Official 2026 NRL General Discussion

The issue is whether Lomax actually signed anything, legally binding, agreeing to not sign with any other NRL club until 2028.

If such a document exists, that's a tough one to legally overturn?
 
bort said:
The release was contingent on the non-compete though.
The non-compete was absolutely core to the release - the release does not happen without it.
And Parra's lawyers probably should be competent enough to know in advance if it will hold up.

In very loose look online (and yes, asking chatgpt :ROFLMAO: ) maybe it would be scrapped though.
It does say

Only enforceable if they are:
- Reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest
- Limited in time, geography, and scope
- Supported by adequate consideration

Courts are especially hostile to restraints that:
- Stop someone earning a living in their sole profession
- Apply to elite athletes with short careers

I'd say the above are (in order of points) questionable (it's not in Parra's business interest to release him for inadequate compensation), true (he can sign in SL now, or in NRL in a couple years) and true (both parties considered the situation)
It doesn't stop him earning a living in his sole profession, as a professional sports person he has other offers. However the last one obviously is true.

It does also see being forced into another code as a difficult to enforce though... despite that being literally why he agree to it in the first place...

He was greedy and should pay the consequences. The courts shouldn't let him off. Workers should have rights of course but he opted out of his in this instance.

I like watching Lomax play and want him in the NRL but he is in the wrong and if there are consequences he should wear them.
Click to expand...
I agree he should be forced to abide by the agreement but it's a toss up when it gets to court. If the beak thinks Parra is being unreasonable it won't go well for them despite what should be a clearly understood and agreed contract.
 
Born&bred said:
The issue is whether Lomax actually signed anything, legally binding, agreeing to not sign with any other NRL club until 2028.

If such a document exists, that's a tough one to legally overturn?
Click to expand...
Seems he signed something in the vicinity of to not negotiate with another NRL club until 2028 without Parras permission.

If it was negotiate he’s already breached it. If it was sign he just wants to breach it.
 
Chopper said:
I agree he should be forced to abide by the agreement but it's a toss up when it gets to court. If the beak thinks Parra is being unreasonable it won't go well for them despite what should be a clearly understood and agreed contract.
Click to expand...
Yeah and don’t really know what the court would rule but the general public (and Lomax when he agreed to it) consensus is it’s reasonable
 
It would be interesting to know more about this.

Sources speaking on the condition of anonymity because the matter is before the courts told this masthead that Lomax’s handlers raised the prospect of him returning to the club that had only just released him in November of last year. The Eels had no appetite to welcome Lomax back so soon after requesting a release, privately suspecting it was a cynical ploy that could be raised should the matter end up in court – as it now has.

www.smh.com.au

Lomax attempted to backflip and return to Eels after R360 move fell through

Just months after securing a release from Parramatta, Zac Lomax floated the prospect of a return to the Eels.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
 
Hopefully this sets a good precedent if / when R360 rears it ugly head again in a few years time.
 
Sparkles said:
He could get a third party from our development company... they're both totally unreliable and overpriced
Click to expand...
Hope for his sake there's no clause that he can only start after the Leagues Club is complete. Might be quicker to sit out the next three years!
 
What's the rule on this? I'm assuming say we play a Thursday or Friday night game, any player on the 6 man bench that didn't play can then play for Jets on the weekend?
 
HaroldBishop said:
What's the rule on this? I'm assuming say we play a Thursday or Friday night game, any player on the 6 man bench that didn't play can then play for Jets on the weekend?
Click to expand...
Be the same as 18th man you’d think so yeah. Funnily you could play both in a weekend if you came off the bench in first grade. Not sure if there’s other conditions though
 
HaroldBishop said:
What's the rule on this? I'm assuming say we play a Thursday or Friday night game, any player on the 6 man bench that didn't play can then play for Jets on the weekend?
Click to expand...
Current rule would still apply - which is that you can't start in the NRL and then appear in NSW Cup afterwards on the same weekend. There is currently no rule prohibiting players 14-17 from appearing in NSW Cup. It just doesn't happen very often.

You can go the other way though. A player could play 2 full games by starting in Cup first and then getting called into the NRL team late (Leutele did it in 2012). The only restriction there is that there is a mandatory amount of time between appearances (2-3 hours I believe) in case the player gets an undetected concussion in the earlier game. A few hours should be enough for the symptoms to show up.

In practice what most teams do is pull a guy at half time in the Cup game if they think he may be needed in the NRL. With warm ups etc. I believe that takes them past the 2+ hours.

Also - the mandatory time rule is in effect for all Rugby League games u16 and above. I've seen it bite junior teams in the a$$ when they need a few extra players on the bench but the "B" team played immediately beforehand so they are not allowed to use them.
 
Last edited:
Sharks NRL Prospects said:
You can go the other way though. A player could play 2 full games by starting in Cup first and then getting called into the NRL team late (Leutele did it in 2012). The only restriction there is that there is a mandatory amount of time between appearances (2-3 hours I believe) in case the player gets an undetected concussion in the earlier game. A few hours should be enough for the symptoms to show up.
Click to expand...
Thanks, didn't realise this bit.
 
Dumb change with penalties only given in the 20m zone, not 40m anymore

In fact 6 again is just dumb, get rid of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top