Scotland are in discussions to host 2023 world cup "in some way"

Scotland are in discussions to host 2023 world cup "in some way" according to page 13 of the SRU "strategic plan". Whether this is, as before, hosting various pool games at Murrayfield, being a joint bidder or hosting it solely isn't made clear.
http://www.scottishrugby.org/srusp2012/
I doubt our ability to host it solely due to our lack of large, widely distributed stadia. 12 stadiums were used for the 2011 world cup, 6 of which had a capacity greater than 30,000, in Scotland there are only four stadiums of such size - Murrayfield, Hampden, Celtic park and Ibrox. Three of these are in Glasgow and I doubt there are enough rugby fans in Glasgow to attend these bearing in mind Glasgow rarely get above 5000. The 12 biggest Stadiums in Scotland are Murrayfield, Hampden, Celtic Park, Ibrox, Pittodrie, Easter road, Rugby Park, Tynecastle, Meadowbank, Tannadice, Fir Park, and East End park (the smallest one mentioned at just under 12000).
Although these would most likely be developed I doubt the support or funds are there to extend them much further, another problem is that there would be no games in the traditional rugby heartland of the borders unless an existing one was greatly developed or a new one was built. Neither of which are likely considering (currently) there is no pro-side in the area. The distribution of the Stadia would also be a problem in Glasgow there would be three stadiums and in Edinburgh four.

Another option would be to co-host it with Ireland (who have already expressed an interest in hosting it) or Wales or both.

I would hazard a guess that South Africa should get the hosting right in 2023.

The last time they hosted it was in 1995.

biltongbek wrote:I would hazard a guess that South Africa should get the hosting right in 2023.

The last time they hosted it was in 1995.

Scotland have never hosted it

Agreed it should be in SA soon but 2023 wouldn't fit in with the NH/SH rotation that seems to be preferred by the IRB.

Can't see Scotland holding it on their own, but a joint Celtic bid would be good. Probably would be a really good tournament as well, albeit slightly odd to have 3 'home' teams. Would they give it to the UK again so soon after 2015 though, with only 1 cup in between? That shouldn't have a bearing as the unions are entirely separate but you never know what might persuade the voters one way or the other.

I accept that, but from what I understood the RWC to be commercially viable it has to be hosted in a country with the infrastructure ad stadia that can pull big crowds.

South Africa has a dozen stadia with a capacity of over 50 000.

biltongbek wrote:I accept that, but from what I understood the RWC to be commercially viable it has to be hosted in a country with the infrastructure ad stadia that can pull big crowds.

South Africa has a dozen stadia with a capacity of over 50 000.

I was joking but I understand your point, but I think that Scotland could pull big crowds from Europe

biltongbek wrote:I would hazard a guess that South Africa should get the hosting right in 2023.

The last time they hosted it was in 1995.

I heard they were just give some time to get the food safety regulations sorted out.

could scotland have a joint ireland and wales bid?

I think it is only fair that having won the trophy in 2015 Scotland should have the right to defend it at home...can't Japan be bumped?

I know that it's unfair on the smaller/poorer nations, but I really don't agree with joint hosting. It dilutes the atmosphere and results in the tournament having no real identity. It's bad enough when a few games are played in other nations following some dodgy deal made for votes.

Host it alone or don't bother.

sugarNspikes wrote:I know that it's unfair on the smaller/poorer nations, but I really don't agree with joint hosting. It dilutes the atmosphere and results in the tournament having no real identity. It's bad enough when a few games are played in other nations following some dodgy deal made for votes.

Host it alone or don't bother.

Totally agree. I HATE joint hosting. If we can't do it alone, then we shouldn't do it at all. Ibrox, Celtic Park, Hampden and Murrayfield. That would be your quarter-final line-up. For group games you could use Pittodrie, Easter Road and Tynecastle as well, perhaps McDiarmid Park as well. But in any event, if we can't host it alone, then we shouldn't bother. I have no interest in a "Celtic tournament". Who hosts the final in such a scenario?? It would have no identity.

There was also talk of ireland making a bid to host the RWC in 2023.

I think Italy will be the next logical place to hold a RWC in Europe.

SA in 2023 makes sense though.... there is no guarantee that Japan 2019 will be a financial success and you will want to go to a cashcow straight afterwards.

There will be no need to spend any money on infrastructure etc... it will be a sure hit and financial security for the IRB.

