Disgruntled Dragons winger Zac Lomax may have to take a significant pay cut to realise his desire of playing in the centres for a rival NRL club.
St George Illawarra coach Shane Flanagan already proved last year he won’t roll over for players looking to leave when he rejected Ben Hunt’s release request as the new coach’s first order of business after arriving at the club.
It’s been confirmed Lomax asked for a release on the eve of this season after Flanagan moved him from centre to wing, but it was flatly denied.
The only place to watch every game of every round LIVE with no ad-breaks during play is Fox League, available on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial today >
Flanagan told Lomax – who is contracted until 2026 – he won’t be playing for anyone else this year, but is open to a potential early release if it suits the Dragons.
The Eels are keen on Lomax’s services but the fact he looks set to so easily break contract divided the NRL 360 panel on Wednesday night.
“He asked for a release before Round 1, he got his management to say to the Dragons that Zac’s not happy being selected on the wing, he wants to be in the centres so if he’s not going to be in the centres we’d like a release,” James Hooper said.
“The opposition clubs are queued up, Parramatta are the favourites. You’re allowed to talk but not allowed to make any formal offers.”
That triggered Paul Kent who said he’d had “a gut full” of clubs ignoring the NRL’s that stop contracted players being poached.
“What’s the point of talking to him if they can’t make him an offer,” Kent said.
“It’s rugby league, Paul. What planet have you been living on? It’s how it’s rolled for years,” Hooper responded.
Kent: Well that’s my issue because I’ve had a gut full of it. Seriously. Flanagan said we’ll review it after Round 4 but he definitely won’t be leaving this season. So the clubs have just ignored the anti-tampering rules and just moved in, the NRL have done nothing.”
Hooper: Since when have we taken the anti-tampering rules, in the fair dinkum department, seriously? Clubs are allowed to talk at any stage and yes if you can get proof that someone submitted a formal offer that they shouldn’t have, the NRL will come down and hit you. The Eels came through the front door and the Dragons said no, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s revisited after Round 4 given Lomax is on $800,000. They put him on fullback money many years ago, look to have a winger on that sort of money doesn’t really make sense in terms of the balance of the salary cap.
Souths & Chooks gear up for epic clash | 02:25
MORE NRL NEWS
LATE MAIL: Kevvie blow as Haas OUT, ‘terrific’ young gun gets big opportunity
POWER RANKINGS: Premiership dark horses emerge; stark draw reality for Bunnies
‘IN LIMBO’: A wild, full-circle NRL journey and the call that changed everything
‘NOT DISCUSSING IT’: Cleary shuts down questions as Panthers look set to lose star
He’s signed for next year and the year after that so what it does allow them to do is get active in the market and Shane Flanagan wants middle forwards at the moment. If you look at the way Flanno has done business since he’s been there, Luciano Leilua deal is a good example, he’ll play hardball, he won’t roll over and say ok we’ll chuck in $200k as well. Maybe Zac Lomax has got to be willing to take a haircut if he wants to play in the centres (at another club).
Kent: What I find unusual is how casual Saints have been, and in some respects I think it’s good, how casually they’re handling the fact he wants to leave the club.
Hooper: But is there any point having a player at your club who doesn’t want to be there and is on that much money?
Kent: They’ve got nobody to replace him with, you’d rather have Zac Lomax there instead of some bloke coming up who has only played eight games of state cup. There’s no like for like so you might as well keep him there.
Hooper: I think he’ll stay there this year but I don’t think he’ll be there next year.
Discussion about this post