Goal-line technology too costly for Champions League

[Twan]

Uefa president Michel Platini says goal-line technology is too expensive for use in the Champions League.

Platini, 57, said he would rather the money was spent on youth football.

"I prefer to put more money into youth football and infrastructure than spend it on technology when there's a goal in a blue moon that hasn't been seen by a referee," he said.

Platini added that he was happy with the five-man referee system, used in the Champions League and Europa League.

Fifa is set to use goal-line technology at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

Platini said the technology would need to be installed in 280 stadiums for European football, which the former France international sees as unnecessary.

"It would cost around 54 million euros (£46m) over five years for this technology, so it's quite expensive for the sort of mistake which happens once every 40 years," he said.

"In the Champions League, I'm very happy with the results (of a five-man team). Practically no mistakes have been made and the referees see practically everything that happens on the pitch."

[Jangle]

This bredda yah start out as as a big idealist and champion for change, but like most politicians, he falls right in line with the rest of the corrupted.

[Me]

Do you have an opinion on his statement regarding the cost?

[Jangle]

For the millions the the CL generate, it is worth the money to implement a technology that eliminate these controversies. The talk about the expense is a smokescreen. He and his organization refuse to seriously tackle the scourge of racism in the game.

[Paul Marin]

Words of a true tief. There is no reason GLT has to cost that much, but even so, the cost works out to be about £9m per year over 5 years. Considering that the total attendance in 2010/11 UCL season was approximately 5.2m people, it would cost less than £2 per match ticket per year to pay for the system. What Platini is ignoring is the cost to each club if they fail to make it to successive rounds of the UCL. His argument is ridiculous, especially when the cost per venue is about £165k (or ~£33k per stadium per year) and would only have to be spent if the team qualifies for the UCL. Furthermore, what youth football expenditure is he talking about? This man is as evil as Blatter. No wonder the elder picked the younger. KMT.

[Paul Marin]

Words of a true tief. There is no reason GLT has to cost that much, but even so, the cost works out to be about £9m per year over 5 years. Considering that the total attendance in 2010/11 UCL season was approximately 5.2m people, it would cost less than £2 per match ticket per year to pay for the system. What Platini is ignoring is the cost to each club if they fail to make it to successive rounds of the UCL. His argument is ridiculous, especially when the cost per venue is about £165k (or ~£33k per stadium per year) and would only have to be spent if the team qualifies for the UCL. Furthermore, what youth football expenditure is he talking about? This man is as evil as Blatter. No wonder the elder picked the younger. KMT.

And by the way, Europa League attendance last year was 4.4m, so add that to the 5.2m from the UCL you get 9.6m total attendance, which means less than £1 per ticket overall. These guys are crooks.

[Me]

How many times a season do you have goal line controversy?

[Paul Marin]

Wait, wait...I forgot another thing. A fifth referee is not free either, so whatever it costs to pay a fifth referee, his expenses, handling etc. would have to be deducted as well - PER MATCH! There were ~328 matches in the Europa League and UCL, so that's a cost of £2000 per match for an extra assistant referee (which is an educated guess on my part). As I understand it, they make about £1500 per match, plus expenses - air, hotel, etc. plus they get an extra £150 per day stipend, so on a two day trip, you are talking over £2000 total * 328 matches = £656k/year. This is admittedly far less than the £9m per year GLT is supposedly costing, but increasing the integrity of the game is worth it to some of us (especially those of us who don't profit from match fixing). Also, the cost beyond 5 years has to be factored in; Platini's solution is not only short sighted, it is short term.

[Me]

Sound like is better him wait till the technology get cheaper.

[Lazie]

Well, since it is that costly, why not use video replay then? Instead of having 2 useless refs behind each goal, assign one as the video ref with radio communication to the ref on the field.

If something happened that the ref missed, he can contact him and make him aware. If the ref choose to ignore it, then it is recorded in the match report.

[HL]

Oh yuh dun now Marin?

Here is my take (and i agree that it could not be that expensive).

The technology is already established. I can't see it much different from determining who finishes 1st. horse-racing..........

Let's hope I am not over-simplifying the technology.

[Paul Marin]

Well, since it is that costly, why not use video replay then? Instead of having 2 useless refs behind each goal, assign one as the video ref with radio communication to the ref on the field.

If something happened that the ref missed, he can contact him and make him aware. If the ref choose to ignore it, then it is recorded in the match report.

That's way too simple and logical a solution for the tief dem.