Italy will also be a sure hit... its close to Europe so every man and his dog from GB, IRE & FRA will travel... perhaps then we could send the RWC in 2031 to Argentina if the domestic game takes off? Its a long way off though.

fa0019 wrote:there is no guarantee that Japan 2019 will be a financial success and you will want to go to a cashcow straight afterwards.

There will be no need to spend any money on infrastructure etc... it will be a sure hit and financial security for the IRB.

It depend whether you think rugby exist to fund the IRB, or the other way around...

Why should be all concerned about make the money for IRB? What useful do they do with it?

nothing wring with joint hosting- its only a WC - it doesnt have to be defined by the hosts, it should be defined by the rugby played.

How many nations could host the rugby WC?

we would have to go places like USA(allready going japan) over real rugby playing nations like scotland and ireland, which is also fine but abit unfair at the same time- all should be considered

mystiroakey wrote:How many nations could host the rugby WC?

we would have to go places like USA(allready going japan) over real rugby playing nations like scotland and ireland, which is also fine but abit unfair at the same time- all should be considered

Only if you take the view that the most important aspect of a World Cup is making money.

Argentina, Italy, England, France, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All perfectly capable of hosting a World Cup.

Personally I think Scotland could do it (i.e. has just about enough stadia), but given the attendances at Scottish rugby matches at the moment, I query whether we deserve it.

I agree that Wales couldn't. Not sure about stadia in Ireland. Obviously the Aviva and Croke are great venues, and Thomond and Ravenhill could host group games. Not sure what else there is behind that though.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:How many nations could host the rugby WC?

we would have to go places like USA(allready going japan) over real rugby playing nations like scotland and ireland, which is also fine but abit unfair at the same time- all should be considered

Only if you take the view that the most important aspect of a World Cup is making money.

Argentina, Italy, England, France, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All perfectly capable of hosting a World Cup.

Personally I think Scotland could do it (i.e. has just about enough stadia), but given the attendances at Scottish rugby matches at the moment, I query whether we deserve it.

I agree that Wales couldn't. Not sure about stadia in Ireland. Obviously the Aviva and Croke are great venues, and Thomond and Ravenhill could host group games. Not sure what else there is behind that though.

I'm sure that Alex Salmond would get behind the concept and promise mega stadia all over the nation - with fully worked-out legacy plans.
He'd have to work it out in Pictish poonds though as he's no idea of which other currency would be appropriate.

I would have no problem with a Celtic World Cup (Ireland, Scotland, Wales). There would be less travelling than in a larger country like SA. Honestly don't see the problem people have with it.

Argentina and Italy would be higher on my priority list to host a RWC but there would be far better craic at a Celtic World Cup than one large country somewhere with little history of playing the game. Problem is, like Argentina and Italy, Scotland isn't really a rugby mad rugby nation either. Nor Ireland for that matter.

Okay both are more rugby-orientated than Japan or the USA, but still- we can't play the NZ card to get a RWC on our doorstep.

Portnoy - why would Scotland need to build mega-stadia all over the nation??

Hampden (52,000), Murrayfield (67,200), Celtic Park (60,832), Ibrox (51,082) for your quarter finals.

Pittodrie (22,199), McDiarmid Park (10,673) and Fir Hill (10,887) could host small group stage games.

Provided we could use the football stadia, I think we could probably manage it. As I said, personally I think there are currently more suitable countries who deserve it, but I do think we could do it.

Clearly if you wanted to maximise revenue, then a souless tournament in the US is probably the way to go.

In terms of who's hosted so far:

1987: New Zealand and Australia

1991: England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland/France

'Officially' (i.e. according to the IRFU), the 1991 Rugby World Cup final was played in England, while pool and finals games were played all over European nations. Pool A, which England was in, saw matches played mostly in London, though games were also taken to Leicester, Gloucester and Otley. Pool B games, which involved European nations, Scotland and Ireland, had all their games in either Dublin or Edinburgh with one game being played in Ulster. Pool C, which Wales was a part of, had all their games in Cardiff, with two taken to Pontypridd and one played in Llanelli. Pool D, which France were a part of, saw games played in Agen, Bayonne, Béziers and Grenoble. None of the quarter-finals or semi-finals were played in England. The final was played at Twickenham.

