Question re Ireland possible bid for rwc in 2023

Just idly thinking about nothing and wondered given that the final has to be in a 60000 capacity stadium would they use Croke Park? I understand that the Aviva capacity can't be increased further and think its around the 50000 mark? But would the IRFU not want to host the final at their stadium?

They couldn't give a fiddlers. IRFU are putting together their bid with the explicit cooperation of the GAA in getting the right stadia network together. Croke Park has been used already and will be used again.

I didn't know Ireland were planning to put a bid in...

Given how much the RFU appear to be struggling to have enough capacity to sell a vast number of tickets and cover the IRB hosting fee, do you think the IRFU will be able to do this? Or given the wider economic benefit will they likely get state backing?

In terms of Croke v Lansdown Rd, I'd thought it's better to host and get some good quarters and a semi at Lansdown Rd than to miss out altogether?

All the best to them though if they do go for it. It would be great to have another world cup within easy travel distance, and Ireland has always been a great place to visit. Any idea who the competition is at this stage? I'm assuming South Africa will want to host again at some point soon, and Italy have shown interest previously as well.

I believe it is part of the proposal, the GAA will do anything if you give them enough money.

Well as an outsider it does seem mad that the IRFU only built a 50000 capacity stadium. But I'm well up for an Irish World Cup!

2023 is coming to SA.

By then it will have been 28 years since it was hosted in Africa.

2023 needs to be in the N. hemisphere Biltong.
My money would be on Italy or Ireland - I would definately try and get tickets for both.

propdavid_london wrote:2023 needs to be in the N. hemisphere Biltong.
My money would be on Italy or Ireland - I would definately try and get tickets for both.

No it doesn't, Japan 2019 is in the NH

South Africa is the right time zones for Europe too. Though it'll all come down to horse-trading for votes as per usual.

I suspect it will go back to the southern hemisphere in 2023, understandable if they do make that call. However, in response to it will be 28 years since SA hosted - it will be 32 years since Ireland hosted in any capacity, and other nations like Italy and Argentina have never hosted. So I don't really see that as a massive argument in South Africa's favour.

I'm sure whoever it goes to Cardiff will end up hosting the Wales games...

It should be Italy for me, they have enough large football stadiums and by then will have been part of the top tier for long enough to deserve a shot at it. As there will have been a couple of olympic sevens tournaments by then, I think it will be important to host the WC in a new country to keep the popularity for 15's going.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I'm sure whoever it goes to Cardiff will end up hosting the Wales games...

It should be Italy for me, they have enough large football stadiums and by then will have been part of the top tier for long enough to deserve a shot at it. As there will have been a couple of olympic sevens tournaments by then, I think it will be important to host the WC in a new country to keep the popularity for 15's going.

Ireland have been part of the top tier for longer so surely they deserve a shot more? At this stage all top 8 teams have hosted the tournament except Scotland and Ireland.

NZ, SA, AUS, ENG, FRA, WHA have all had it so really it should be Irelands turn.

I think the RWC is to be awarded in waves i.e. Big market followed by a smaller market followed by a big market etc.

Thats why the RWC awarded the RWC19 to Japan and gave England the nod in 2015... NZ was at best a breakeven tournament, they need sure things as its the biggest money spinner for the IRB.

I'm sure Japan will be a success but its no certainity. They will require a bumper 2015 to make sure there will be no shortfalls if its not as successful as projected. Give it to SA in 2023 which is a guaranteed sell out every game and no infrastructure will be needed so cost will be minimal.

2027 you can put the tournament out to Italy, Ireland & Scotland joint (neither have enough stadiums of size), even Argentina.

The in 2031 it looks like Australia will be ready again to put on a bumper show.

fa0019 wrote:I think the RWC is to be awarded in waves i.e. Big market followed by a smaller market followed by a big market etc.

Thats why the RWC awarded the RWC19 to Japan and gave England the nod in 2015... NZ was at best a breakeven tournament, they need sure things as its the biggest money spinner for the IRB.

