Rumours and Stuff

[85 Baby]

Lomax is barred from playing or training with another club until February 12th, the date the court will likely decide if his release clause is legally binding.

It’s in everyone’s best interest to negotiate a deal or a player swap, especially since Parramatta isn't budging after the Storm stood their ground with a measly financial offer. Until then, Lomax is out in the cold, training solo like Rocky in the Siberian snow.

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

 

[85 Baby]

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

Zac can only click so many times

 

[Avenger]

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

Black Friday. Good luck, Zac.

 

[Eelementary]

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

I agree.

And I cannot fathom how the NRL allegedly felt they had a horse in this race - it's between a player, and two clubs.

I do not foresee a likely scenario in which the Eels lose.

 

[Eelementary]

Black Friday. Good luck, Zac.

Nah, he can go deep throat a cactus.

 

[T.S Quint]

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

Completely agree with this.
I will say though, not just those parties but also the fans want to see a judgement on this. I think a lot of them are sick of the contract shenanigans that go on every year and this is a boiling point of sorts.

I do think if the court eventually rules in Zac’s favour it will open up a can of worms that the players or clubs would not want, so there may be some parties involved in the NRL that might want to see this get sorted before a judgement is made.

 

[T.S Quint]

I agree.

And I cannot fathom how the NRL allegedly felt they had a horse in this race - it's between a player, and two clubs.

I do not foresee a likely scenario in which the Eels lose.

I think the NRL was just trying to act as a mediator to try and help the two clubs and Zac come to a compromise. I don’t think they were trying to force anyone to do anything at all.

As it stands they weren’t able to help either side come to a decision, so now they have to step back and let the courts do their thing. They may still be trying to help things by contacting other clubs to see if there is any interest in offering Parra compensation to take Zac on, but who knows.

 

[Chipmunk]

I do think if the court eventually rules in Zac’s favour it will open up a can of worms that the players or clubs would not want, so there may be some parties involved in the NRL that might want to see this get sorted before a judgement is made.

It's an unusual situation though, in that the validity of a playing contract is not being challenge. Rather a contract between two parties that is outside of the playing contract. So in that regard, I don't think it will open up a can of worms if Lomax wins, as the precedent will only be set for players who have a similar non-playing arrangement.

You would think no club will ever enter into a similar agreement again if Lomax wins though.

 

[Pazza]

At some point Zac is going to have to act like a man and stand by his decisions

 

[Twizzle]

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

17% were Storm fans

 

[85 Baby]

It's an unusual situation though, in that the validity of a playing contract is not being challenge. Rather a contract between two parties that is outside of the playing contract. So in that regard, I don't think it will open up a can of worms if Lomax wins, as the precedent will only be set for players who have a similar non-playing arrangement.

You would think no club will ever enter into a similar agreement again if Lomax wins though.

Or vice versa for players if he loses