1995: South Africa

1999: Wales

'Officially' Wales, with some matches spread across Scotland, England, Ireland and France. All Pool A games were held in Scotland, Pool B games in England, Pool C games in France, Pool D games were all held in Wales and Pool 5 games were all held in Ireland. Second round play-offs and the quarter-finals were held a variety of European venues, the semi-finals were held at Twickenham. The third place play-off and the final were held at the Millennium.

2003: Australia
2007: France
2011: New Zealand
2015: England
2019: Japan

We need to branch this party out a little.

How about (i) USA and Canada joint hosting or (ii) Asia-Pacific joint hosting - Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Australia?

Portnoy wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:How many nations could host the rugby WC?

we would have to go places like USA(allready going japan) over real rugby playing nations like scotland and ireland, which is also fine but abit unfair at the same time- all should be considered

Only if you take the view that the most important aspect of a World Cup is making money.

Argentina, Italy, England, France, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. All perfectly capable of hosting a World Cup.

Personally I think Scotland could do it (i.e. has just about enough stadia), but given the attendances at Scottish rugby matches at the moment, I query whether we deserve it.

I agree that Wales couldn't. Not sure about stadia in Ireland. Obviously the Aviva and Croke are great venues, and Thomond and Ravenhill could host group games. Not sure what else there is behind that though.

I'm sure that Alex Salmond would get behind the concept and promise mega stadia all over the nation - with fully worked-out legacy plans.
He'd have to work it out in Pictish poonds though as he's no idea of which other currency would be appropriate.

i take a view point that rugby needs to go to established nations and grow the game world wide(so we should have top rugby nations plus the occasional up and coming one as well)- and it has to try and make a few quid to put back as well- thats just the way of the world, but we shouldnt look at maximising profit at the sake of the sport. alex salmond needs to do one in honesty. he adds nothing to anything

anotherworldofpain

Why is it important that the RWC makes any money???

The reason why its important is that with the revenue generated from the RWC is that they fund the global game. Without which the game wouldn't exist outside of the top 10 nations in the world.

The IRB spends over £100MM GBP from one RWC to the next either through grants to national bodies, tournaments and building the game.

Thats a pretty good reason why they need to be a financial success.

FA0019:

But to what end? What is the point of "build up" a sport to a global game if always the top level is driven by only purpose to make money?

Is some capitalist agenda there and like all capitalist agenda is the snake eating its own tail.

You have to be sure WHAT that IRB purpose to build the game is. Just to self perpetuating and make even more money for itself? You know, there are a lot of fat cat bureaucrats in there have a pretty good life style from the money in the mean time.

If a "global game" imperative mean the pinacle of the sport (RWC) only played in county that can "afford it" then is some self defeating purpose.

Do we really want RWC only in ENG, SA, AUS? or some mockery in JAPAN or USA where nobody can even playing the game because it make more money that way?

We already know that betwen RWC unions write off whole years to "rebuilding". So does this mean we will only get to see top level games in ENG, SA and AUS? Seems like a strange way to "grow the game into a global" to me.

anotherworldofpain wrote:FA0019:

But to what end? What is the point of "build up" a sport to a global game if always the top level is driven by only purpose to make money?

Is some capitalist agenda there and like all capitalist agenda is the snake eating its own tail.

You have to be sure WHAT that IRB purpose to build the game is. Just to self perpetuating and make even more money for itself? You know, there are a lot of fat cat bureaucrats in there have a pretty good life style from the money in the mean time.

If a "global game" imperative mean the pinacle of the sport (RWC) only played in county that can "afford it" then is some self defeating purpose.

Do we really want RWC only in ENG, SA, AUS? or some mockery in JAPAN or USA where nobody can even playing the game because it make more money that way?

We already know that betwen RWC unions write off whole years to "rebuilding". So does this mean we will only get to see top level games in ENG, SA and AUS? Seems like a strange way to "grow the game into a global" to me.

Quite right, it never should have gone to New Zealand in the first place then we wouldnt have had to worry about players being fined for having the wrong gumshields, posters being pulled down in hotels and all the Union moaning about how much it had cost them to host the thing afterwards. Next time have it played in a tin shack in um bongo land where the only expenses will be paying off a few local dignitaries. And while we are at it ban the Haka, it only exists for commercial reasons now.

Without the RWC there is no global rugby.

NZ, SA, OZ or whoever play against countries that can make money outside of world cups, the same applies for television revenue.

