re: Regarding the Chavis contract...

quote:

---

So, as you can see, it was simply clarification of the dates to mean the beginning of the month to the end of the month, or visa versa. Neither of which have anything to do the breech of contract.

---

It was everything to do with what Chavis views as a breech of contract. He can argue that the first statement implies he's free from his contract exactly a certain amount of months (perhaps a month is defined as 30 days earlier) from when it was enacted. In other words the version he held may have released him in the middle of the calendar month, while the amended version held him til the end of the calendar month.

That's a huge difference when you're talking about a matter of a few weeks that he was out recruiting for aTm while according to LSU's version he was still under contract. It literally is the entire issue.