Bernard Lapasset re-elected as IRB chairman

From here, IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset has won another 4 years as IRB chairman after narrowly beating Bill Beaumont by 14 votes to 12 at the interim IRB metting in Los Angeles (odd place for a rugby conference).

Beaumont also lost his position as vice-chairman to SARU president Oregan Hoskins after Lapasset used his casting vote to break a 13-13 deadlock following the 2nd round of voting.

Steve Tew has said that NZ were supporting Beaumont, it'd be interesting to know how the other nations voted.

I think the closeness of the votes suggests that Lapasset must now know that from now on he has to start listening to the second tier nations.

That completely smells - there is a Gordon Brown/Tony Blair in Granita thing happening here because there was allegedly a deal between Bernie and Bill that Lapasset would be elected unopposed the first time (which he was) on the understanding that Bill would get an uninterrupted run the second time.

But whoops, Bernard now apparently has no recollection of this meeting.

Shame - Beaumont is a rugby man through and through and would have been excellent.

How is it that people like Lapasset and Blatter can go on forever?

Where does that come from George ??

Knowsit17 wrote:Where does that come from George ??

There was a comment alluding to it in the Times last week.

Knowsit - can't find the original article now but most of the pieces are here:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2011/12/14/hoskins-tops-bill-for-no2-in-rugby

Kiwireddevil wrote:From here, IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset has won another 4 years as IRB chairman after narrowly beating Bill Beaumont by 14 votes to 12 at the interim IRB metting in Los Angeles (odd place for a rugby conference).
Beaumont also lost his position as vice-chairman to SARU president Oregan Hoskins after Lapasset used his casting vote to break a 13-13 deadlock following the 2nd round of voting.

Steve Tew has said that NZ were supporting Beaumont, it'd be interesting to know how the other nations voted.

1st class flights on expenses, 5 star hotels on expenses, Xmas shopping at Rodeo Drive and a bit of winter sunshine - surely the natural place for the IRB trough-swillers?

The anti anything English vibe continues through yet another sport. And I'm not English. The English said Blatter was an unadulterated rascal but the rest of the suits voted for him simply because England said it, not because they didn't believe it.

How anyone could vote against Bill Beaumont is beyond me...unless his Englishness was his downfall? His lovely personality certainly wasn't. It seems all these big organisations throughout the world don't feel safe unless they have a spikey, belligerent, arrogant hawk leading them.

Pretty sure that the Celtic nations plus NZ voted for Beaumont for both positions, but had Aus, SA, France, Italy, Argentina, Japan and Asia Pac against them

From the Grauniad:

"Lapasset stays as IRB chairman

The election of the International Rugby Board's chairman this week became lost among the tributes paid to Jonny Wilkinson, but the victory by Bernard Lapasset should be significant for the international game.

The Frenchman beat England's Bill Beaumont by 14 votes to 12 at a meeting held in a Los Angeles airport hotel that was not quite as stormy as the one in Auckland two months before but was still loaded with acrimony.

The closeness of the vote should not disguise the wide constituency enjoyed by Lapasset. Eight of Beaumont's votes came from the four home unions and another two were supplied by New Zealand. Canada and the Oceania region were his only backers from outside the tier one nations and his support was essentially from English-speaking countries.

Lapasset received two votes each from Australia, South Africa and France. Italy, Japan and Argentina took his tally to nine and he received the support of five of the six regions, north America, south America, Asia, Africa and Europe.

There was no questioning his mandate. He had campaigned on a promise of changing the way the IRB ran the game and the election of the executive committee the same day was a start. For the first time, the tier two nations, through Japan, gained representation, along with the regions, through the North American union.

The home unions were the victims. The Welsh Rugby Union chairman, David Pickering, finished at the bottom of the poll, just above Scotland's Bill Nolan. It was a significant move with the Board having for so long been ruled by the few.

One delegate said that the issue for the IRB moving forward was to reform or die. Some unions are clinging on to the past: Italy and Argentina are members of the major international tournaments in their hemispheres, but they only have one vote each on the Board's council, compared to the two enjoyed by their rivals.

Having the tier two nations and the regions represented on the executive committee will lead to greater inclusion. That happened because Lapasset's block of 14 votes held strong in the election: New Zealand had justified backing Beaumont on the grounds that he was the reform candidate, but that was nothing more than smoke.

New Zealand split from their Sanzar colleagues Australia and South Africa, just as the Six Nations was divided with France and Italy backing Lapasset. Given the way the game has tended to divide between north and south when big decisions are made, it made a difference.

The next showdown will come in Dublin at the end of February when the distribution of money generated by World Cups will be discussed. Australia and New Zealand are as one in insisting that they will not be able to afford to take part in the 2015 tournament if the losses they incur every year the competition is held continue.

Only two major unions, Argentina and Scotland, do not suffer financially in a World Cup year even though the distributed income from the tournament is 51% for the tier one nations and 49% for the rest. There will also be the question of whether Wales will be allowed to play any of their group matches in 2015 at the Millennium Stadium.

It is a wretched notion. Imagine if they were drawn in the same pool as England and a quarter-final contender such as Samoa or Argentina, who would end up playing two hosts. It should be a non-starter, but with the RFU needing to raise £80m in ticket sales for the IRB, arms are being twisted.

Beaumont's future on the IRB is uncertain. He was elected to the executive committee after Lapasset's supporters agreed that both New Zealand and England should be represented on the body, but they expected the RFU's other representative on the IRB, John Spencer, to be nominated.

Beaumont will stay on the executive if the RFU names him as Martyn Thomas's replacement on the Board, but there is a feeling at Twickenham that the place should be taken by the Union's new chief executive, Ian Ritchie, following a principle established by the Sanzar unions and followed by Wales.

Ritchie has the experience in sport, having become the Football League's first independent non-executive director in 2004, but he may want to spend time initially concentrating on the changes he wants to make at Twickenham."

aslongasbut100ofus what's wrong with using Millennium Stadium but not letting Wales play there?

I hope they don't bring that the silly notion that England play outside England. It was silly when France played New Zealand in Wales for the 2007 RWC quarter final despite being hosts.

aslongasbut100ofus what's wrong with using Millennium Stadium but not letting Wales play there?

Less likely to fill it. If Wales play there it will be rammed to the rafters and hence more cash will come in. I thought they were going to use a stadium in Birmingham, would be perfect to have the Welsh games there as it wouldn't be an unreasonable travelling distance. Couple of hours on the train, plenty of places to stay, plenty of bars and restaurants all within easy access of the station. Should keep the Welsh happy and Villa park could hold 50,000 people so the possibility of maxing returns.