The Rumours Thread

[Como Connection]

The Flanno podcast, (TFP) what can be gleaned as his general model is

Putting aside specific positional requirements he wants:

1. 1-2 Players as leaders.
2. 4 x Soo players.
3. Tradesman types
4. Young guns with energy.

He said the juniors were dripping with talent but need time to develop.

He said that when he arrived, the most concerning thing he noticed was the lack of leadership and he’s worked hard to remedy this.

His last point is something that I subscribe to and that is the importance of bringing the right people to the club.

Not just players, but staff and support.

And that can mean seemingly tough decisions, if you are going to use merit as the guiding light.

The interview itself was interesting, but it’s also impressive that he attended.

He had his ducks in a row re last seasons “excuses”, the number of close calls and ref decisions. But he acknowledges these could have been avoided.

Game plans etc are all tailored to the team you are playing, strengths and weaknesses.

He said his ambition this year was to be competitive and at least a finals birth is possible.

On the Lomax question, he was diplomatic but it’s clear he doesn’t want a bar of him.

He takes the red v and club honour stuff seriously. It’s obviously a critical foundation for the belief and effort he wants the players to adopt.

Less “me” and more “club.”

Phantom, I think that you should swap teams and join the Dragon Army.
CC

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Phantom, I think that you should swap teams and join the Dragon Army.
CC

Very kind gesture.

The army have given me cheek at games.

“There’s always one idiot at a game” was one of my favourite sledges aimed at me.

I smiled at them and kept going. Then they laughed even louder. I laughed back.

It was all a bit of fun, a bit of character and passion. You guys are mad!

 

[blacksafake]

If you don't get any enjoyment out of training, it would be a pretty hard profession.

Especially pre season

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

Flanno says he’s loves his job.

He loves the challenge of the big sides.

He ranked my favourite SGI game last season ( beating Melbourne) as third in his list.

He pointed out that you beat 7 of the top 8 sides with a less than glamorous roster. But he was unhappy with the foot going off the throttle against the lessor sides. He’s trying to get his head around that atm.

So I think it’s a mental thing as well.

Like everyone else, he is in total awe of Guthos personal commitment to the contest and his vision at fullback. He will start there, but the door is open for a trip north to the halves or centres.

I think Bunt talked about Gutho to the centres, but that was when he was in full deranged spite mode. Trying to attack Flanno via his kid. Even if there’s questions about the young Flanno sometimes, it was unnecessary and a dog act. One of plank leaders Flanno was indirectly referring to I suppose!

 

[getsmarty]

Six-figure offer rejected: NRL prepare to intervene in Storm-Eels Lomax stand-off

Six-figure offer rejected: NRL prepare to intervene in Storm-Eels Lomax stand-off

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[getsmarty]

Parra should stand Their Ground....when is a contract a contract ?

It's getting ridiculous.

 

[Trifili13]

Storm want a rep player, then they should swap for a rep player. A $200k transfer fee is useless to Parra.

 

[The Word]

Parra should stand Their Ground....when is a contract a contract ?

It's getting ridiculous.

The thing is, Parra don't want him now, and wouldn't be able to afford him as they've replaced him.

The simplest outcome is for the NRL to say to Parra either re-sign him on the contract that you're trying to hold him to or let him go. You can't have it both ways. I think you'll find Parra are not as smart as they think they are with these sorts of things. Will be interesting to see what the court says about this but I would argue that if Parra don't offer him his full contract back then any conditions they've placed on him will be invalid. The idea that they can not take him back and still demand players from other clubs is legally questionable in my opinion as I'm not sure the court would see that as reasonable.

 

[possm]

The thing is, Parra don't want him now, and wouldn't be able to afford him as they've replaced him.

The simplest outcome is for the NRL to say to Parra either re-sign him on the contract that you're trying to hold him to or let him go. You can't have it both ways. I think you'll find Parra are not as smart as they think they are with these sorts of things. Will be interesting to see what the court says about this but I would argue that if Parra don't offer him his full contract back then any conditions they've placed on him will be invalid. The idea that they can not take him back and still demand players from other clubs is legally questionable in my opinion as I'm not sure the court would see that as reasonable.

