The Rugby World Cups

There have been 8 Rugby World Cups. Wales have played matches at home (Cardiff) in 4 of them.

How is that:

1) Possible?
2) Fair?

Outrageous!

Pete330v2 wrote:Outrageous!

This made me laugh, but it's besides the point

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/world-cup/exirfu-president-helped-block-wales-from-playing-australia-at-cardiff-in-rugby-world-cup-31448624.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=irishinde

Chunky Norwich the Welsh vote is important in getting the RWC. Plus the Millennium Stadium is a good venue with plenty of seats which helps boost revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup_hosts

To be fair to Wales they have hosted less games than SA,France,Australia,NZ and this year England will overtake them.

NZ have hosted a whopping 69 games.

I want the Italians to get 2023.

beshocked wrote:Chunky Norwich the Welsh vote is important in getting the RWC. Plus the Millennium Stadium is a good venue with plenty of seats which helps boost revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup_hosts

To be fair to Wales they have hosted less games than SA,France,Australia,NZ and this year England will overtake them.

NZ have hosted a whopping 69 games.

I want the Italians to get 2023.

Exactly. It's utterly wrong that politics should win and teams get to play at home because of votes.

Wales playing in Cardiff when the world cup is hosted in France is just ridiculous. What's disappointing is that it is just "accepted".

Chunky Norwich greed is at the heart of it. Wales were essentially selling their vote to the highest bidder.

To be honest England only got the RWC 2015 because they promised the highest revenues - again greed.

It's tame compared to football but the greed is still there.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Outrageous!

This made me laugh, but it's besides the point

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/world-cup/exirfu-president-helped-block-wales-from-playing-australia-at-cardiff-in-rugby-world-cup-31448624.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=irishinde

Yeah I notice they forgot to give Fiji and Uruguay the same treatment,it's pretty poor from the administrators to so obviously favour the Aussies in this way,,can't blame the Welsh for taking advantage of the situation.

beshocked wrote:Chunky Norwich greed is at the heart of it. Wales were essentially selling their vote to the highest bidder.

To be honest England only got the RWC 2015 because they promised the highest revenues - again greed.

It's tame compared to football but the greed is still there.

I would hope Rugby is never compared to FIFA.  According to the US government investigation into FIFA money laundering through US banks, FIFA are being investigated as a criminal organisation, the extent of the criminality will be proven.  

We keep discussing this, but we need more transparency in Rugby.  There is no way the scope in Rugby can remotely come close to FIFA, but as Rugby grows and more money comes in, we need to build in the right checks and balances now.  

It is an interesting observation about Wales hosting so many matches when not hosting a RWC.  For the England RWC, I have no problem using the Millennium Stadium.  But for the French RWC?

I agree it's very harsh on Fiji and Uraguay to have to play at the MS...

With regards to Wales hosting RWC games though, isn't the use of the MS based on both votes, but also stadium usage from the 1999 RWC, where France, Scotland, Ireland and England hosted matches?

I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

But England Scotland and Ireland all got to play at home for Wales's RWC in 1999, surely fair is repaying the favour?

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

Agree. But it's the nations with lesser clout that get punished again. I'm sure they'll enjoy the experience but that's not the point.

Fanster wrote:

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

But England Scotland and Ireland all got to play at home for Wales's RWC in 1999, surely fair is repaying the favour?

That was Wales' RWC? I've always thought of it as the Home Nations RWC, and France as well. 5 co-hosts. Even Belfast hosted some games! At that stage none of the Home Nations really had the capacity to act as sole hosts the way England now do. But fair enough, once would be repaying the favour. I think with several other RWCs featuring Wales with home games the favour has been repaid at this stage.

Fanster wrote:

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

But England Scotland and Ireland all got to play at home for Wales's RWC in 1999, surely fair is repaying the favour?

Please don't allow logic to deflect from this rant

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

Agree. But it's the nations with lesser clout that get punished again. I'm sure they'll enjoy the experience but that's not the point.

It really is poor. They're up against it in so many ways as it is. If Fiji beat us, part of me will be happy.