Due to the world cup, the revenue that is made there, all tier two countires get money to sustain their development.

The RWC affords tier two countries the opportunity to compete on the same stage as tier one nations.

The RWC is not there to be fixated on as the "ideal fair" tournament, it is there for the sole purpose for the IRB to finance itself. I read a report somewhere last year where the percentage of income the IRB made out of the RWC is in the 80%+ region.

That is why gumguards, advetisements etc must all fall in line with their regulations.

The IRB wants the game to grow and be seen live by more people, that's why Japan got the hosting rights, they have money, loves rugby and a huge population that will fill the stadiums.

If you consider NZ had to guarantee something like 80+ million and their government stood in to back up that guarantee. Without that they would never have hosted it.

A country "shack" unfortunately has no chance.

Thanks PSW for your usual measured, honest and thoughtful responding!

For instance can you remind me where is "bongo land" because I am sure you don't just make this place up to get effect.

Point is if these others get their ways then RWC will never go to NZ again because always will be in Twickenham (unless financial crisis in Europe sinks London and then will they share the same view?). It gives unfair home advantage in RWC to the rich nations (NOT necessary the BEST nations) to host and get home advantage more regular. I don't see how that is grow the game, that is more like turn the game into private club for rich members!!!

Samoa, Argentina, Wales, NZ : all countries who hit above their financial weight in RWC will be disadvantaged to playing in ENG all the time, and occassionally USA or JAPAN where let me tell you that they can't even tell you what a rugby ball looks like most people! Is insane to prostitute the sport to RICH countries.

When Rugby 7 is Olympic and money flooding in for China, Russia do you want to going to Beijing every 4 years to watching the world cup? against a team of imported and hasty nationalised Tongans?

Rugby growth should be natural and organic and based on popularity and not some forced and based on economics.

The reason why it needs to go to the Cash cows of ENG, SA & FRA regularly is so the alternate RWCs CAN go to development countries such as Japan, Italy, Argentina, the USA etc etc.. and build the game so that in years to come they don't have to depend so much on their key markets.

Not sure what you are trying to imply here?? ENG have never hosted a RWC before out of the 7 tournaments. they hosted the final of the 91 tournament but had to play their QF & SF in Paris/Edinburgh so there was little home advantage that time.

You may think its selling the soul of the sport but without them... there is no sport. Argentina, Romania, Georgia... these countries would probably not even be able to afford to travel to the competitions.... how are their logistics, their kit, their training facilities paid.....

by the grants provided by the IRB.

Poor old NZ... they have to put up with unfair advantage on other countries... Well they've hosted the RWC twice... and its been the only place they've actually won a competition.

Anyone else hosted a RWC more than twice?

One thing I thought interesting on your post.... you said that how dare the RWC only going to countries that can afford it. Well, actually I'm of the opinion that they should only go to countries that can afford it.

Take SA in the FIFA world cup 2010 for instance. Was hosting the tournament worth the billions of USD we spent on hosting it, on building all those stadiums etc?

It was fun for the people but I doubt you would find any who would say it changed their lives for the better.
I can assure you the billions we spent on building the white elephants we now have could have been re-directed better to feeding the poor, building them houses would have done so.

The money that the tourists who came to SA 2 years ago went to private enterprise and was hardly more than the years we didn't host.... the extra revenue didn't go to the people who spent the money hosting it... the tax payers, the citizens and the people who needed it the most.

Was it worth it???

fa0019 wrote:The reason why it needs to go to the Cash cows of ENG, SA & FRA regularly is so the alternate RWCs CAN go to development countries such as Japan, Italy, Argentina, the USA etc etc.. and build the game so that in years to come they don't have to depend so much on their key markets.

Not sure what you are trying to imply here?? ENG have never hosted a RWC before out of the 7 tournaments. they hosted the final of the 91 tournament but had to play their QF & SF in Paris/Edinburgh so there was little home advantage that time.

You may think its selling the soul of the sport but without them... there is no sport. Argentina, Romania, Georgia... these countries would probably not even be able to afford to travel to the competitions.... how are their logistics, their kit, their training facilities paid.....

by the grants provided by the IRB.

Poor old NZ... they have to put up with unfair advantage on other countries... Well they've hosted the RWC twice... and its been the only place they've actually won a competition.

Anyone else hosted a RWC more than twice?

