Official 2026 NRL General Discussion

Sharks NRL Prospects said:
In his 4.5 years as coach Fitzgibbon hasn't moved a contracted player except for the two guys who initiated it (Hunt and Tracey).

If Lomax is potentially being added to the squad, maybe a Hiroti/Stonestreet/Vea'ila sees the writing on the wall and thinks maybe there is more game time at Parra on offer in 2026 than there will be at the Sharks, or if Parra sign some other off contract player to a multi-year deal and ask to have them go early you entertain it - but that's about it.

Fitz isn't putting a contracted NRL player or top prospect on the trade block unless the player initiates it. That's a well known culture killer.

Lomax to play wing in place of Ronnie on a 1 year contract if it only costs the Sharks some depth players? Yes please... but unlikely.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd love this but it ain't happening, Parra have made their stance very clear in relation to what they want in return.
 
Sharks NRL Prospects said:
In his 4.5 years as coach Fitzgibbon hasn't moved a contracted player except for the two guys who initiated it (Hunt and Tracey).

If Lomax is potentially being added to the squad, maybe a Hiroti/Stonestreet/Vea'ila sees the writing on the wall and thinks maybe there is more game time at Parra on offer in 2026 than there will be at the Sharks, or if Parra sign some other off contract player to a multi-year deal and ask to have them go early you entertain it - but that's about it.

Fitz isn't putting a contracted NRL player or top prospect on the trade block unless the player initiates it. That's a well known culture killer.

Lomax to play wing in place of Ronnie on a 1 year contract if it only costs the Sharks some depth players? Yes please... but unlikely.
Click to expand...
Doubt Hiroti or CV would be an option at all as both are contracted elsewhere fo 2027 onwards. Parra wont want either as a stop gap especially with Pezet already the same.

They will want a potential long term quality replacement. Ramien probably the best we can offer
 
Proud Shark said:
100% No one is getting pushed out.

But a conversation may occur where we are interested in Zac, and Parra are welcomed to engage in some positive talks with some of guys off contract this year, with the knowledge we'd be open to letting them move early if it all worked out.

Parra go and chat to Ramien and BHU and say we've got 3 year deals for you both, but it needs to be from this season, are you interested? Etc etc.
Click to expand...
That's a scenario I can get behind.
 
Sharks NRL Prospects said:
In his 4.5 years as coach Fitzgibbon hasn't moved a contracted player except for the two guys who initiated it (Hunt and Tracey).

If Lomax is potentially being added to the squad, maybe a Hiroti/Stonestreet/Vea'ila sees the writing on the wall and thinks maybe there is more game time at Parra on offer in 2026 than there will be at the Sharks, or if Parra sign some other off contract player to a multi-year deal and ask to have them go early you entertain it - but that's about it.

Fitz isn't putting a contracted NRL player or top prospect on the trade block unless the player initiates it. That's a well known culture killer.

Lomax to play wing in place of Ronnie on a 1 year contract if it fits under the cap and only costs the Sharks some depth players? Yes please... but unlikely.
Click to expand...
I think Ramien still fits (your) Fitz's criteria.
With only one year left on his contract I'm sure he would take up an offer elsewhere immediately if it had an extra 2-3 years in it. With ours and the rest of the clubs blessings.
 
Sparkles said:
I think Ramien still fits (your) Fitz's criteria.
With only one year left on his contract I'm sure he would take up an offer elsewhere immediately if it had an extra 2-3 years in it. With ours and the rest of the clubs blessings.
Click to expand...
100% an i think it woukd work great for us that we dont get in some media debacle of “ramien wants out” or whatever.

Lomax would be an onfield upgrade to ramien but i dunno what it means for MC. You get lomax and lose him, then lomax leaves too youre ****ed
 
BlackWhiteBlue said:
100% an i think it woukd work great for us that we dont get in some media debacle of “ramien wants out” or whatever.

Lomax would be an onfield upgrade to ramien but i dunno what it means for MC. You get lomax and lose him, then lomax leaves too youre ****ed
Click to expand...
Lomax on a wing?
 
Parramatta claims it refused to be “steamrolled” in coming to a resolution with Zac Lomax after knocking back a $750,000 transfer fee offer and a final attempt to offload Ryan Matterson to Melbourne went awry.

