to ask our permission to go to another NRL team.
The question is were we allowed to do that, and if so, are the terms currently enforceable.

That's the interesting part - because the NRL evidently okayed our release conditions. One would imagine they have their own legal advisors when it comes to ratifying contracts and releases, etc.

 

[King-Gutho94]

I just hope they had a better ride to the stadium at least.

Well for most if not all the drive was longer then 7 mins.

Plus one even went home keeping 4k in his pocket.

 

[85 Baby]

Don't think that's technically a restraint.
Especially if he signed a contract we both need something from it.

Us telling him when he isn’t employed by us that he can’t be employed by someone else is absolutely a restraint. Even @Tiger5150 wouldn’t disagree with me.
Whether that restraint is allowable is the question.

 

[JokerEel]

Us telling him when he isn’t employed by us that he can’t be employed by someone else is absolutely a restraint. Even @Tiger5150 wouldn’t disagree with me.
Whether that restraint is allowable is the question.

No it's not. Especially if the reason he was leaving was due to him not wanting to play rugby league.
He restrained himself

 

[85 Baby]

That's the interesting part - because the NRL evidently okayed our release conditions. One would imagine they have their own legal advisors when it comes to ratifying contracts and releases, etc.

That’s a great point if only the result is embarrassment for them if they provided advice that it was fine

 

[85 Baby]

No it's not. Especially if the reason he was leaving was due to him not wanting to play rugby league.
He restrained himself

It’s just terminology, I’m not trying to conflate what’s legal/illegal. If we argue successfully and stop him playing for Scum without our consent, we’ve restrained him from plying his trade.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Where is the restraint though? We haven't said he can't play in the NRL just that we require a reasonable trade.

That is entirely out of his hands though. It’s hardly a fair condition.

 

[Avenger]

Not necesssarily.
In most RoT cases (at least in NSW) there is the option for the judge to apply a Reasonableness Test in which case it might be determined for example that the conditions of the release are valid, however the duration for which it applies is unreasonable. It might be that the judge says "Can't play NRL for 2026, but free agent for 2027 and beyond."

Spot on. I think this is likely and easily your best post in a decade.

 

[85 Baby]

That is entirely out of his hands though. It’s hardly a fair condition.

Whether it’s a fair condition on him is largely irrelevant though.

 

[TheCrowe]

I think the Vibe should be strongly considered by the judge. It appears he signed a R360 contract before being released then signed for Melbourne ignoring the conditions of release. He should be ruled to be a total merkin who should never be allowed back in the NRL.
You never go full Merkin.