Ireland to host Rugby World Cup in 2023?

First topic message reminder :

Ireland to host Rugby World Cup?

I was listening to a piece on Newstalk on Friday evening about this and it seemed quite serious truth be told. Economist David McWilliams was on, former Irish coach Eddie O Sullivan, IRFU spokespeople and transport and sport Minister Leo Varadkar was on too lending his support.

All spoke about it being a distinct possibility that Ireland would submit an application to host the 2023 RWC.

Many points for and against this obviously.

The main issue seemed to be stadiums of the right quality. NZ spent 300m or something like that on developing their stadiums to make sure they were to a certain standard for the RWC. The people on air recognised early on that without the support of the GAA Ireland's bid would die as they own a lot of stadiums, but more importantly the only stadium in Ireland over 60,000 (a necessity to host a RWC final).

Assuming the GAA would support the bid (which is by no means a sure thing) Ireland's stadiums would include:

Croke Park
Lansdowne Road
Thomond Park
Ravenhill -needs to be developed
The RDS -needs to be developed
The Sportsground- needs to be developed
A GAA stadium in Castlebar can't remember the name
Another GAA stadium in the midlands can't remember the name

There are others like Musgrave Park and Donnybrook etc too.

On the stadiums front, they may be a bit small to host 1/4 and 1/2 finals. Obviously the final would be in Croke but in the 1/4's we'd need 4 big stadiums and we may be a bit short there IMO. I'm not sure what stadiums the kiwi's used for the 1/4's tbh.

Other things that were discussed on the show were, the Irish volunteering spirit. The Kiwi's really bought into the RWC as it's such a huge part of their culture and they really made it a good place for supporters to go. I (like the panel on the show Friday evening) believe we Irish could put on a serious show for the travelling supporters. Our hospitality is renowned and we take rugby seriously. I'd like to think we are a welcoming people and respectful (for the most part). I think the atmosphere at some of the games would be amazing and we could really try an infuse some of our Celtic culture into pre match routines the way the Kiwi's did with the Maori culture. We did a good job with the Special Olympics.

Our infrastructure is quite good now.
There are motorways to the main cities and trains and buses are relatively regular. One thing is for sure, no one would need to fly!

The IRFU said they'd be willing to do it and I think mentioned meeting the government at some point and said it may be an idea to look at doing it with Scotland or Wales as well as an option. The Government said they'd be interested in looking at the opportunity

David McWilliams said that even though RWC 2011 was supposed to be a financial disaster for NZ, they actually have made money off it. Only just but they did and obviously it will do great things for their tourist industry.

Some things that may be an issue:
The GAA not wanting to be involved.
The IRFU making a hames of ticket prices again
The lack 30,000+ stadiums for 1/4+1/2 finals
The IRB may want to send it to a developing nation.

What do people think?
Would you like the 2023 RWC to be in Ireland?
Will Stadiums be a huge problem?
Any other set backs you can think of?

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right - same as the HEC.

After Japan they would need a cash cow. I myself would see SA more likely to get it because they have a history in hosting big events, have the stadiums, the hotel rooms, the flights etc. Then in 2027 I think I'd be happy to see it go to say Italy or Ireland.

We won't have seen a world cup in this part of the world (in 2023 speak) for 28 years so I think they have as much right as anyone to host it. I don't think Argentina is ready given bidding starts literally now.

Hosting a major tournament isn't simply about having eight 80,000 stadiums on hand... its about having the hotel rooms to cater for fans and all those other things.

Just out of interest with no current idea or assumption, has Ireland hosted anything of similar size such as European athletics, world athletics, football, or other major sporting tournaments?

fa0019 wrote:
Hosting a major tournament isn't simply about having eight 80,000 stadiums on hand... its about having the hotel rooms to cater for fans and all those other things.

Just out of interest with no current idea or assumption, has Ireland hosted anything of similar size such as European athletics, world athletics, football, or other major sporting tournaments?

Nope but there are loads of empty hotel rooms thanks to the celtic tiger!

fa0019 wrote:After Japan they would need a cash cow. I myself would see SA more likely to get it because they have a history in hosting big events, have the stadiums, the hotel rooms, the flights etc. Then in 2027 I think I'd be happy to see it go to say Italy or Ireland.