To the defence that the Millennium Stadium is a great venue and so on: yes, it is - so let a group not involving Wales have games there.

RWC 1999. Hosted by Wales.

England played all 3 pool games at Twickenham, the 1/4 playoff at Twickenham, and, had they not lost to SA THEY'D HAVE PLAYED THE SEMI AT TWICKENHAM!!!!!!!

just so happens that the millie is the best rugby venue in the British Isles.

Out of interest,  what is the reason given for playing the games in Cardiff? Guaranteed sell-out and revenue? Does the revenue from gate-receipts go to the RFU as tournament organisers?  I'd be interested to see if the trend continues should Ireland or France get to host the 2023 World Cup.

I can't believe it but I totally agree with Chunky. Not another word needed.

beshocked wrote:Chunky Norwich greed is at the heart of it. Wales were essentially selling their vote to the highest bidder.

To be honest England only got the RWC 2015 because they promised the highest revenues - again greed.

It's tame compared to football but the greed is still there.

I'm not a huge fan of World Rugby (was the IRB), but I think you're being a bit over the top there.

The RWC is World Rugby's only material source of revenue (according to their accounts). They only run it every 4 years, and the money they make from it has to fund everything they do for the next 4 years. More than that, they tend to alternate host countries between ones where they can count on higher (and pricier) ticket sales and TV revenue, and ones where the revenues won't be as big. 2011, in New Zealand, was one of the not so big ones because although the country loves rugby, the ticket prices were lower, the venues a bit smaller and the TV revenues not as good (because of the time difference). Despite 4 years of commercialising rugby and high inflation globally, it didn't make much more than 2007 in France.

So out of necessity, World Rugby demanded a very large revenue guarantee from whoever was going to host 2015, because those revenues have to fill the gap left by 2011, and keep them going through to 2019 (which is still likely to be a lower revenue tournament, if only because of the unfavourable TV slots). If the host country doesn't hit its plan, it still has to pay the guaranteed amount to World Rugby. IIRC, England were the only country prepared to sign up for it, probably because they could be pretty certain of delivering it.

If all goes according to plan, England Rugby (as the RFU seems to call itself now) will make a reasonable surplus from the RWC itself (IIRC it was of the order of £20-30m if they manage 95% attendance or something similar), but that has to be set against the risk of it going wrong, not getting any Autumn International revenue (80k seats x 4 games x a ticket price of £60+...) and whatever compensation they've agreed with the clubs for the compressed season (bear in mind that the clubs still have the fixed costs of their players, staff and stadia even when they're not playing - and most of them are lucky if they're at breakeven. They're probably losing about £1m each in profit - 2 LV games plus reduced gates for the first 4 games).

My point being that no-one is making a ton of cash out of this. The clubs probably aren't getting full compensation for the lost profit, the RFU might make a couple of £m once it's all netted off and the bulk of the revenue goes (guaranteed!) to World Rugby. After that, it comes down to whether you believe World Rugby spends its money on things we value. Personally, I'd like to see more spent on developing the game in 2nd tier nations, but I don't think it has much left at the end of the cycle.

Perhaps most importantly, and this is the big point of differentiation from FIFA, there is no evidence that individual's pockets are getting lined with cash, or that specific nations are receiving bungs for votes.

---

Engine#4, if you look at the schedule of matches, it's actually quite clever.

The games are distributed in a way that I think will sell the most tickets. The games in Cardiff mostly involve Wales or Ireland (easy travel from over the Irish sea), a lot of French and Italian games are at the Olympic stadium (a short hop from City Airport), Scotland play several games at St James Park (direct train from Edinburgh), other top tier clashes are generally in one of Twickenham, Wembley or Cardiff and several "big name vs minnows" games are distributed around the country so that there's a good chance to fill the smaller stadia.

It looks like the aim was to maximise the chance of the sellout.

In terms of revenue, I imagine the WRU gets a fee for hosting, World Rugby gets its guaranteed cut, and whatever's left goes to the RFU.

Notch wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

But England Scotland and Ireland all got to play at home for Wales's RWC in 1999, surely fair is repaying the favour?

