[ToRDolo]

Huh, you're basing your entire defence of Avant's contract practice on an 'impression' from their standard contract template. Not just any template, but one which had Avant's responsibilities towards their players (which was Spartaz's primary concern and the one which Petrify brought up in his first post) removed... what ground are you trying to stand on here?

Also - contracts should be extremely black and white, that's why they tend to be wordy. So that every situation is clear cut. If they're wordy (as you and others have said about Avant's) and still not clear cut then there is something very, very wrong with the 'legal document'.

[EXCL]

Originally Posted by ToRDolo

Also - contracts should be extremely black and white, that's why they tend to be wordy. So that every situation is clear cut. If they're wordy (as you and others have said about Avant's) and still not clear cut then there is something very, very wrong with the 'legal document'.

Exactly - its called 'transparency'. From what I have read here it appears it certainly wasn't. Too many open ended or catch all clauses for Avant. I've also been involved in contractual development for the company I work within and the examples given so of what was in this contract are unreal.