We won't have seen a world cup in this part of the world (in 2023 speak) for 28 years so I think they have as much right as anyone to host it. I don't think Argentina is ready given bidding starts literally now.

Hosting a major tournament isn't simply about having eight 80,000 stadiums on hand... its about having the hotel rooms to cater for fans and all those other things.

Just out of interest with no current idea or assumption, has Ireland hosted anything of similar size such as European athletics, world athletics, football, or other major sporting tournaments?

No idea where you get this idea of a cash cow. It makes zero sense. The IRB doesnt make any money from gate receipts but from sponsorship and the fee they charge. There is no logic at all to suggest SA will be a "cash cow" and Ireland wont. The IRB make their wedge regardless of where it is held.

Ireland have hosted the ryder cup, special Olympics, UEFA Cup Final and the British Open is coming soon. The Irish Open itself hosted over 100k visitors in Portrush in a single weekend in a small corner of Ireland. Logistics will not be an issue.

Bit of a diff for a single weekend event in one part of the country compared to 5 events of the same size in different parts. If they can host brilliant, perhaps they should host a medium tournament first though inbetween...

fa0019 wrote:Bit of a diff for a single weekend event in one part of the country compared to 5 events of the same size in different parts. If they can host brilliant, perhaps they should host a medium tournament first though inbetween...

Dublin is hosting a group of the Euros in 2020.

Ireland did host the Special Olympics in 2003 (7000 athletes from 150 countries).

First time outside the US and it was a great success.

Edit:

The major drawback for SA is the crime rate.

I also think the high altitude is a negative as well.

GunsGerms wrote:

fa0019 wrote:After Japan they would need a cash cow. I myself would see SA more likely to get it because they have a history in hosting big events, have the stadiums, the hotel rooms, the flights etc. Then in 2027 I think I'd be happy to see it go to say Italy or Ireland.

We won't have seen a world cup in this part of the world (in 2023 speak) for 28 years so I think they have as much right as anyone to host it. I don't think Argentina is ready given bidding starts literally now.

Hosting a major tournament isn't simply about having eight 80,000 stadiums on hand... its about having the hotel rooms to cater for fans and all those other things.

Just out of interest with no current idea or assumption, has Ireland hosted anything of similar size such as European athletics, world athletics, football, or other major sporting tournaments?

No idea where you get this idea of a cash cow. It makes zero sense. The IRB doesnt make any money from gate receipts but from sponsorship and the fee they charge. There is no logic at all to suggest SA will be a "cash cow" and Ireland wont. The IRB make their wedge regardless of where it is held.

Ireland have hosted the ryder cup, special Olympics, UEFA Cup Final and the British Open is coming soon. The Irish Open itself hosted over 100k visitors in Portrush in a single weekend in a small corner of Ireland. Logistics will not be an issue.

Apparently last time SARU budgeted to make a loss from the competition, with the government making up the missing. The RFU bid had the most tickets available for the second lower price. Most of the money the IRB make is sponsorship, TV and merchandise, no reason these should be any different for Ireland than they were in England. This was from a british media article so not 100%

SecretFly wrote:

alive555 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:Let's look at the big four and see when last they hosted the RWC?

Ireland are the only big rugby nation never to have hosted the rwc by themselves.

Ireland have never gone past qf stage in 7 attempts

And this fact has something to do with the awarding of the Competition?  How far has Japan got so far?

did i say there was any link between how far in the competition a team has got and whether it should be considered to stage the wc ? No !

alive555 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

alive555 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:Let's look at the big four and see when last they hosted the RWC?

Ireland are the only big rugby nation never to have hosted the rwc by themselves.

Ireland have never gone past qf stage in 7 attempts

And this fact has something to do with the awarding of the Competition?  How far has Japan got so far?

did i say there was any link between how far in the competition a team has got and whether it should be considered to stage the wc ? No !

Why bring up Irelands top eight world cup average then? What point were you making?

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

What is the win loss record of the teams who have competed in the HC an ERCC over the years?