Lomax should be forced to pay out his Eels contract. In adition he should have to pay any fines imposed by the NRL. The NRL should hold the line and not register Lomax as a player until the date his Eels contract was to end.

 

[The Silverdale Phantom]

I thought the condition was that he can’t play nrl unless the eels actually approve.

And they’ve set their terms that he can’t meet.

It’s Lomaxs management fault for relying on third parties bullshite, he should sue them.

Not even the rlpa want a bar of this one.

 

[SEAT 1A]

Letting Lomax go was a good call in retrospect.

Sure, it effected our performance on the field but know it's not effecting the club.

Can't see why Parra have to fold however, the NRL want him back something will get sorted.

He's very lucky MEL is showing interest, but they don't have to move either.

 

[The Word]

Lomax should be forced to pay out his Eels contract. In adition he should have to pay any fines imposed by the NRL. The NRL should hold the line and not register Lomax as a player until the date his Eels contract was to end.

Why, the Eels agreed to release him? He didn't break his contract.

 

[since77]

The thing is, Parra don't want him now, and wouldn't be able to afford him as they've replaced him.

The simplest outcome is for the NRL to say to Parra either re-sign him on the contract that you're trying to hold him to or let him go. You can't have it both ways. I think you'll find Parra are not as smart as they think they are with these sorts of things. Will be interesting to see what the court says about this but I would argue that if Parra don't offer him his full contract back then any conditions they've placed on him will be invalid. The idea that they can not take him back and still demand players from other clubs is legally questionable in my opinion as I'm not sure the court would see that as reasonable.

I don't think you understand the terms of his release. Parra only released him on the proviso it was to pursue opportunities outside the NRL. Parra treated his request with quite a deal of good grace considering he wanted to ditch them after just one season. A clause was justifiably and sensibly put in to that release stating he could not play NRL for any other club until his Parra contract would have expired. Zac agreed to this only to act in bad faith after he discovered he'd shot himself in the foot like the moron he is.
Don't feel sorry for Lomax here. I'm dead set amazed at how much of the media I hear saying they feel sorry for Lomax. HE agitated for the release , in the same selfish pigheaded way he did at the Dragons - and then agreed to the terms. There is an old fashioned terms that goes - "You've made your bed, now lie on it" - unfortunately Zac will probably dishonorably weasel his way out of this because he, his lawyers and the NRL will bully a weaker team with a legally binding contract to benefit, surprise, surprise, the purple cheating scumlords.
It stinks to high heaven that the NRL are now pressuring Parramatta to condede ground on this matter. I rarely have a kind thought for Parra but they hold the high moral and legal ground here - and I hope they use it to get a solution that benefits them. They've lost an elite player who they had planned on being part of their roster until 2028 and are now supposed to just roll over because Zac decided he doesn't want to honour a legal agreement? How is that fair?

 

[getsmarty]

Why, the Eels agreed to release him? He didn't break his contract.

And the proviso was that he couldn't join another NRL club til 2029 if I remember correctly.

 

[The Word]

The point where the Eels should have stood up to him was when he first requested a release. If they wanted to keep him at that point they should have refused to release him and then sued him for breach of contract if he walked out. They didn't do that.

 

[The Word]

I don't think you understand the terms of his release. Parra only released him on the proviso it was to pursue opportunities outside the NRL. Parra treated his request with quite a deal of good grace considering he wanted to ditch them after just one season. A clause was justifiably and sensibly put in to that release stating he could not play NRL for any other club until his Parra contract would have expired. Zac agreed to this only to act in bad faith after he discovered he'd shot himself in the foot like the moron he is.
Don't feel sorry for Lomax here. I'm dead set amazed at how much of the media I hear saying they feel sorry for Lomax. HE agitated for the release , in the same selfish pigheaded way he did at the Dragons - and then agreed to the terms. There is an old fashioned terms that goes - "You've made your bed, now lie on it" - unfortunately Zac will probably dishonorably weasel his way out of this because he, his lawyers and the NRL will bully a weaker team with a legally binding contract to benefit, surprise, surprise, the purple cheating scumlords.
It stinks to high heaven that the NRL are now pressuring Parramatta to condede ground on this matter. I rarely have a kind thought for Parra but they hold the high moral and legal ground here - and I hope they use it to get a solution that benefits them. They've lost an elite player who they had planned on being part of their roster until 2028 and are now supposed to just roll over because Zac decided he doesn't want to honour a legal agreement? How is that fair?