That was Wales' RWC? I've always thought of it as the Home Nations RWC, and France as well. 5 co-hosts. Even Belfast hosted some games! At that stage none of the Home Nations really had the capacity to act as sole hosts the way England now do. But fair enough, once would be repaying the favour. I think with several other RWCs featuring Wales with home games the favour has been repaid at this stage.

Yes technically it was Wales RWC...

So during the RWC in Wales all 5 nations teams played their games at home, including England playing games in twickenham twice in the group, a 1/4 and a potential semi, with a final just up the road...

Surely France are the only ones who have repayed the favour thus far, with England about to. Therefore Ireland and Scotland still both owe Wales, and you would expect tha favour returning at the first possible opportunity.

Fanster wrote:

Notch wrote:

Fanster wrote:

Notch wrote:I think it's ridiculous, but its a relief that sense has prevailed and Wales will not get to play at home in either of their most decisive group games. If I had my way they wouldn't get to play against Fiji at home either.

But England Scotland and Ireland all got to play at home for Wales's RWC in 1999, surely fair is repaying the favour?

That was Wales' RWC? I've always thought of it as the Home Nations RWC, and France as well. 5 co-hosts. Even Belfast hosted some games! At that stage none of the Home Nations really had the capacity to act as sole hosts the way England now do. But fair enough, once would be repaying the favour. I think with several other RWCs featuring Wales with home games the favour has been repaid at this stage.

Yes technically it was Wales RWC...

So during the RWC in Wales all 5 nations teams played their games at home, including England playing games in twickenham twice in the group, a 1/4 and a potential semi, with a final just up the road...

Surely France are the only ones who have repayed the favour thus far, with England about to. Therefore Ireland and Scotland still both owe Wales, and you would expect tha favour returning at the first possible opportunity.

Honestly? I think that that is somewhat ridiculous. I would think that one World Cup with them getting some home games is enough. I don't think Wales had the capability of hosting the World Cup by themselves in 1999, they basically only had one stadium for the big games, so it's not like they wanted the other Five Nations teams to co-host out of charity alone. The 1999 RWC benefited everyone in equal measure, and Wales got to host a Final because other nations collaborated with them. As far as I can see they benefited greatly from having co-hosts at the time. Now they've got to be co-hosts themselves multiple times. 16 years have gone by. Enough is enough- any 'debt' has now been repaid many times over.

I support Wales getting games in an Ireland-led bid, but that's because I think we should have put in a joint bid to co-host with Scotland and Wales. Maybe they did reach out to the WRU and SRU and couldn't agree terms and that's why we are putting in a solo bid, but I think an Irish World Cup should include a pool in Scotland, a pool in Wales and quarter-finals in both of those countries. Really more a Celtic World Cup with Ireland as the main host country. The distances and travel involved make it very easy for this to work.

TBH mate I probably agree with you, but this thread is skewed to the point where claiming 4 RWC home advantages, where Wales were host/co host in 2, and has an extremley close relationship with another is a bit silly.

The France RWC should have had nothing to do with Wales, but essentially the WRU have become a known vote seller, for the same price each rotation. It benefits absolutey everyone, but the 3/4th tier teams who have to play there, but then this is rugby union where all the top tier nations rip from the lower teams so whats different eh?

Notch wrote:
I support Wales getting games in an Ireland-led bid, but that's because I think we should have put in a joint bid to co-host with Scotland and Wales. Maybe they did reach out to the WRU and SRU and couldn't agree terms and that's why we are putting in a solo bid, but I think an Irish World Cup should include a pool in Scotland, a pool in Wales and quarter-finals in both of those countries. Really more a Celtic World Cup with Ireland as the main host country. The distances and travel involved make it very easy for this to work.

Don't forget to include the Stadium for Cornwall in your plans!