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

It is behind those sports in popularity although it's catching up where a few years ago it was well behind.I don't see how that would stop us hosting a WC,Irish people love a bandwagon so we'd get plenty of local support for a big event and our close proximity to the other 6N teams means there would be plenty of travelling support.

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

What is the win loss record of the teams who have competed in the HC an ERCC over the years?

If you want to know that of the HC you can look at some previous posts of mine. I certainly have put some stats down in the past - of what I can remember:

Basically - Scottish and Italian teams woeful, Ulster - around 45% - last time I put down the stats, Welsh teams -mediocre - surprisingly the best is Cardiff, Leinster and Munster - very good indeed - two of the best.

Leicester - very good, Saints and Saracens - decent, Toulouse - very good,

beshocked wrote:

Biltong wrote:

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

What is the win loss record of the teams who have competed in the HC an ERCC over the years?

If you want to know that of the HC you can look at some previous posts of mine. I certainly have put some stats down in the past - of what I can remember:

Basically - Scottish and Italian teams woeful, Ulster - around 45% - last time I put down the stats, Welsh teams -mediocre - surprisingly the best is Cardiff, Leinster and Munster - very good indeed - two of the best.

Leicester - very good, Saints and Saracens - decent, Toulouse - very good,

I tried to find the history online, but wasn't successful.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

beshocked wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Gunsgerms fair definition though I am sure you'll find some disagreeing!


Secretfly so does that mean by your definition only France and England are big rugby nations?

Surely Italian rugby do get one guaranteed entry.

If Italy are fed up being a film set they can earn top tier rugby, the old fashioned way - by working for it.

Look at a team like Exeter - they are not one of the established big boys in the AP yet they have made their way onto the scene and look to stay. They haven't done this through the spend,spend,spend strategy.

I know the concept of qualification for a competition is alien to you secretfly - you believe that no Pro12 team should have to qualify for top tier rugby.

I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, beshocked.  I have a long memory.  I keep telling people that and they keep getting annoyed when I don't allow bygones to be bygones on memory.  
Nope.  You claim concern for Italy and concern about keeping them interested in rugby whilst the memory I have is of you being a champion of the 'let them eat cake' philosophy when the chips were down and battlelines were drawn.

It's a little late in the day for concern about Italian rugby.... although I am certain you're being honest when you say you'd like the WC to be there and the ERCC final to be there.  It's a lovely country to have a break in.

BTW...and yet again.... Italian sides DID qualify for the competition in the same sense that they now have One qualifier by right (down one from HEC) and you guys still have Six...by right  - same as the HEC.

English clubs actually pull their weight in European rugby - shown by a clean sweep in the top tier European competition this weekend. You would think that just concentrating on two top tier Italian teams would mean that they perform better as resources are only shared between two teams. It should be the best of Italy squeezed into two teams.

England don't need to double up because our individual clubs are strong enough to hold their own in Europe.

Hardly think I am being hypocritical - I think it will help Zebre to be in a competition more suited to their level. It's demoralising to be smashed every week. Look at LW - they aren't Premiership quality. If these clubs are better run they will prevail. I gave Exeter as an example. They don't have financial firepower but they have built up as a club over time.

Our six teams are all far stronger than Treviso. Actually most of the AP teams bar perhaps Newcastle,London Irish and LW are stronger than Treviso.

Wanting them to keep the ERCC final and have the next world cup is showing concern.

I am confused - when it comes to Irish rugby union - I thought it was the common consensus on here (from Irishmen) that rugby union is not actually very popular in Ireland compared to other sports (something it about it lagging behind Irish football/soccer,hurling and gaelic football yet you think you can host a financially lucrative world cup?

It is behind those sports in popularity although it's catching up where a few years ago it was well behind.I don't see how that would stop us hosting a WC,Irish people love a bandwagon so we'd get plenty of local support for a big event and our close proximity to the other 6N teams means there would be plenty of travelling support.

Not about stopping you hosting a world cup. It's whether a RWC in Ireland would be more lucrative than SA, also whether it's right to give the RWC to a country that doesn't need it as much as for example Argentina or Italy to generate interest. Or alternatively try and attract the USA market.