The parties still came to an out-of-court settlement on Tuesday, with Melbourne effectively paying $250,000 worth of Parramatta’s legal fees in exchange for Lomax being able to return to the NRL in 2028 – 12 months earlier than the original release agreement that he struck with the Eels.

Sources speaking on the condition of anonymity due to commercial sensitivities have told this masthead the Storm had agreed to also sign Matterson, in a bid to end the impasse.

Informed sources said the Storm’s latest offer was to pay the remainder of Matterson’s 2026 contract – worth approximately $416,000 on the salary cap – as well as a further $300,000 in cash to the blue and golds. Under the proposal, Lomax would have made his Storm debut later in the season, given Melbourne didn’t have the salary cap space required to take Matterson and pay the winger’s full freight.

The parties agreed, only for Matterson – whose future is clouded after suffering concussion symptoms – to decide he didn’t want to transfer to Melbourne. The Storm also offered a $750,000 transfer fee, but ultimately Parramatta knocked it back because it couldn’t be used to strengthen its football department.

“Frankly, for us this was never about Zac not playing in the NRL,” Parramatta chief executive Jim Sarantinos said after the court dispute was resolved.

“This was always about doing it in the right way. And we’re completely open to working with Zac and his agent, whereby if they find a home and that results in the right football outcome for us, we won’t stand in the way of that deal.

“I think we’ve demonstrated through this process we’re not going to be steamrolled.”

www.smh.com.au

‘Won’t be steamrolled’: Eels knock back Storm’s last attempts to do a Lomax deal

Not even the prospect of a $750,000 payday was enough to tempt Parramatta to allow Zac Lomax to play for the Melbourne Storm.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au
Click to expand...
 
BlackWhiteBlue said:
100% an i think it woukd work great for us that we dont get in some media debacle of “ramien wants out” or whatever.

Lomax would be an onfield upgrade to ramien but i dunno what it means for MC. You get lomax and lose him, then lomax leaves too youre ****ed
Click to expand...
Yep. Would depend on how long Lomax signed for. You could probably do two years so it still leaves him the chance of joining R360. That should work for our younger crop.

Pity Melbourne or the Eels didn't check with me before it got messy. I would only have taken $100k or so to sort it out
 
2 year offer for Lomax - offer them either Hiroti & Uele plus $$ or Ramien in a straight swap.

I can't stand Lomax but imo a player like him makes us one seriously dangerous team. He is the x factor our side has been desperately needing for years.
 
Also, its been mentioned the club has been trying to release Ramien for 18+ months now.
He won't be here next season 100% so offer him to chance to take up a long-term deal now elsewhere (which he will take).
 
Gumby said:
Also, its been mentioned the club has been trying to release Ramien for 18+ months now.
He won't be here next season 100% so offer him to chance to take up a long-term deal now elsewhere (which he will take).
Click to expand...
You've got to ask yourself though, would Parra be prepared to offer Ramien a 3 year deal on decent money? He's almost certain to have opportunities from Perth/PNG. So he won't be keen to go there for one additional year to what he already has.
 
Gumby said:
2 year offer for Lomax - offer them either Hiroti & Uele plus $$ or Ramien in a straight swap.

I can't stand Lomax but imo a player like him makes us one seriously dangerous team. He is the x factor our side has been desperately needing for years.
Click to expand...
Reckon they've made it clear they expect a rep player in return, someone like Hiroti ain't going to cut it.
 
HaroldBishop said:
Reckon they've made it clear they expect a rep player in return, someone like Hiroti ain't going to cut it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like from the article you posted they were okay with creating cap space through losing Matterson. I think they are more flexible than that, but agree it won't be for Hiroti on a 1 year deal.
 
Sparkles said:
I think Ramien still fits (your) Fitz's criteria.
With only one year left on his contract I'm sure he would take up an offer elsewhere immediately if it had an extra 2-3 years in it. With ours and the rest of the clubs blessings.
Click to expand...
If it is player driven then it’s possible.

There are no legitimate reports that Fitzgibbon has ever initiated a move to release an under contract player.

Ramien reports are his agent trying to secure a multi year deal elsewhere with a possibility of an early release. Not club driven.

Just because Ramien may not be re-signed and is the current fan whipping boy it doesn’t mean the club is actively trying to get rid of him mid-contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top