One thing I thought interesting on your post.... you said that how dare the RWC only going to countries that can afford it. Well, actually I'm of the opinion that they should only go to countries that can afford it.

Take SA in the FIFA world cup 2010 for instance. Was hosting the tournament worth the billions of USD we spent on hosting it, on building all those stadiums etc?

It was fun for the people but I doubt you would find any who would say it changed their lives for the better.
I can assure you the billions we spent on building the white elephants we now have could have been re-directed better to feeding the poor, building them houses would have done so.

The money that the tourists who came to SA 2 years ago went to private enterprise and was hardly more than the years we didn't host.... the extra revenue didn't go to the people who spent the money hosting it... the tax payers, the citizens and the people who needed it the most.

Was it worth it???

Not sure why you need to throw in the point about NZ only win win they play at home! Seems to be the partisan reality creep into your logic there! RWC tournaments are worth 2x IRB points. Everybody knows about home advantage. If always one or two or three nations play at home in RWC then they get the better ratings from it. You just advocate for some closed rich boys club to privilege the wealthy.

Fact is rugby exist before RWC and will exist without this private boys self promotion club of closed world cups.

The reason why RWC points are worth double is that you can't have the winners not being the world No1 ranked team else it would undermine the tournament.... therefore its designed so that whoever the winner is.... they will also be ranked No.1. Its nothing to do with home advantage.. all teams results are multiplied by 2 not just those facing the home team.

Its nothing to do with home advantage. It didn't help France beat England in 07, Aus beat Eng in 03, Wales do better than they should normally do in 99 or Eng beat Aus in 91. More often than not home advantage hasn't counted when it matters.

What I find amazing is how you think the IRB and their RWC is a boys club controlling the sport..... did you know rugby before the IRB took control????

Anyhow if you look at the RWC in their history I think you'll find its gone around quite fairly.

87 - NZ with Aus
91 - 6Ns (joint hosts)
95 - SA
99 - 6Ns (Wales with others hosting)
03 - Aus
07 - France
11 - NZ
15 - ENG
19 - Japan
23 - prob. SA
27 - prob. Italy

But history not about project the future because now the rich unions wanting to change the rules to keep a private club.

when did you get that idea... ENG are hosting it next, then Japan.

Then SA will probably host, then Italy.

2 heavyweights each followed by 2 new comers.

and the revenue generated by the heavyweights will be used to support any shortcomings in the 'project' hosts 4 years later.

Look the RFU didnt spend an absolute fortune trying to convince everyone (between 2003 and 2007)that winning the world cup was the greatest single achievement possible for mankind just so some third rate nation could cash in on the franchise.
However since Scotland by that time will be world champions (it says so in their PLAN) then its quite reasonable they should get to host it, like the Eurovision song contest.

Im not quite sure how the bank of Scotland will be able to meet the IRBs required finical guarantees though.

would scotland do better on there own in the eurovision contest. Is that the motivation for independance?

fa0019 wrote:when did you get that idea... ENG are hosting it next, then Japan.

Correction, England are hosting it with Wales. They are using the Millenium.

I'm not for one minute suggestion that Scotland should host it, just suggesting as a logistical matter that they could.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

fa0019 wrote:when did you get that idea... ENG are hosting it next, then Japan.

Correction, England are hosting it with Wales. They are using the Millenium.

I'm not for one minute suggestion that Scotland should host it, just suggesting as a logistical matter that they could.

Theres no compelling reason that they shouldnt, but realistically as pointed out in the OP they would have to do it as a joint enterprise. With Ireland would be a sensible option. Putting a joint bid in isnt unreasonable or unrealistic. trying to host in on their won. from the statement I dont think even the SRU believe thats a seriously achievable option.

It's only not achievable because of the IRB financial guarantees, which I don't think we could match. That's why I think the SRU don't think it's a viable option. We also don't currently have the footfall in Scottish rugby at the moment, which is why I personally don't think we deserve it. Until we start selling out our club games, I don't think we can expect the IRB to seriously back us.

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's only not achievable because of the IRB financial guarantees, which I don't think we could match. That's why I think the SRU don't think it's a viable option. We also don't currently have the footfall in Scottish rugby at the moment, which is why I personally don't think we deserve it. Until we start selling out our club games, I don't think we can expect the IRB to seriously back us.