I don't think Ireland would be a bad choice for a RWC - I think if you got it you would do a fine job but personally I would prefer it going elsewhere.

Also I don't think you could label yourself as a cash cow like France or England who are the two top lucrative places IMO.

Biltong wrote:
I tried to find the history online, but wasn't successful.

The PRL banned previous stats being published online because they felt they were unfair on English teams.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:and our close proximity to the other 6N teams means there would be plenty of travelling support.

I would go in a heartbeat, I love Dublin. I Just wonder where Wales would be playing, I would not mind going to Cork either.

https://www.606v2.com/t36524-heineken-cup-overall-records-englishscotsirish-and-welsh-clubs

Biltong I found this.

2 respectable Irish records.
6 respectable English records.

beshocked wrote:
Not about stopping you hosting a world cup. It's whether a RWC in Ireland would be more lucrative than SA, also whether it's right to give the RWC to a country that doesn't need it as much as for example Argentina or Italy to generate interest. Or alternatively try and attract the USA market.

I don't think Ireland would be a bad choice for a RWC - I think if you got it you would do a fine job but personally I would prefer it going elsewhere.

Also I don't think you could label yourself as a cash cow like France or England who are the two top lucrative places IMO.

One country being more lucrative over another is a fantasy. The IRB charge a fee and then the rest of their revenue is earned through sponsorship. It doesnt matter to them where it is held. There is no such thing as a cash cow.

LordDowlais wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:and our close proximity to the other 6N teams means there would be plenty of travelling support.

I would go in a heartbeat, I love Dublin. I Just wonder where Wales would be playing, I would not mind going to Cork either.

There could be games in Kerry. Killarney would be a very nice place to be stationed.

Galway is also really nice.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:
Not about stopping you hosting a world cup. It's whether a RWC in Ireland would be more lucrative than SA, also whether it's right to give the RWC to a country that doesn't need it as much as for example Argentina or Italy to generate interest. Or alternatively try and attract the USA market.

I don't think Ireland would be a bad choice for a RWC - I think if you got it you would do a fine job but personally I would prefer it going elsewhere.

Also I don't think you could label yourself as a cash cow like France or England who are the two top lucrative places IMO.

One country being more lucrative over another is a fantasy. The IRB charge a fee and then the rest of their revenue is earned through sponsorship. It doesnt matter to them where it is held. There is no such thing as a cash cow.

A fantasy really? You don't think England rugby world cup will be much more lucrative than the New Zealand world cup?

When demand is higher you can charge more (also when there's more wealth you can do that), when there is more seats available there's potential to make more money, when there's more people in a country there's more opportunity to sell merchandise etc. It's not rocket science.

The commercial opportunities are greater. Sponsors also feel more heartened supporting a competition that they believe will be a financial and commercial success.

A 50 million + country like England is bound to make more money than NZ. England has a population 10 times the size. It's also better located - relative easy access for Ireland,Wales,Scotland and France.

1.4 million tickets in NZ compared to an estimated 2.3m tickets on sale in England.

A world cup in Ireland would undoubtedbly benefit from being relatively close to the home nations and France too.

The IRB dont make a cent from gate receipts. All gates go to the host nation. The IRB charges a fee before a ball is kicked and the rest they make in sponsorship. It doesnt really matter to them where it is hosted as far as I can tell.

The NZ WC was the second most financially sucessful ever despite being held at a time of global economic uncertainty. Im fairly sure it isnt that relevant where the tournament is held for the IRB.

The vote for a Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint bid is pretty popular.

A sensible option and less risk for the host(s) and rugby in general.

Cyril wrote:The vote for a Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint bid is pretty popular.

A sensible option and less risk for the host(s) and rugby in general.

The only reason there is ever a joint bid is because of the voting system. No one likes them and they do not represent less a risk really because while you do share the fees you also split the profits.

A fragmented world cup is more of a risk as it generates less atmosphere.

Cyril wrote:The vote for a Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint bid is pretty popular.

A sensible option and less risk for the host(s) and rugby in general.

Trouble with these ammalgamated type arrangements is that they vote in block for each other, next thing you know, all World Cups will be held in the UK........Not good for rugby in general.

Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint would be good though.

Thats still a much smaller geographical area than South Africa or even France! I don't think it would suffer from being fragmented.

Notch wrote:Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint would be good though.

Thats still a much smaller geographical area than South Africa or even France! I don't think it would suffer from being fragmented.

I would not go to a WC in South Africa, I know I am being a bit parochial here, but the crime rate would just put me off, when the Lions were in South Africa, a couple of people from the club went, they were in their hotel foyer, when some men came in and ushered them outside brandished a gun and told them to give them whatever is in their pockets, I do not know the details of this or how true it is as I was not there and can only take their words for it, but from other stories I have heard from that country it does make you wonder, so for me a WC in South Africa is a big NO,NO.

This might be controversial, but since no one else has said it yet as far as I can see, this needing to have a certain amount of people of a certain colour in the South African team in future being rewarded by having a world cup sends out the wrong message to me.

I genuinely think it's atrocious that the most talented players in each position won't get a place on a team because of the race in which they were born into. Doesn't seem to be much action from the IRB on that point, but personally would like to see some action to prevent it coming into force.

Other than that, SA have had it before. Argentina, Ireland, Italy or the US should get it, that simple to be honest. Let's see who actually bids and the quality of said bids and go from there I'd say

IRB can do nothing about it, there is an unofficial quota in existence, they just deny that it is official.

They have learnt from the previous regime, don't lable anything, keep it unofficial

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Wales/Scotland/Ireland joint would be good though.

Thats still a much smaller geographical area than South Africa or even France! I don't think it would suffer from being fragmented.

I would not go to a WC in South Africa, I know I am being a bit parochial here, but the crime rate would just put me off, when the Lions were in South Africa, a couple of people from the club went, they were in their hotel foyer, when some men came in and ushered them outside brandished a gun and told them to give them whatever is in their pockets, I do not know the details of this or how true it is as I was not there and can only take their words for it, but from other stories I have heard from that country it does make you wonder, so for me a WC in South Africa is a big NO,NO.

While I feel sorry for your mates, I would say that you are missing out if you never go to SA. Yes the crime rate is far higher than the UK, but a large amount of that is in the areas where as a tourist you won't (or shouldn't) go. The waterfront area at Cape Town, the garden route, Rourke's Drift, the Kruger, all great places to visit. Anyway that's enough from the Sud Afrika tourist board.


The more I think about it, the more I think Italy makes sense, it would cover the bases of expanding into a new WC location as well as being 'safe' support wise as it is so close to the huge rugby supporting populations in Europe.

mrsuperclear wrote:This might be controversial, but since no one else has said it yet as far as I can see, this needing to have a certain amount of people of a certain colour in the South African team in future being rewarded by having a world cup sends out the wrong message to me.

No different to Ireland really where 2/3 of the team need to be from D4, with 1/5 from Ulster and 2/5 bogger men.

And yet the football world cup there was more than enough security and no complaints.

There are many countries with crime that host big events.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I would say that you are missing out if you never go to SA

I have been to South Africa, I stayed in Port Elizebeth, and yes it is a beautiful country, but it is not a place I would like to go and watch rugby and have a drink with my mates, I only stayed there for a week and I had a nice time, but I was constantly being told to not venture out on my own. I went out there for work reasons when I was younger, the comapny I worked for at the time had a factory out there and I went out there for training on the new SAP computer systems, god that feels like an age ago now.

rodders wrote: No different to Ireland really where 2/3 of the team need to be from D4, with 1/5 from Ulster and 2/5 bogger men.

No wonder Ireland have done so well this year with 19 players on the pitch...

MichaelT wrote:

rodders wrote: No different to Ireland really where 2/3 of the team need to be from D4, with 1/5 from Ulster and 2/5 bogger men.

No wonder Ireland have done so well this year with 19 players on the pitch...

And thats not even counting the ref and touch judges.

GAA expanding Croke Park.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/gaa-looking-to-expand-croke-park-1.2031953

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/ireland-rugby-world-cup-2-1835173-Dec2014/

Casment park redevelopment denied. Hopefully this can be cleared up asap. Now is the time to sort this stuff out.

