View Single Post
06-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,384
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by GHOSTofMAROONSroad View Post
I guess it's arguable given that the loans to Boots were made by owners of member clubs and not the clubs themselves, but the loans did appear to at least violate the spirit of sub-Article 8.1 (b):

Actually, that is completely 100% incorrect with respect to that provision.

8.1(b) says, in its entirety:

(b) No member shall, directly or indirectly, loan money to or become a surety or guarantor for a player of any other member of the League.

That provision refers to loans to players. I assume that you must have misread the provision and confused "player of" with "player or".

I must add that, regardless of the constitution, non-disclosure by Leipold/Anschutz was not cool, but I just wanted to clarify the point and correct you on your reference to that paragraph.

GSC2k2* is offline