Rumours and Stuff

[emjaycee]

No contracts can't be broken because he changed his mind....

He has now agreed to 2 contracts at the Eels the first where he agreed to play for the club for 4 seasons. This where the club gets sponsored by companies with the knowledge Lomax will be at the club which will also be part of the trial btw..

The second contract he agreed to was departing the club as he did not want to play rugby league anymore so the club and he agreed on a new contract where he got something and where we also got something. That's typically how a contract works.

I have knowledge of a charity that, with the clubs permission, used Lomax's image in some material that they then had to reproduce at their cost, once he left.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Another piece of merch would be a mask of sorts people could wear at home during the proceedings:

in the likeness of most His most learned Honour Justice Kunc SC:


His Honour has a splendid list of remarkable accomplishments. First rate service to the profession in all facets. An intellectual giant.

If he can’t resolve the conundrum, nobody can.

Fair winds and God’s speed in your ardent deliberations your honour, for the eyes of the league are upon thee.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

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

I don’t think you can legally enter into a contract with no benefit to yourself.

 

[Stevie]

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.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It’s the fact that the courts WOULD agree that makes it irrelevant. It’s a “water is wet” point.

So he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and his legal advice is flat out wrong?

 

[Suitman]

I don’t think you can legally enter into a contract with no benefit to yourself.

You don't think?
So, you don't know.
Ok then.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You don't think?
So, you don't know.
Ok then.

We are all giving our opinions here. I understand you want certainty, but we just don’t know. It’ll be okay.

 

[Suitman]

We are all giving our opinions here. I understand you want certainty, but we just don’t know. It’ll be okay.

I don't want certainty.
However, I won't comment on uncertainty. Nor pretend to know all.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I don't want certainty.
However, I won't comment on uncertainty.

Fewer comments from you is definitely better. Less is more.

Nor pretend to know all.

You've most recently had a sook because I said "I don't think..." something. Hardly pretending I know everything. But keep up the personal criticism. It's a good use of your time.

 

[85 Baby]

So he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and his legal advice is flat out wrong?

No he doesn’t have to prove shit about it. His right to work is presumed

 

[JokerEel]

I don’t think you can legally enter into a contract with no benefit to yourself.

The benefit was ending his NRL contract with us.

 

[Jake the snake]

He had a Contract ot play in the NRL, for Parramatta. If Parramatta now doesnt allow him to play for Parramatta, or anyone else, I cant see how thats not a restraint of trade........unless he received massive consideration, which would then have to count under salary cap...(not THAT would be hilarious).

Thanks Perry Mason

 

[Stevie]

View attachment 109413

How the f**k are people not applauding me and losing their shit over this post?! I was crying in laughter when I posted this I thought it was gold!

 

[lingard]

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

I guess the point I am making is that, if the terms of Zac's release are deemed unfair, then isn't the NRL (as our 'boss') more culpable than we are? And shouldn't the NRL actually owe Parramatta something for effectively leading us astray?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The benefit was ending his NRL contract with us.

But it wasn't any benefit.

 

[JokerEel]

He had a Contract ot play in the NRL, for Parramatta. If Parramatta now doesnt allow him to play for Parramatta, or anyone else, I cant see how thats not a restraint of trade........unless he received massive consideration, which would then have to count under salary cap...(not THAT would be hilarious).

You seem very committed to your current level of understanding..

 

[Twizzle]

I guess the point I am making is that, if the terms of Zac's release are deemed unfair, then isn't the NRL (as our 'boss') more culpable than we are? And shouldn't the NRL actually owe Parramatta something for effectively leading us astray?

yeah, the 2009 trophy

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

But it wasn't any benefit.

But that’s not the clubs fault.

People enter into contracts against their best interests every second.

What their expectations are upon signing and what actually eventuates are often two different things.

 

[JokerEel]

But it wasn't any benefit.

Was a benefit to him. Hence why he wanted to break a 700k a season contract

 

[lingard]

it feels like this discussion has gone full circle 800 times...

how long before team list Tuesday?

Another few hundred circles?