Sin é wrote:GAA expanding Croke Park.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/gaa-looking-to-expand-croke-park-1.2031953

Damn!  For a sec there I actually felt that the GAA had come to their senses and actually were going to finish an unfinished stadium that simply always looks like a Stadium in a perpetual state of being nearly done  Oh yeah, and push them bastardin' Garth Brooks hating residents into the bloody liffey!

But no..................... a money junket to have people at a game who can't get into the game but who can watch the game on a screen and pay high prices for beer and nuts

South Africa have officially announced today that they too intend to host the 2023 WC.

http://www.the42.ie/south-africa-world-cup-bid-ireland-2023-1972870-Mar2015/

Ireland is bidding to host the Womens World Cup in 2017- an entirely different size of event, the mens competition is on a different scale entirely- but hopefully will demonstrate the qualities that will make us successful hosts if the games are well publicised and attended.

When will the decision be made? The England and Japan allocations were made in July 2007, so 8 years before the England one. The equivalent would be this year wouldn't it, so the Women's World Cup would too late (for 2023).

Anyway, good luck with the bid.

Not sure if it was already known but Italy are bidding for 2023

Us, South Africa, and Italy

So two with lovely sun, sea, sand and ................... *ahem*

the other with rain and booze.

We're bound to be favourites

Does it rain that much in South Africa?

Haha, depends where you are and what time of year

LordDowlais wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I would say that you are missing out if you never go to SA

I have been to South Africa, I stayed in Port Elizebeth, and yes it is a beautiful country, but it is not a place I would like to go and watch rugby and have a drink with my mates, I only stayed there for a week and I had a nice time, but I was constantly being told to not venture out on my own. I went out there for work reasons when I was younger, the comapny I worked for at the time had a factory out there and I went out there for training on the new SAP computer systems, god that feels like an age ago now.

such rubbish…spent 3 weeks there for the lions and drove cape town to namibia on another holiday, bloody awesome…..unless you are an idiot and go to port Elizabeth you'll be fine.

Interesting - both South Africa and Italy make the Top 10 Countries with highest Crime Rate in 2014. South Africa 5th and Italy 6th. (US is No 1).

Cape Town makes the Top 10 for most Dangerous Cities in the world (at No. 8). This is what they say: ''One of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, Cape Town is also a city that is battling extremely high crime rates. Prone to mugging, it is one of the most unsafe cities at night, especially for women. The high level of crime is attributed to the disparity between socioeconomic classes.''

I'm italian but in any case I'd back Italy's bid for 2023 WC. Here and there I hear talks about growth of the game. How the hell this game can grow if any and each world cup is held in one of the same major 5 countries. It was NZ, England, Australia, France, S.A, end of it. We have everything to host a beautiful world cup and the interest for the game will increase for sure. Same for Argentina. My thought

Sin é wrote:Interesting - both South Africa and Italy make the Top 10 Countries with highest Crime Rate in 2014. South Africa 5th and Italy 6th. (US is No 1).

Cape Town makes the Top 10 for most Dangerous Cities in the world (at No. 8). This is what they say:  ''One of the most popular tourist destinations in the world, Cape Town is also a city that is battling extremely high crime rates. Prone to mugging, it is one of the most unsafe cities at night, especially for women. The high level of crime is attributed to the disparity between socioeconomic classes.''

sincerely, these statistics make me laugh. In Italy almost nowhere you feel you are in a real danger.

Highest 'reported' crime rate.

Surely someplace like Mexico or even India would have tons of crime that went unreported because it would be simply so endemic.

So I don't think that even the US of A would, in a real world figure of all crime (reported and unreported), be No1.  It achieves No1 because it is such a litigious nation - you only have to look at Judge Judy!!

"I'm looking for damages because he didn't pay half the rent that was due because he took my car without telling me, because he ran over my neighbour's dog, because he was too drunk to even know that the car wasn't mine but my neighbour's one, which is just like mine except for the sticker on the back of mine that reads: Screw you MO**ERF**Ker!!! ; which I didn't put there but my ex-boyfriend did that I stole the car from."

Crime gets reported in America.