It's actually a very cogent, thoughtful and persuasive article, that makes some excellent points. However, you've determined to wash over those points with the glib argument bolded above, and have made to attempt to grapple with their substance. And you have done so because they are obviously inconvenient to the position you've clearly chosen to adopt, which is to prosecute the case against Melbourne, come what may.
And you can't even do that well, because the argument you've used is nonsense. It's quite extraordinary.
I don't think a loophole means what you think it does.
From Wikipedia:
A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically in a variety of circumstances, including taxes, elections, politics, the criminal justice system, or in breaches of security.
Ambiguity. Ie, it's not clearly wrong. Ie, it's not clearly cheating. The 'tanking' issue is an ambiguity which just about every club with the opportunity to obtain a PP has chosen to exploit, with no consequences except for now. And people don't get charged for exploiting a loophole - that's why it's called a loophole.
Since you've used the tax example, have a think, if you can, about the difference between tax minimisation and tax avoidance. One might quite easily say that tax minimisation is against the spirit of the underpinning objectives of tax law. And it is - but that doesn't make it unlawful. Completely apposite to the tanking debate I would have thought.
If there is a loophole in the laws of the game then Melbourne hasn't cheated' - which is, of course, the conclusion you simply (and I mean simply) assume.
So thanks for actually arguing for Melbourne