I'm sure Japan will be a success but its no certainity. They will require a bumper 2015 to make sure there will be no shortfalls if its not as successful as projected. Give it to SA in 2023 which is a guaranteed sell out every game and no infrastructure will be needed so cost will be minimal.

2027 you can put the tournament out to Italy, Ireland & Scotland joint (neither have enough stadiums of size), even Argentina.

The in 2031 it looks like Australia will be ready again to put on a bumper show.

SA have had it before. They can wait their turn. Ireland has just as good stadia than NZ who have had it twice. We also have arguably better infrastructure too. The redevelopment that is already underway would bring it in line with what is required.

Ireland would potentially be the best RWC ever held as the matches would be condensed across a very small island making travel very easy and accessable for all matches. There will also be a much greater sense of a festival atmosphere than if it were spread out across a massive country like SA.

Rugby Stadia:

Aviva Stadium - 50,000

Raven hill, undergoing refurbishment to 19,000

Sportsground Connacht 7,500

RDS 18,500

Thomond park 26,500

Musgrave Park 9,251

Donnybrook 6,000

Potential GAA Stadia:

Croke Parke, 82,300

Casement Park, due for refurbishment soon to 40,000

Páirc Uí Chaoimh, due for refurbishment soon to 50,000

Fitzgerald Stadium in Killarney capacity 43,000

Limerick’s Gaelic Grounds 50,000

France have already had a sucessful WC using municipal stadia and England will be using lots of football grounds. See no reason why Ireland cant do it with GAA stadia. Croke Park is one of the greatest stadia in the NH.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:2023 needs to be in the N. hemisphere Biltong.
My money would be on Italy or Ireland - I would definately try and get tickets for both.

No it doesn't, Japan 2019 is in the NH

South Africa is the right time zones for Europe too. Though it'll all come down to horse-trading for votes as per usual.

You are quite right!

Whats the GAA schedule like in a European autumn?

If they could utilise those stadiums for the big matches then they could potentially host it on their own... although France in 07 were filling in the smallest games to 30K+ in attendance (much to do with their ticket policies.. want a ENG vs. SA... well yes if you buy a ROM vs. USA etc)?

Croke park was brilliant. I heard the GAA didn't want a full time arrangement but it was 10* better than the Aviva. Opposition teams were in for a shock.

I would back any Ireland or Italian proposal. I think that both would have the infrastructure (if allowed to use GAA and/or football stadium).
If Scotland wanted a piece then they could host some quarters in support of Irelands bid (much the same as Wales do for all other WC's).

I would also want to back any bid that develops the game - but we dont want to see empty stadiums!
Would a USA/Canada bid be able to fill the big stadiums?
Is the game big enough in Argentina to host a WC?

fa0019 wrote:Whats the GAA schedule like in a European autumn?

If they could utilise those stadiums for the big matches then they could potentially host it on their own... although France in 07 were filling in the smallest games to 30K+ in attendance (much to do with their ticket policies.. want a ENG vs. SA... well yes if you buy a ROM vs. USA etc)?

Croke park was brilliant. I heard the GAA didn't want a full time arrangement but it was 10* better than the Aviva. Opposition teams were in for a shock.

GAA is a summer sport. Grounds arent used in Autumn. The GAA will give their conscent.

France used municipal stadia for their RWC and England will use Football Stadia. Australia also used a mix. No reason why ireland wont sucessfully be able to pull off a RWC with GAA and rugby grounds.

The infrastructure is there pending some small and mostly already scheduled adjustments.

I can't see it coming back to a 'home nation' side for a long time after 2015.

I'd really like to see the RWC in Italy.

It would be a consolation prize if Italy or Argentina got the RWC (should Ireland not).

I would truly hate for it to be back in Australia or South Africa and Ireland to still not have it.

I could definitely see it heading to the Southern Hemisphere though as (fair is fair) there will have been France (2007), England (2015) and Japan (2019).

If Ireland got it, we would have 4 of the 5 RWCs in the Northern Hemisphere which wouldnt be that popular with the fans travelling that far.

I'd be annoyed if there were 4/5 RWCs between Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Argentina.