I don't feel sorry for Lomax at all. I'm just saying that if Parra don't want to take him back then I believe the court will rule it unreasonable to not allow him to play for another club. I don't think anyone has seen the contract details apart from a select few so all these rumours about the release terms are heresay and sound a little far-fetched to me.

 

[SnowDragon]

The thing is, Parra don't want him now, and wouldn't be able to afford him as they've replaced him.

The simplest outcome is for the NRL to say to Parra either re-sign him on the contract that you're trying to hold him to or let him go. You can't have it both ways. I think you'll find Parra are not as smart as they think they are with these sorts of things. Will be interesting to see what the court says about this but I would argue that if Parra don't offer him his full contract back then any conditions they've placed on him will be invalid. The idea that they can not take him back and still demand players from other clubs is legally questionable in my opinion as I'm not sure the court would see that as reasonable.

Sorry, I think your wrong.

I’m not a Lomax hater. However, Parra released him on specific conditions. They didn’t get something to let him go, they just specified terms (in effect a non compete clause). They did this (I assume) since they wanted it sorted out to build their team without last minute changes since Lomax was making waves about leaving, but there is a big difference between him going to another sport and directly competing against them.

now I see the other view point, we like to retain our stars in the NRL, but Parra need to be compensated By the terms of the release.

that said, Parra clearly played dirty pool to get Lomax in the first place, but that’s just another example of contracts not being honoured. If you sign a player and want to release them, then you pay them out, or subsidised their contract elsewhere. If a player wants to leave he has to ask for a release under some terms. I think Lomax has gotten away with not honouring or compensating the dragons, and now wants the same with Parra.its shouldn't be allowed now or with the dragons.

 

[Trifili13]

The thing is, Parra don't want him now, and wouldn't be able to afford him as they've replaced him.

The simplest outcome is for the NRL to say to Parra either re-sign him on the contract that you're trying to hold him to or let him go. You can't have it both ways. I think you'll find Parra are not as smart as they think they are with these sorts of things. Will be interesting to see what the court says about this but I would argue that if Parra don't offer him his full contract back then any conditions they've placed on him will be invalid. The idea that they can not take him back and still demand players from other clubs is legally questionable in my opinion as I'm not sure the court would see that as reasonable.

The problem with what you are suggesting is that Parra has moved on and signed a replacement player and may not have the cap space to resign Lomax. You then say if that is the situation then they should let him go. What this does is then open the door to unscrupulous clubs and managers and players saying they have fallen out of love with league, get a release, then a month later saying they have changed their minds and want to return and their last club is left high and dry. If as reported Storm are offering a 200k transfer fee, it is of no use to Parra, they have lost a rep player and they are very difficult to replace.

I think Parra are being reasonable with Storm. They have listed 3 players they are happy to swap for. It's not as if they have said no or we will only swap with Munster or Grant who are the Storms key playmakers.

 

[since77]

I don't feel sorry for Lomax at all. I'm just saying that if Parra don't want to take him back then I believe the court will rule it unreasonable to not allow him to play for another

 

[The Word]

I'm not trying to argue his case. I'm saying that the court will not allow either Parra or the NRL to hold him to what they believe to be unreasonable conditions (not what you or I believe to be unreasonable). If he was asked to sign something to allow a release and it's later found to be unreasonable then it won't stand up. He was released for R360 which has been put back two years, no ones fault. So if you then prevent him from going back to work in the only industry he's ever known by placing overly onerous restrictions on him then I believe the court won't allow him to be restrained in that way. Just my opinion of how the law would work in these circumstances. But to be honest I don't care that much what happens to either him or Parra, they got what they deserved.