I don't know the situation with Sabo, but usually in South America the players are like indentured servants - someone always owns your economic rights even if you are "out of contract". Therefore there is a fee associated with acquiring a player - always. I suspect this may be true for Sabo as well. I thought I heard that his rights are currently co-owned by Sion (through loan agreement from Saprissa), but after that they will revert to solely Saprissa. Again - I don't have any specific knowledge of this, but this was my impression of Sabo's situation. Not exactly. Espindola's rights were still owned by a 3rd party. We arranged another loan for him, and at the end of that loan negotiated a buyout. His voyage to Venezuela, may or may not have impacted the price - I'm not sure. The issue with Espy is that he went to Venezuela as a hired gun - and was offered a huge contract to do so. Turns out the club had financial problems, and last I heard he still hadn't been paid everything he was owed.
This brings up one of the most unsavory aspects of soccer in the world: the indentured servant aspect of it for many South American and African players. I was appalled at the treatment of young Africans whose families are conned out of money to have their child taken to Europe in hopes of becoming the next Drogba or Essien, only to be abandoned when nobody bites. The player is still, technically, indentured to an 'agent.' But, the reality is the agent has abandoned them and they have no means to live or get home. They often turn to crime, prostitution, drug dealing, etc to get by. They don't realize that the system is not that way for other players and that they don't have to sign those contracts. The way things are in the African nations, clubs start putting kids under contract in their early teens and pre-teen years and trade them like cattle. They often lie about their age to be able to leave the country. I think FIFA needs to step in and say that no kid under age 16 can enter into a contract to play for anyone, and those between 16 and 18 must have the signature of a parent. It wouldn't stop all the abuse, but it might be a starting point. It is human trafficking, plain and simple. I learned about this watching Current TV's Soccer's Lost Boys. http://current.com/shows/vanguard/blog/92469686_soccers-lost-boys-vanguard-trailer.htm
hehe... I think this might be a bit over-dramatic. Being abandoned/cut-loose/set free is the opposite of against-your-will/indentured/etc. The problem isn't human trafficking even if it's cold-blooded. The parents/players all go in knowing the risks but they choose to ignore them in the hopes of a better life/lots of money. Again, being abandoned is the opposite of being indentured. Clubs trade players actively but that doesn't mean they are traded "like cattle" - unlike cattle they get paid and they can leave whenever they want... and they never wind up on someone's plate. The only thing being promised/played/negotiated/traded is the RIGHT to play soccer professionally and that is because that person is TAKING MONEY to hand over that right to someone else. Later, finding out that you made a bad deal in negotiating away your right to play soccer professionally doesn't mean you are enslaved anymore than when I sign a contract, take payment, I'm expected to provide the goods/service I took payment for. Poor decisions by people does not make this slave trading or human trafficing or cattle trading... even if Christiano Ronaldo and Sepp Blatter say so (after pocketing all the cash). Finally, no 16 year old can alone bind himself to a legally enforceable contract in the EU (or US) without a guardian's signature. If you want to protect 16 year olds whose parents co-sign bad soccer contracts (since the minor can't do it legally alone) then you should work for legislation to protect kids from stupid parents... but that's another can of worms - one man's "stupid" is another man's "genius" and until you turn 18 you better hope your parents aren't too stupid.
I'm pretty sure extreme poverty and desperation play a part in it as well... Back on topic, if I understand MLS's rules right (fat chance), is Sabo becoming a DP the only way that RSL would be allowed to pay a transfer fee for him? If so, then it would seem that in the best interest of the team as it stands, the only two options are hoping Sion and Saprissa are both lenient, and going without Sabo next season until after the Gold Cup (which would be a considerable hit to RSL's chances in the CCL knockout round, should you guys make it [no jinx here ]).
No, he wouldn't have to be a DP in order to pay a transfer fee. We have paid a transfer fee (or a loan buyout - essentially the same thing) for several players in recent years, and they haven't been DP's. The loan buyout for Sabo would likely be spread over 3 or 4 years, and might be "bought down" by allocation dollars. Example: $500,000 buyout $200,000 allocation money used buying it down to $300,000 The remaining $300,000 spread over 3 years = $100,000/year Sabo's salary = $275,000/year. Salary cap hit = $375,000/year ($100,000 + $275,000)
I didnt put those 2 together. With MLS not taking a break next year for the Gold Cup, we will miss Sabo for (likely) a good chunk of time ******** you good international players
if davies is healthy (which he should be) i highly doubt that who says Findley will be in an RSL kit by that time... If you ask me, Findley is a bigger question mark than Sabo right now
If Saborio's contract with Sion is up in June 2011, would we need to pay a transfer fee? He could sign a new contract with RSL in January, and then I think it would make more sense to just wait those first few months for his Sion contract to end, rather than to pay $1 million. At that point, Sion will know that they can't get any value out of him except for what RSL would be willing to pay. In other words, I think we'd be looking at the Yura situation in reverse. If his rights are held by a third party, though, that might complicate things. But Sion itself won't be in a position to demand much money for an expiring contract. This ain't the NBA.
we need this guy for the KO stages... which just happens to be at the worst time in terms of this contract/loan discussion. Is Uncle Dave and Co willing (and able) to shell out the cash just to have him for a couple more games?
Heh...and what happens then if you guys win the group, then get drawn to play Saprissa in the quarterfinals? I'd love to be a fly in the room at that negotiating table.
I actually hope we do get Saprissa in the next round... it would give Sabo a reason to play that much harder
This is what the mlssoccer.com article says: This sounds like the rights are held by Sion, and that is who we need to deal with. Would mlssoccer.com ever steer us wrong?
Aside from Sabo are there any other worthy candidates for the newcomer of the year award? I'm not saying this to praise Sabo, I would really like to know. (Oh and if the league gives this to Henry I will burn something down.)
Lindpere is a worthy candidate. I think what Sabo has done is better, but I can almost guarantee Lindpere gets the award