PS I know Argentina is in the Southern Hemisphere but I'd like to see them get a go.

red_stag wrote:It would be a consolation prize if Italy or Argentina got the RWC (should Ireland not).

I would truly hate for it to be back in Australia or South Africa and Ireland to still not have it.

I could definitely see it heading to the Southern Hemisphere though as (fair is fair) there will have been France (2007), England (2015) and Japan (2019).

If Ireland got it, we would have 4 of the 5 RWCs in the Northern Hemisphere which wouldnt be that popular with the fans travelling that far.

I'd be annoyed if there were 4/5 RWCs between Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Argentina.

PS I know Argentina is in the Southern Hemisphere but I'd like to see them get a go.

Its not the NH v the SH. Japan is closest to NZ and Aus than anywhere else so they will be fine. Plus NZ and Aus have both hosted twice and SA once.

Ireland, Scotland and Argentina's turn. Ireland first though.

reading the above posts, it seems that Rugby union world cups shall be hosted by the same small club of countries. not good if you want to develop the game. meanwhile 7s rugby will have gained considerable exposure during the olympics and will be played in more and more countries and probably take market share from union in terms of general public interest, sponsorship and tv coverage.

Therefore , Argentina first as there is still potential for growth there and would be a great platform for rugby union development in south america.
Scotland and Ireland will probably end up co-hosting one to make sure they get it (dont think Scotland can host one on their own).

People need to remember that the Japanese union had to sign up to an even larger 'profit' than the RFU did. The 2019 World Cup will probably make more for the IRB than the 2015 one (even if the Japanese government pay it). If the Argentinians or Italians can get the backing then go for it. I'd rather them than Ireland simily for development purposes but I'd rather Ireland got it over South Africa

Big wrote:I suspect it will go back to the southern hemisphere in 2023, understandable if they do make that call. However, in response to it will be 28 years since SA hosted - it will be 32 years since Ireland hosted in any capacity, and other nations like Italy and Argentina have never hosted. So I don't really see that as a massive argument in South Africa's favour.

It isn't an argument, it is logic.

Australia hosted it in 2003, prior to that the hosted it in 1987, a break of 16 years
NZ were co hosts in 1987 and hosted again in 2011, a break of 24 years
England 1991 and again 2015, a break of 24 years
Wales 1991 and 1999 a mere 8 years
France 1991 and 2007
Ireland Scotland and the whole caboodle in 1991

So why Should SA not get it in 2023

If they give it to Argentina, then it means we will have to wait another 8 years.

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have. Even when Ireland were joint hosts this was further back than the last time SA hosted it. Also given that Ireland have been part of the IRB for longer and participated in more world cups than SA so I think Ireland deserve it more.

What have SA done to deserve it more than Ireland?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have.

Guns, when England, France or Wales host matches how far do you have to travel from Dublin or Limerick or where ever to get to a game?

If SA does not host a RWC, we have to travel 10 000 Kilometers to our nearest match.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have.

Guns, when England, France or Wales host matches how far do you have to travel from Dublin or Limerick or where ever to get to a game?

If SA does not host a RWC, we have to travel 10 000 Kilometers to our nearest match.

There are almost 200k South Africans in the UK.

There are more than one benefit to hosting a world cup. Some others below:

Tourism and boost to local economy.

Home advantage.

Raise the profile of the country.

An opportunity to improve the existing infrastrusture with the promise of repayment from ticket sales

Why should South Africa benifit from these things twice before a country like Ireland with a perfectly viable bid gets it even once?

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have.

Guns, when England, France or Wales host matches how far do you have to travel from Dublin or Limerick or where ever to get to a game?

If SA does not host a RWC, we have to travel 10 000 Kilometers to our nearest match.

There are almost 200k South Africans in the UK.

There are more than one benefit to hosting a world cup. Some others below:

Tourism and boost to local economy.

Home advantage.

Raise the profile of the country.

Why should South Africa benifit from these things twice before a country like Ireland with a perfectly viable bid gets it even once?

Why do Wales maage to get games everytime England hosts?

Why not Ireland?

