Melbourne Storm has intensified its efforts to secure the services of Zac Lomax, leading to a legal confrontation with the Parramatta Eels. The situation escalates as Lomax’s attempt to join the Storm for the 2026 season is scheduled to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court on March 2, 2026. The Eels maintain that Lomax was aware he needed their permission to play for another club in the NRL before the end of his contract in 2028.
The Eels released Lomax from his contract, which was valued at $700,000 per year, last November. This decision was made to support his intention to join the now-postponed breakaway rugby competition, R360. Since then, Melbourne has made three offers to Parramatta to allow Lomax to play this season, all of which have been declined. Their latest offer, presented this week, was for $300,000, including $211,000 in salary-cap relief.
Lomax’s chances of participating in the opening match against Parramatta are increasingly slim, as he is currently unable to train with the Storm due to the ongoing legal dispute. Court documents obtained by the Australian Associated Press reveal the details of the escalating conflict between Lomax and the Eels following his release.
A significant point of contention arises from claims made by Parramatta that Melbourne Chairman Matt Tripp recently discussed potential salary-cap sanctions with Parramatta’s Chairman Matthew Beach if the clubs failed to reach an agreement. Furthermore, Parramatta alleges that Melbourne CEO Justin Rodski contacted NRL CEO Andrew Abdo on January 21, requesting that he exert pressure on Parramatta to facilitate Lomax’s transfer. According to court documents, Rodski’s message read: “Hi Andrew, not getting anywhere at this point, can you apply the blow torch and get this done? Lomax staying in the NRL is obviously a win for the game.”
In response to these claims, Parramatta reached out to Abdo the following day to inquire about potential sanctions if an agreement could not be reached. Abdo reportedly denied any statements from the NRL regarding sanctions against the Storm.
Lomax intends to argue that his release from Parramatta included a clause stipulating that the Eels “would not unreasonably” withhold consent for him to join another team, suggesting there was an “implied term of good faith.” The 26-year-old further asserts that Parramatta was aware there was a possibility he could seek to return to the NRL with either them or another club before the expiration of his contract in 2028.
Parramatta contends that the circumstances surrounding Lomax’s exit have adversely affected their football department, as they were unable to recruit another player of his caliber on a three-season deal at that late stage of the year. Notably, Lomax’s exit did not prevent him from signing with rugby union or clubs outside the NRL.
Court documents reveal that Lomax received offers from Rugby Australia on December 19 and December 23 to join Super Rugby, but these offers were of lesser value than his previous rugby league contract. Following this, the Storm allegedly approached him without solicitation, leading to a “non-binding agreement” for him to join their ranks. The Eels assert that this prompted them to offer training and trial deals to Lomax earlier this month.
As this legal battle unfolds, the implications for both clubs, as well as Lomax’s career, remain significant. The outcome will not only determine Lomax’s immediate future but could also set a precedent regarding player transfers and the complexities of contract negotiations within the NRL.