Notch wrote:

I support Wales getting games in an Ireland-led bid, but that's because I think we should have put in a joint bid to co-host with Scotland and Wales. Maybe they did reach out to the WRU and SRU and couldn't agree terms and that's why we are putting in a solo bid, but I think an Irish World Cup should include a pool in Scotland, a pool in Wales and quarter-finals in both of those countries. Really more a Celtic World Cup with Ireland as the main host country. The distances and travel involved make it very easy for this to work.

I couldn't agree less with this. What is the benefit of co-hosting it over the benefits of hosting it by one union? The infrastructure, stadia, and facilities are all there, and the numbers can be generated for what's required.

The more I hear the word "Celtic" being bandied about as a catch-all rally cry to do something, the more I start to dislike it. If it's meant to be truly Celtic, then we should be involving Cornwall, parts of Northern Spain, and Brittany. Oh and the Isle of Man while we're at it.

If Ireland can't bid on its own, then it shouldn't do it, is my view. There's plenty of other countries out there who'd be more than willing.....

Poorfour wrote:

beshocked wrote:Chunky Norwich greed is at the heart of it. Wales were essentially selling their vote to the highest bidder.

To be honest England only got the RWC 2015 because they promised the highest revenues - again greed.

It's tame compared to football but the greed is still there.

I'm not a huge fan of World Rugby (was the IRB), but I think you're being a bit over the top there.

The RWC is World Rugby's only material source of revenue (according to their accounts). They only run it every 4 years, and the money they make from it has to fund everything they do for the next 4 years. More than that, they tend to alternate host countries between ones where they can count on higher (and pricier) ticket sales and TV revenue, and ones where the revenues won't be as big. 2011, in New Zealand, was one of the not so big ones because although the country loves rugby, the ticket prices were lower, the venues a bit smaller and the TV revenues not as good (because of the time difference). Despite 4 years of commercialising rugby and high inflation globally, it didn't make much more than 2007 in France.

So out of necessity, World Rugby demanded a very large revenue guarantee from whoever was going to host 2015, because those revenues have to fill the gap left by 2011, and keep them going through to 2019 (which is still likely to be a lower revenue tournament, if only because of the unfavourable TV slots). If the host country doesn't hit its plan, it still has to pay the guaranteed amount to World Rugby. IIRC, England were the only country prepared to sign up for it, probably because they could be pretty certain of delivering it.

If all goes according to plan, England Rugby (as the RFU seems to call itself now) will make a reasonable surplus from the RWC itself (IIRC it was of the order of £20-30m if they manage 95% attendance or something similar), but that has to be set against the risk of it going wrong, not getting any Autumn International revenue (80k seats x 4 games x a ticket price of £60+...) and whatever compensation they've agreed with the clubs for the compressed season (bear in mind that the clubs still have the fixed costs of their players, staff and stadia even when they're not playing - and most of them are lucky if they're at breakeven. They're probably losing about £1m each in profit - 2 LV games plus reduced gates for the first 4 games).

My point being that no-one is making a ton of cash out of this. The clubs probably aren't getting full compensation for the lost profit, the RFU might make a couple of £m once it's all netted off and the bulk of the revenue goes (guaranteed!) to World Rugby. After that, it comes down to whether you believe World Rugby spends its money on things we value. Personally, I'd like to see more spent on developing the game in 2nd tier nations, but I don't think it has much left at the end of the cycle.

Perhaps most importantly, and this is the big point of differentiation from FIFA, there is no evidence that individual's pockets are getting lined with cash, or that specific nations are receiving bungs for votes.

---

Engine#4, if you look at the schedule of matches, it's actually quite clever.

The games are distributed in a way that I think will sell the most tickets. The games in Cardiff mostly involve Wales or Ireland (easy travel from over the Irish sea), a lot of French and Italian games are at the Olympic stadium (a short hop from City Airport), Scotland play several games at St James Park (direct train from Edinburgh), other top tier clashes are generally in one of Twickenham, Wembley or Cardiff and several "big name vs minnows" games are distributed around the country so that there's a good chance to fill the smaller stadia.

It looks like the aim was to maximise the chance of the sellout.

In terms of revenue, I imagine the WRU gets a fee for hosting, World Rugby gets its guaranteed cut, and whatever's left goes to the RFU.