By the way, what does 200 000 expat South Africans have to do with anything?

Biltong wrote:Why do Wales manage to get games everytime England hosts?

Why not Ireland?

Ireland did get some games in 1991. However, the time is right now to put in a bid to host outright rather than accept scraps.

Biltong wrote:By the way, what does 200 000 expat South Africans have to do with anything?

About as much as the distance between SA and any other potential host nation. Dont see why other bids should be discounted just because SA sits by itself on the African continent away from every where else.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have.

Guns, when England, France or Wales host matches how far do you have to travel from Dublin or Limerick or where ever to get to a game?

If SA does not host a RWC, we have to travel 10 000 Kilometers to our nearest match.

There are almost 200k South Africans in the UK.

There are more than one benefit to hosting a world cup. Some others below:

Tourism and boost to local economy.

Home advantage.

Raise the profile of the country.

Why should South Africa benifit from these things twice before a country like Ireland with a perfectly viable bid gets it even once?

Its a regional thing for fans especially. Its no problem for fans in Ireland to go to France, England, Italy etc. Its almost impossible for South African fans to do the same unless a tournament is hosted in country. These tournaments are seen as thus, a European tournament, a Oceania tournament, an African tournament, an emerging rugby nation tournament (Japan, Canda, Argentina).

Sure Ireland should get their turn but if that was so then we would have 6 tournaments in Europe out of every 10 and only 1 in Africa.... so that would mean European fans would get 6 tournaments where they can easily travel to whereas SA would have to wait what 40 years before they got to se a RWC in their own backyard... when you look at it like that its not exactly fair (from a slightly biased point of view).

The 91 tournament wasn't an English tournament... it was a five nations tournament. Out of the 7 KO matches only the final was played at Twickenham. Scotland played their 2 KO matches at Murrayfield, Ireland played their QF at home and would have played their SF at home too had they qualified. That was more to an advantage to Ireland and Scotland then to England... well until the final (you have to get there before you get the advantage of a home final).

SA is one of the 3 cash cows the IRB have with England and France. The IRB know that rveenue will be sky high and costs will be little. That is very attractive for any deciding committee. My own view would be for SA to get it in 2023 and then either a Ireland/Scotland joint bid or Italy in 2027.

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:By the way, what does 200 000 expat South Africans have to do with anything?

About as much as the distance between SA and any other potential host nation. Dont see why other bids should be discounted just because SA sits by itself on the African continent away from every where else.

spreading the game mate, in Europe everyone is in close proximity to each other and travel is easy.

You seriously can't tell me you don't get the issue.

If RWC is not held in SA, Africans apart from those in north Africa, just don't get to rugby world cup matches live.

fa0019 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:
So why Should SA not get it in 2023

because Ireland will have a very strong bid and have not hosted it on their own yet whereas SA have.

Guns, when England, France or Wales host matches how far do you have to travel from Dublin or Limerick or where ever to get to a game?

If SA does not host a RWC, we have to travel 10 000 Kilometers to our nearest match.

There are almost 200k South Africans in the UK.

There are more than one benefit to hosting a world cup. Some others below:

Tourism and boost to local economy.

Home advantage.

Raise the profile of the country.

Why should South Africa benifit from these things twice before a country like Ireland with a perfectly viable bid gets it even once?

Its a regional thing for fans especially. Its no problem for fans in Ireland to go to France, England, Italy etc. Its almost impossible for South African fans to do the same unless a tournament is hosted in country. These tournaments are seen as thus, a European tournament, a Oceania tournament, an African tournament, an emerging rugby nation tournament (Japan, Canda, Argentina).

Sure Ireland should get their turn but if that was so then we would have 6 tournaments in Europe out of every 10 and only 1 in Africa.... so that would mean European fans would get 6 tournaments where they can easily travel to whereas SA would have to wait what 40 years before they got to se a RWC in their own backyard... when you look at it like that its not exactly fair (from a slightly biased point of view).

