Rumours and Stuff

[JokerEel]

Got Guss'd we all saw it coming when he signed.

 

[JokerEel]

I'm talking about the benefit to us.

Yes that contract

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Wasn’t that the discussed the other day? We didn’t replace anyone with anyone.

We sure did. Teams can only fit 30 merkins into the top 30 and 17 into the top 17 (or 19 into the top 19 now?) I'm sure we wouldn't have signed Kelly if Lomax was still here.

We have salary cap rules to abide by and we have to 30 players. We also have our own internal commitments to run a successful club as possible.
Lomax having sort a release and saying he’ll never return, can’t expect us to save a spot and some cash for him, and he certainly can’t expect it mere months after the release when he left us scrambling to fulfil obligations.

Maybe this is what he was counting on? That we would be unable to offer him his old roster spot back (and the accompanying cap space) due to the NRL salary cap rules. He may also be counting on the court not giving a f**k about our inability to take the player back at a reasonable price.

And something that hasn’t been discussed is if he returned, to what contract does he return? Is he expecting the one he just quit to be reinstated? Or having reportedly agreed to a contract with Scum for almost half that amount, would he allow us the same offer? Because regardless of the club’s personal or professional opinions about him, Lomax for $400k? Are you f**ken kidding me? Course we take him back.

Agreed. It's very exciting.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Then why doesn't he go do his job in Rugby same as you I guess he doesn't do it because that's what he wants to do...

Because rugby doesn't pay enough?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes that contract

Lomax's R360 contract was a benefit to the Parramatta Eels?

 

[JokerEel]

Lomax's R360 contract was a benefit to the Parramatta Eels?

I envy the people that haven't met you...

 

[Delboy]

We replaced him with Kelly plus a bunch of upgrades to other players.

Your assumptions to seem you have info are incorrect, the club still has ample cap room and doesn’t have to get to 95% until June and are comfortable waiting to see what shakes out from other clubs before any action on more upgrades.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Your assumptions to seem you have info are incorrect,

I don't pretend to have any info. I am investigating the logic that might underpin Lomax's argument, and therefore any judgement that might be in his favour. There is no inside info from anyone here. This is going to court (and costing a lot of money) because both sides think there is a chance the ruling will go in their favour. Anyone who tells you they know how it will end is either lying or just deluded.

the club still has ample cap room and doesn’t have to get to 95% until June and are comfortable waiting to see what shakes out from other clubs before any action on more upgrades.

I hope so.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I envy the people that haven't met you...

Merkin you haven't met me. Do you think I bother arguing about this sort of bullshit in real life? Real life isn't the place for it, LU is.

 

[lucablight]

Reed “I trust Gus” Mahoney

‘Complete rubbish’: Mahoney’s defiant Dogs contract claim and what he really thinks of Galvin

‘Sign me next week’: Mahoney opens up over next contract, what Galvin said on Dogs arrival

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

There is indeed 'a large body of law, which is ever evolving', and it is obvious that there are qualifiers that impact whether a contract can be enforced. One is 'fairness', which is a subjective standard: https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/contracts

If it’s raised, the court will decide if it’s fair. So subjective to His Honour lol.

The restraint of trade issue is interesting. I found the Act tonight.

I presume the cases will shed more light on the topic.

mmm.

 

[Pazza]

Got Guss'd we all saw it coming when he signed.

I hope this situation at the dogs continues to snowball, gonna be hillerious

 

[Eelementary]

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."

I'd be happy with that.

Prefer the court to enforce the 3 year non-compete, but I'd be happy with that.

 

[Eelementary]

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.

...nerd.

 

[Eelementary]

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.

They should send Merkinmax the bill.

 

[Eelementary]

Wasn’t that the discussed the other day? We didn’t replace anyone with anyone. We have salary cap rules to abide by and we have to 30 players. We also have our own internal commitments to run a successful club as possible.
Lomax having sort a release and saying he’ll never return, can’t expect us to save a spot and some cash for him, and he certainly can’t expect it mere months after the release when he left us scrambling to fulfil obligations.
And something that hasn’t been discussed is if he returned, to what contract does he return? Is he expecting the one he just quit to be reinstated? Or having reportedly agreed to a contract with Scum for almost half that amount, would he allow us the same offer? Because regardless of the club’s personal or professional opinions about him, Lomax for $400k? Are you f**ken kidding me? Course we take him back.

Absolutely not - can you imagine what he would do to team harmony, with the way he has conducted himself?

 

[Eel_fan_boy]

No but the dealership can't stop you selling it to someone else.

They could if you signed a contract to say you wouldn’t sell it if they gave you a discount on the price of purchase.

 

[Eel_fan_boy]

We sure did. Teams can only fit 30 merkins into the top 30 and 17 into the top 17 (or 19 into the top 19 now?) I'm sure we wouldn't have signed Kelly if Lomax was still here.

of course we would of signed Kelly. It’s been mentioned we were looking to improve our backs depth. The two things are not related.

 

[hindy111]

Yes it does. It wasn't our fault that there was no benefit in the end, but it wasn't Lomax's fault either. In this case, 'fault' is irrelevant.

So why did we agree to it in the first place?

Honestly you're being a f**kwit now.

 

[King-Gutho94]

Honestly you're being a f**kwit now.

Now ????