I think the stadia would be a big stumbling block, the cost of building/bringing enough up to the 50k/30k plus level would be prohibitive. Its not like these grounds would be required after the cup, its hardly as if outside the big two soccer clubs theres mass demand on the existing resources.
As would the "prestige" element which plays heavily on the decision of where to host the tournament

its a no brainer- joint with ireland and job done

Just read the thread for the first time.
For the 2015 RWC, I would have favoured a joint Home Nations bid, anchored by HQ, Millenium, Aviva/Landowns Road, and Murrayfield. A total celebration of Rugby across our Islands. That would have been the big picture view.

OK, that didn't happen, so why not a Celtic RWC in 2023? Would still be that celebration of Rugby for our Islands, and would be great for the three host nations. And for Rugby in Scotland, the real kick on which they need.

Of course, Twickenham would have to get a few of the Welsh matches (quid pro quo for the RWC 2015) and I would include Cornwall and Brittany, because they are Celtic??????

I don't really understand the concerns about stadia not being filled by fans of the host country.

One or two people travel to World Cups to support their team, apparently.

I am more concerned that Scottish and Irish tourism couldn't produce enough Belhaven and Guinness to cope.

Could be a great way to re-establish the game in Scotland.

Don't worry Maesteg - according to the SRU, we will win the RWC in 2015.

Panic over. That should do the trick.

George Carlin wrote:In terms We need to branch this party out a little.

This. RWC can not be the same merry-go-round of countries. It's just not good for world growth of Rugby, it also gives the impression of a closed door club that is hard/next to impossible to join.

Personally i'm not against joint hosting - hasn't seemed to detract from the pansyballers fun the few times it has happened. If the decision is made that Scotland doesn't have the infrastructure to host a RWC then why not a 'Celtic' hosting of Scotland/Wales/Ireland? All great rugby nations in their own right, haven't been selected before and between the three they have great bastions of the Rugby game.

Indeed, a PI hosted WC would be great as well ... an excuse to lash out on a plane to watch a WC and slouch around on a beach for the rest of the time!

AlastairW wrote:If the decision is made that Scotland doesn't have the infrastructure to host a RWC then why not a 'Celtic' hosting of Scotland/Wales/Ireland? All great rugby nations in their own right, haven't been selected before and between the three they have great bastions of the Rugby game.

Wales in '99?

Mind you, most the games were played outside of Wales.

I didn't write anything of the sort Spikey young feller me lad.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:It's only not achievable because of the IRB financial guarantees, which I don't think we could match. That's why I think the SRU don't think it's a viable option. We also don't currently have the footfall in Scottish rugby at the moment, which is why I personally don't think we deserve it. Until we start selling out our club games, I don't think we can expect the IRB to seriously back us.

I think the stadia would be a big stumbling block, the cost of building/bringing enough up to the 50k/30k plus level would be prohibitive. Its not like these grounds would be required after the cup, its hardly as if outside the big two soccer clubs theres mass demand on the existing resources.
As would the "prestige" element which plays heavily on the decision of where to host the tournament

See my previous posts above on the stadia within Scotland. I personally think we already have enough. Hosting Italy vs Tonga in a 50k stadium is pointless. Pittodrie or Tynecastle could easily host such a match.

It comes down to the point I raised before. If money is the driving force, then Scotland isn't the right choice. The RWC Final could easily see out a 100,000 capacity stadium. We don't have one of those. Murrayfield would be pretty special on such an occasion though.

I personally thought the Wales 1999 WC was pretty souless.

Scotland took games to Murrayfield but didn't buy into the tournament (as it was marketed as a Welsh tournament) - the result was games no-one cared about being played in an empty stadium.

1999 was exactly how not to host a World Cup, similarly France in 2007 (France, the hosts, playing a QF in Cardiff was a farce).

If we are going to go down the "joint" road, then it'll need to be truly "joint", with no one country claiming sole hosting rights. Difficult as the final would have to be played somewhere.

I'd far rather we went with a sole host. Tournaments just have more soul and identity when done that way.

George Carlin wrote:I didn't write anything of the sort Spikey young feller me lad.

Doh! Fixed. Apols for putting words in your mouth, Mr Carlin

Wales and England have hosted the RWC before. Ireland or Scotland have not.

If Ireland were to bid, it should do it on its own. If Scotland believe they can't bid alone, then they should do it jointly with Ireland only.

And can they do it in my lifetime please, so hurry up!