The 91 tournament wasn't an English tournament... it was a five nations tournament. Out of the 7 KO matches only the final was played at Twickenham. Scotland played their 2 KO matches at Murrayfield, Ireland played their QF at home and would have played their SF at home too had they qualified. That was more to an advantage to Ireland and Scotland then to England... well until the final (you have to get there before you get the advantage of a home final).

SA is one of the 3 cash cows the IRB have with England and France. The IRB know that rveenue will be sky high and costs will be little. That is very attractive for any deciding committee. My own view would be for SA to get it in 2023 and then either a Ireland/Scotland joint bid or Italy in 2027.

Well put FA, was too lazy to go into detail.

Biltong wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Biltong wrote:By the way, what does 200 000 expat South Africans have to do with anything?

About as much as the distance between SA and any other potential host nation. Dont see why other bids should be discounted just because SA sits by itself on the African continent away from every where else.

spreading the game mate, in Europe everyone is in close proximity to each other and travel is easy.

You seriously can't tell me you don't get the issue.

If RWC is not held in SA, Africans apart from those in north Africa, just don't get to rugby world cup matches live.

Be honest you dont care about spreading the game you just want to see you country hosting the RWC. Same with me.

If that really was your concern then why arent you canvassing for Eastern Europe or Argentina to host the finals as they are bigger growth areas.

There is as much of a case for Ireland's proximity to Eastern Europe as SA to the rest of Africa. There is no good reason why SA should get the tournament ahead of Ireland's bid.

SA is a big growth area especially given the sport is played predominately by groups who only make up 30% of the population. Things like a world cup would help with spreading the game to the African people. But given the population in SA is 50MM, reaching out to 75% of this is a big deal... especially with SA and most of Africa having a much younger on average population then developed Europe.

Getting the game played by Africans in South Africa is imperative before spreading out the the rest of the continent in a serious manner.

Ireland too is not a pure rugby nation from what others have said so they would also see potential for growth within their nation, albeit much smaller numbers.

fa0019 wrote:

Its a regional thing for fans especially. Its no problem for fans in Ireland to go to France, England, Italy etc. Its almost impossible for South African fans to do the same unless a tournament is hosted in country. These tournaments are seen as thus, a European tournament, a Oceania tournament, an African tournament, an emerging rugby nation tournament (Japan, Canda, Argentina).

So the rest of the rugby world should have to accomodate South Africa just because they are geographically disadvantaged?

fa0019 wrote:

Sure Ireland should get their turn but if that was so then we would have 6 tournaments in Europe out of every 10 and only 1 in Africa.... so that would mean European fans would get 6 tournaments where they can easily travel to whereas SA would have to wait what 40 years before they got to se a RWC in their own backyard... when you look at it like that its not exactly fair (from a slightly biased point of view).

It makes sense to have more tournaments in Europe given that 6 of the worlds top 9 nations are in Europe. It makes perfect sense.

fa0019 wrote:

The 91 tournament wasn't an English tournament... it was a five nations tournament. Out of the 7 KO matches only the final was played at Twickenham. Scotland played their 2 KO matches at Murrayfield, Ireland played their QF at home and would have played their SF at home too had they qualified. That was more to an advantage to Ireland and Scotland then to England... well until the final (you have to get there before you get the advantage of a home final).

It wasnt hosted by Ireland they got to stage some matches, thats it. In any case that was prior to SA's RWC so even if you do count it then it is Ireland's turn again not SA's

fa0019 wrote:

SA is one of the 3 cash cows the IRB have with England and France. The IRB know that rveenue will be sky high and costs will be little. That is very attractive for any deciding committee. My own view would be for SA to get it in 2023 and then either a Ireland/Scotland joint bid or Italy in 2027.

Stats suggest that revenue in a Irish hosted RWC will be bigger that at an SA RWC given that the two highest attended RWCs have both been in Europe.

fa0019 wrote:SA is a big growth area especially given the sport is played predominately by groups who only make up 30% of the population. Things like a world cup would help with spreading the game to the African people. But given the population in SA is 50MM, reaching out to 75% of this is a big deal... especially with SA and most of Africa having a much younger on average population then developed Europe.

