Melbourne’s pursuit of Zac Lomax could prove more costly than expected if the NRL deems the club’s promise to cover the exiled winger’s legal bills should be included in the Storm’s salary cap.
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.
Former Eels star Zac Lomax.Credit: Getty Images
Lomax’s hopes of making his Melbourne debut against former club Parramatta in the opening round have been thwarted after his court hearing was scheduled to end a day after the AAMI Park clash.
According to court documents made available last week, the Eels claim the Storm indemnified Lomax’s court expenses.
“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 stated in one of their submissions.
In their written response, the Storm confirmed the arrangement.
That deal has piqued the interest of several NRL clubs, who are watching the potential salary-cap implications. Given the quality of the legal teams engaged on both sides, the five-day hearing and the ongoing work already completed, each side’s costs are expected to reach six figures. Several sources contacted by this masthead, not authorised to speak publicly given the matter remains before the courts, estimated they could potentially exceed $250,000 for each party.
Even if Lomax won the court case and was awarded costs, it’s likely Parramatta wouldn’t be ordered to pay more than two-thirds of his legal bill. That would leave the Storm to pick up the remainder, a payment that could raise the interest of the NRL’s salary-cap auditor.
The NRL won’t make any determinations until the matter is resolved in court. The NRL, Parramatta and the Storm were contacted for comment.
Regardless of the court result, the NRL will need to determine whether the offer to cover legal bills was an inducement that gave the Storm a potential signing advantage over rival clubs, and whether it should fall into the Storm’s cap.
Should that be the case, and if the cost wasn’t budgeted for, it could have an adverse impact on Storm’s roster management.
Melbourne chairman Matt Tripp and Eels counterpart Matthew Beach recently met in a bid to break the impasse, with informed sources claiming the Storm were prepared to pay $211,000 in salary-cap money to take Ryan Matterson off Parramatta’s books. That figure, aside from the money put aside to sign Lomax, is said to have taken the Storm’s available salary-cap space to about zero for 2026. Melbourne also offered a further $89,000 in cash as a sweetener, but the parties couldn’t come to terms.
There could be another issue for the salary-cap auditor to consider. Informed sources state that Melbourne broached with head office whether Parramatta’s control over the future of Lomax has a benefit to the western Sydney club that should result in a salary-cap figure being ascribed to it.
The court will ultimately decide whether Lomax entered into a binding release agreement with the Eels and whether there has been an unlawful restraint of trade.
In a document tendered to the court, the Storm claims “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, meanwhile, claim in documents tendered to the court that 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.”
Most Viewed in Sport
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: www.smh.com.au
