What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Zac Lomax

the phantom menace

the phantom menace

Coach
Messages
15,831
Stagger eel said:
in all honesty if that happened they wouldn’t survive the public backlash, they would be best to try and distance themselves publicly whilst trying to bring all parties together at the table.
Click to expand...
And telling Zac and the Storm that they are dreaming about Lomax playing in 2026 - unless they stump up a deal worth us actually considering to consent under the terms of release.
 
hineyrulz

hineyrulz

Post Whore
Messages
158,745
Gronk said:
Analogy: your girlfriend says she needs time away. Needs to go overseas. Needs to finds herself. Has a job offer. ☹️

Two months later: Job fell through. She’s with your best mate. Why are you being such a jerk ?
Click to expand...
Classic monkey branching.
 
85 Baby

85 Baby

Juniors
Messages
2,361
Gronk said:
Fox Sports
www.foxsports.com.au

Fresh Storm salary cap headache emerges in Lomax legal battle as $250k bill looms

Fresh Storm salary cap headache emerges in Lomax legal battle as $250k bill looms
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au
Fresh Storm salary cap headache emerges in Lomax legal battle ...
Click to expand...
I thought they were only indemnifying him if he lost? And therefore probably wouldn’t be able to sign him thus having a better argument that it shouldn’t go against cap, given he wouldn’t be playing for them?

They did make interesting counterpoint that if we retain the rights to him, should that have some impact to our cap? I would argue that our situation arises before the NRL could determine it to be a possibility and that a moratorium should be in place, but post the Lomax decision, I see it as possibility.

The NRL are discussing the impact regardless of the decision on the next CBA discussions. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a big push for assignable contracts (aka trades), but with it will be bigger push for salary cap increases. Every major sports league has gone through this at some point.
 
TheParraboy

TheParraboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,461
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



The Storm’s pursuit of Zac Lomax could come with an extra salary cap headache after they allegedly made a promise to the gun winger ahead of his legal battle.

The Eels started legal proceedings against their former star winger, with the club pushing to enforce the terms of his release from his NRL contract, which had four years left to run.

Following the end of the 2025 season, Parramatta bosses allowed Lomax to walk to take up a contract with R360, which was delayed as he began negotiations with the Storm.

However, included in his release was a clause that he was unable to sign with a rival NRL club until the end of 2028, unless the Eels gave their consent.

Storm and Eels bosses were previously negotiating a deal for the gun winger to land in Melbourne, which fell flat, a now their pursuit could have further cap ramifications.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Parramatta are claiming the Storm promised to cover Lomax’s legal expenses — with several NRL clubs watching on as a potential salary cap headache looms.

“On or around 13 January 2026, or alternatively a time thereafter, the Melbourne Storm agreed to pay the legal costs of Mr Lomax to defend proceedings commenced by the Parramatta Eels against Mr Lomax to enforce the Deed of Release,” the Eels’ court documents read.

The cost of Lomax’s legal bill is reportedly expected to his six figures, with the potential to sit around $250,000.

Should Lomax win the court case, the Eels are unlikely to be ordered to foot his full legal costs — leaving a portion left over to be paid by the Storm.

The NRL will then have to make a decision as to whether those funds gave Melbourne an advantage in their bid to sign Lomax, and therefore come under their cap.

The Storm reportedly do not have any cap space left should their Lomax deal be approved, meaning they could have a roster debacle on their hands.

Overall, the court will have to decide whether the Eels have been unlawful in their restraint of allowing Lomax to sign elsewhere, and whether he entered into a binding release agreement.

The Storm, according to documents tendered to the court, also claimed the following: “The Parramatta Eels knew at all times that there was a prospect that from the date of entry into the Deed of Release and prior to 31 October 2028 there [was the prospect of Lomax] seeking to return as a player to the Parramatta Eels or another club within the NRL.”

The Eels, however, claimed there was “an expectation that Mr Lomax would consult and negotiate in good faith and consider all potential options available to him to play in the NRL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top