Getting the game played by Africans in South Africa is imperative before spreading out the the rest of the continent in a serious manner.

Ireland too is not a pure rugby nation from what others have said so they would also see potential for growth within their nation, albeit much smaller numbers.

Correct plus there are large populations of Lithuanians and Polish living in Ireland. These are two nations with huge rugby playing potential. That is if you are really concerned with spreading the game.

Plus the hoards of fans that could come from Russia, Romania, Georgia, Spain, Portugal etc. All growth areas.

Ireland is also the closest country in Europe to the US and Canada making it the ideal location for spreading the game.

Given the historic links with Ireland and the US and the volume of US tourists that come to Ireland every year this would represent further opportunity for spreadage if that what concerns you most.

I want to see the RWC in a country somewhere a bit more 'exotic'.

Having it in Ireland won't be much different from it being in England which we'll get in two years time.

Italy or Argentina (along with Japan) would be great.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:I want to see the RWC in a country somewhere a bit more 'exotic'.

Having it in Ireland won't be much different from it being in England which we'll get in two years time.

Italy or Argentina (along with Japan) would be great.

Im not sure the IRB will have your need for an exotic holiday too high on their list of priorities. I get the point though. I would like to go to a RWC in South Africa or evn Argentina myself but I would prefer Ireland were given the opportunity to host one in the interest of fairness.

Of course the advantage of staging in Ireland would be the IRB member wouldnt have to waddle far after lunch to check on how developments were going...

I do think the IRB will be likely to take the safe option of SA. You could guarantee a profit as well as trying to get new fans interested, so a win-win situation there in terms of the 2 main aims of the WC.

Personally as I said above, I would like a country who has never held WC matches before to do it, like Italy or Argentina. I would be wary of staging a WC in the old four nations countries personally as it always gets diluted and besides I think 1991,1999,2007 and 2015 shows that if anything, these small islands have been over-represented in the past.

Bathman_in_London wrote:Of course the advantage of staging in Ireland would be the IRB member wouldnt have to waddle far after lunch to check on how developments were going...

I do think the IRB will be likely to take the safe option of SA. You could guarantee a profit as well as trying to get new fans interested, so a win-win situation there in terms of the 2 main aims of the WC.

Personally as I said above, I would like a country who has never held WC matches before to do it, like Italy or Argentina. I would be wary of staging a WC in the old four nations countries personally as it always gets diluted and besides I think 1991,1999,2007 and 2015 shows that if anything, these small islands have been over-represented in the past.

Very easy for you to say when England are nailed on to host the next RWC.

Also how do you conclude that SA has a bigger chance of making a profit than Ireland?

Guns

I wasn't suggesting Ireland hosted a tournament on their own... but they did host a tournament jointly in 91... just as much as Scotland, Wales, England and France did.

Ireland, Scotland and Wales have a combined population of 15MM.... SA have a population of 50MM.... by that you could argue that SA should host 3 times as many tournaments as Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together.

SA is a big rugby market. They are on of the biggest financial contributors to the coffers of the IRB and geographically they are rather isolated.

In football Europe supplies most of the top teams at the world cup with Brasil and Argentina filling in the rest... yet Europe only ever get the tournament once every 2 world cups.... a lot less than their competitive share.

Surely you don't believe a world cup should go

Europe, SA, Europe, AUS, Europe, Argentina, Europe, NZ, Europe, Europe

thats just a little selfish.

To those in Europe I doubt people care that much if a tournament is in England, Wales or Ireland. Its still only £100 return whereever you live and whatever anyone on here says... the UK is one country, should the UK be able to host the tournament 3 times over AUS' or SA's 1? Come on. All you will be doing is appeasing the same fans all the time. Personally I don't think you actually believe that.

SA has moved on a lot more since 1995 (the last amateur tournament). I'm sure you could concede that SA would provide greater match attendance than any Ireland hosting... given SA has the highest domestic attendances of any rugby nation in the world. Ireland would probably be able to produce higher ticket costs, but then again, expenses would also be significantly higher. NZ struggled to contain all the fans during the RWC... does Ireland have the capacity from a tourist basis? SA certainly does.

