NRL dragged into Lomax legal stoush against Eels

The NRL has been dragged into the Zac Lomax legal stoush after Parramatta issued an urgent subpoena to obtain documents relating to head office’s involvement in the matter.

Parramatta began legal proceedings to prevent Lomax from joining the Storm, given his release from a four-year contract was contingent on the Eels providing written consent. The Blues winger was granted a release to join rebel rugby competition R360, but has been left in limbo after its inaugural season was put back until 2028.

The Eels enjoyed a mini victory ahead of next week’s hearing by ensuring Melbourne chairman Matt Tripp has to testify in person, rather via video link. Lawyers acting for the blue and golds have now requested the NRL hand over all information relating to its involvement in the Lomax saga.

Parties are normally given two weeks to comply with subpoena requests, but the NRL will be required to provide materials to the court by Friday. There is then expected to be legal argument on Monday as to whether they are admissible at the hearing.

Parramatta powerbrokers privately believe the NRL has sided with Melbourne in the matter.

In explosive documents tendered to the Supreme Court, it was revealed Storm chief executive Justin Rodski allegedly sent a text message to NRL CEO Andrew Abdo stating: “Hi Andrew, not getting anywhere at this point, can you apply the blow torch on parramatta [sic] to get this done.”

Rodski added: “Lomax staying in the NRL is obviously a win for the game.”

According to a document tendered to the court by the Eels: “This message was an attempt to use the NRL to place pressure on the Parramatta Eels to resolve the matter on terms acceptable to the Melbourne Storm.

“During negotiations, this communication was not disclosed by the Melbourne Storm to the Parramatta Eels. It is not known whether any other communications have occurred between the NRL and the Melbourne Storm concerning the placing of pressure or otherwise on the Parramatta Eels to accept offers made by the Melbourne Storm.”

The Eels also alleged that in a phone call between Tripp and Eels counterpart Matthew Beach on January 13, the latter again rejected a $200,000 transfer fee.

“During the telephone call, Mr Tripp referred to the possibility of punitive steps being taken by the NRL against Parramatta Eels in relation to its salary cap if Parramatta Eels did not agree to the proposal being put forward by the Melbourne Storm,” according to a document the Eels tendered to the court.

“This assertion by the Melbourne Storm was intended or had the tendency to exert pressure on the Parramatta Eels in circumstances where the NRL had never communicated such a stance to the Parramatta Eels.”

The Eels raised the assertion in writing on January 22 with Abdo, who denied the NRL had made such a statement to the Storm.

ARLC chairman Peter V’landys has publicly supported Lomax, raising concerns about his mental state and claimed the star winger has copped a public pile-on akin only to that endured by Latrell Mitchell.

“I know the character of the bloke, he’s a good person,” V’landys told this masthead earlier this month, pointing to charity work he had undertaken.

In court on Tuesday, the barrister acting for the Eels, Arthur Moses, said it was appropriate Tripp should have to provide his evidence in person.

“Mr Tripp is not only a witness in this case, he is a central player in respect of this saga,” Moses said.

“He is the one who of course who made the initial contact with Parramatta in respect of Mr Lomax going across to the Storm.

“He is the one who has given comfort to Mr Lomax by having the Melbourne Storm not only reach an agreement with him, in respect of him playing for the Storm subject to contractual terms, but also indemnifying him in respect of the restraint that is now being said is invalid weeks after he and his lawyers not only assisted in the drafting of it, but agreed to its terms.

“He is a strategist behind the matter. He is not a witness – we say he is an actor in respect to this. He has a big part …

“Mr Tripp looms large in respect of the matter. His credibility is at issue in respect to the proceedings.”