I myself would not un-welcome an Ireland solely tournament... but I don't think they should get one as much as SA or AUS for example should do. Those countries are near continent size and have populations that far outstrip Irelands and since SA last hosted a tournament we have seen RWCs in Europe in 99, 07 and soon to be in 15 I think it would be fair to give SA another shot.

I agree, it is easy for me to say that, but even if the 2015 WC was in Ireland, I would still think the next should go to Italy. Actually for me it would probably take the same amount of time to fly over to Dublin for a game as to go up to Newcastle, so it wouldnt exactly put me out if it was held there.

My basic conclusion is that there is a larger population in SA and there are a large number of large stadia already constructed there, both the traditional rugby ones and those built for the football WC. As there is a larger population who are sport mad and geographically isolated in terms of attending events in other countries, I think it is more likely that the 'lesser' games would be full and well supported. After all these are the games which in many ways decide the level of profit as the knockout stages and the games with the host nation/the big teams will always be well attended.

Just my thoughts.

I agree, it is easy for me to say that, but even if the 2015 WC was in Ireland, I would still think the next should go to Italy. Actually for me it would probably take the same amount of time to fly over to Dublin for a game as to go up to Newcastle, so it wouldnt exactly put me out if it was held there.

My basic conclusion is that there is a larger population in SA and there are a large number of large stadia already constructed there, both the traditional rugby ones and those built for the football WC. As there is a larger population who are sport mad and geographically isolated in terms of attending events in other countries, I think it is more likely that the 'lesser' games would be full and well supported. After all these are the games which in many ways decide the level of profit as the knockout stages and the games with the host nation/the big teams will always be well attended.

Just my thoughts.

NZ*, Aus & South Africa have a Lions Tour ever 12 years to spread the game. And it seems that the games were poorly attended in SA the last time. It will be interesting to see how the games outside the 3 Test matches do in Australia.

It should be noted as well that there is no VAT payable on tickets for sporting events in the ROI (which would be an additional bonus for the IRB.


*Do they need to spread the game in NZ?

I tell you what, we'll come play the next Lions tour in Europe, then you give us the RWC.

fa0019 wrote:Guns

I wasn't suggesting Ireland hosted a tournament on their own... but they did host a tournament jointly in 91... just as much as Scotland, Wales, England and France did.

Ireland, Scotland and Wales have a combined population of 15MM.... SA have a population of 50MM.... by that you could argue that SA should host 3 times as many tournaments as Ireland, Scotland and Wales put together.

SA is a big rugby market. They are on of the biggest financial contributors to the coffers of the IRB and geographically they are rather isolated.

If that was the only concern then why have NZ hosted the tournament twice. Why Australia twice.

fa0019 wrote:
In football Europe supplies most of the top teams at the world cup with Brasil and Argentina filling in the rest... yet Europe only ever get the tournament once every 2 world cups.... a lot less than their competitive share.

There is a lot more nations world wide competing at the football WC. Therefore 1 in every 2 is a good return for Europe.

fa0019 wrote:


Surely you don't believe a world cup should go

Europe, SA, Europe, AUS, Europe, Argentina, Europe, NZ, Europe, Europe

thats just a little selfish.

Its not selfish at all. I think the fairest option is that all IRB tier one nations should have an opportunity to host the tournament. By your logic NZ, AUS and SA all should have the opportunity to host the tournament more than once before Ireland ever host it.

Is that fair? Of course not because that would be selfish. Ireland have contributed as much to rugby as any other nation and deserve their chance.

fa0019 wrote:

To those in Europe I doubt people care that much if a tournament is in England, Wales or Ireland. Its still only £100 return whereever you live and whatever anyone on here says... the UK is one country, should the UK be able to host the tournament 3 times over AUS' or SA's 1? Come on. All you will be doing is appeasing the same fans all the time. Personally I don't think you actually believe that.

Ireland isnt in the UK and it isnt even on the same island so there is no reason why ireland should have to live of UK scraps when they can put forward a viable bid themselves.

fa0019 wrote:

SA has moved on a lot more since 1995 (the last amateur tournament). I'm sure you could concede that SA would provide greater match attendance than any Ireland hosting... given SA has the highest domestic attendances of any rugby nation in the world. Ireland would probably be able to produce higher ticket costs, but then again, expenses would also be significantly higher. NZ struggled to contain all the fans during the RWC... does Ireland have the capacity from a tourist basis? SA certainly does.

No I would not concede that Ireland would produce less attendances than SA. The Wales WC had the second most attendance for all world cups yet was the smallest country to host it.

Ireland world cup would attract massive numbers from Europe the US and the UK. SA might be able to attract more SA fans than Ireland would be able to attract Irish fans but Ireland would be able to generate greater attendances over all.

Yes Ireland does have the capacity to host a major tournament. It has much more accomodation than NZ for example.

fa0019 wrote:


I myself would not un-welcome an Ireland solely tournament... but I don't think they should get one as much as SA or AUS for example should do. Those countries are near continent size and have populations that far outstrip Irelands and since SA last hosted a tournament we have seen RWCs in Europe in 99, 07 and soon to be in 15 I think it would be fair to give SA another shot.

I think the size of SA and Aus are a good reason not to give them the tournament. Where matches are spread out across a massive land mass there is less a sense of a festival as if say it were hosted on a smaller island where travel between each of the stadia is no more than a few hundred miles max.

a lions tour isn't really for the host nations rather an opportunity for the Brits to go blotto on tour every 4 years.

The tests are always sell outs and the dirttracker matches are difficult to market.... clubs like WP will only be fielding their 2nd teams and the Lions will be field their own 2nd XVs. Not exactly a great incentive for the average local rugby team who wants to see their top side and their top players.

Does Leinster B side sell out just as much as the first team?

I wil give you an example. In the last tour WP played the Lions. They were the 2nd strongest side the lions faced that year (esp. given they didn't organise a match vs. the SR champs the bulls).

The lions played 5 original test players and the rest dirttrackers. WP had their top 5 odd players missing due to bok resting inc. Burger, Bekker, De Villiers.

It was terrible weather due to the time of year yet we still filled out newland 70% full... attendance was 34K out of a 50K capacity. Thats not bad for a WP B vs. Lions B match. I was actually at the game and I couldn't remember empty stands, perhaps some of the standing seats weren't as packed as usual.... but we get higher attendance in a standard SR match which shows how the local fans actually value lions series matches... and many of the attendees were brits on tour.

I'm a big Lions fan but I think people shouldn't get above themselves... the Lions are not the biggest thing in the game. In SA they are just another side bar those aged 60+. To the majority of fans especially the younger ones, they are more interested in NZ, AUS etc. Those teams put bums on seats because they see those players week in week out in SR. I doubt most rugby fans could have named 3/4 of the lions squad last time around and I'm sure it would be the same in AUS this time around.

Biltong wrote:I tell you what, we'll come play the next Lions tour in Europe, then you give us the RWC.

I just don't get the reasoning that the tournament should be in SA because Saffers don't get to go to travel to tournaments that much unlike in the NH where supporters can travel. Having it in Ireland would actually give them a worthwhile opportunity to do exactly that.

SA have a lot of top rugby on view in SA (Rugby Championship, Super Rugby, Currie Cup & Touring Side every year + Lions Tour ever 12 years).

Travelling away to a world cup would be something different for them!

fa0019 wrote:a lions tour isn't really for the host nations rather an opportunity for the Brits to go blotto on tour every 4 years.

The local economy rather likes that I'd say.

The tests are always sell outs and the dirttracker matches are difficult to market.... clubs like WP will only be fielding their 2nd teams and the Lions will be field their own 2nd XVs. Not exactly a great incentive for the average local rugby team who wants to see their top side and their top players.

How popular would USA v Italy be?

Does Leinster B side sell out just as much as the first team?

If they were playing the Lions I'd say it would be a sell-out. (Munster v ABs & Aus were) - and Munster were well into the Munster Academy for the ABs game as all of Munster's pack plus O'Gara were with Ireland.