I don't think I am over the top at all.

To be honest I don't think NZ should have been given the 2011 world cup. It was too selfish and inward looking.

IRB forced itself into a situation where it needed a cash cow (England 2015) to make up for the decision to give the RWC to NZ.

Oh and of course the RFU will make a nice pot of money out of it because they'll drain the money out of sports fans all over the world.



Can't you see - it's always been about the top tier countries scratching each other's backs.

It would be best if Italy gets the RWC in 2023 IMO.


1991 World Cup was supposedly England yet the games were shared out with Wales,Scotland and France too.

So the IRB is greedy and driven by money, but also selfish for choosing to host the RWC in a country which has made a massive contribution to rugby history but wasn't the most lucrative option.

There's quite a good article about this in the current issue of Rugby World, in essence the first couple of RWCs were pretty badly organised as no-one in either the IRB or a lot of the unions were convinced that it was going to last so the early RWC's were spread around to ensure that the risk was spread around and teams got home games to ensure a good attendance.
The SA RWC was the first that was confined to one country and to a point set the template for the rest afterwards.
In the case of games being held at the Millenium I think that the WRU got some sort of agreement from the other home nations before the MS was built that any bid by home nations would be supported by the WRU in return for some matches being staged at the MS as this was needed to make the MS financially viable. I've no idea if this is a short term arrangement or a long term one.

I don't have a problem with games being played at the Millennium Stadium, as long as Wales don't play there. It's fine as a neutral ground.

In a nutshell yes. Choosing NZ is inward looking. Yes they have contributed significantly to rugby but should the world cup just be handed to tier 1 countries as a bit of mutual backslapping? No it shouldn't.

Both NZ and England are tier 1 countries. The world cup has been shared around by a small club of tier 1 countries. NZ don't have the same revenue potential as England but they are still a powerful member of the rugby old boys club.

Only with Japan getting it will the strangehold be broken but even then I expect the old boys club will reign supreme in 2023.


The whole point I am making is that there's still a hierachy. You can argue it's a good thing to an extent but we've seen that Fiji get treated differently to Australia in the world cup.

Fiji have the handicap of facing not just England at Twickenham but Wales at the Millennium Stadium.

The IRB or RFU could well say - that's not acceptable that Fiji play Wales in Wales but they haven't.

beshocked I think that's an admirably idealistic point of view but ignores the reality that rugby is a minority sport that is in the grand scheme of things strapped for cash.

In an ideal world, we'd share the RWC around between nations of every tier. In the real world, the sport would go bust within a couple of RWC cycles.

Right now, rugby has a finite global audience, and the vast majority of it is in Europe; which is also where the wealthiest audiences tend to be. To make enough money to sustain the game, you have to play the tournament where you can reach those people.

It's great that Japan can host a tournament. I'd love to see one in Argentina. But the price of doing that, if you don't want the IRB to cut back on the tier 2 development it does outside of RWC cycles is that you have to have a more lucrative tournament every 8 years. And at the moment, that really means one of the home nations or France. Even Italy would be a gamble because it's not clear how many fans would actually turn out for games not involving Italy.

Poorfour wrote:beshocked I think that's an admirably idealistic point of view but ignores the reality that rugby is a minority sport that is in the grand scheme of things strapped for cash.

In an ideal world, we'd share the RWC around between nations of every tier. In the real world, the sport would go bust within a couple of RWC cycles.

Making Wales play 2 matches at Ashton Gate / Kingsholm / Welford Road won't make rugby union go bust.

Pot Hale wrote:

Notch wrote:

I support Wales getting games in an Ireland-led bid, but that's because I think we should have put in a joint bid to co-host with Scotland and Wales. Maybe they did reach out to the WRU and SRU and couldn't agree terms and that's why we are putting in a solo bid, but I think an Irish World Cup should include a pool in Scotland, a pool in Wales and quarter-finals in both of those countries. Really more a Celtic World Cup with Ireland as the main host country. The distances and travel involved make it very easy for this to work.

I couldn't agree less with this.   What is the benefit of co-hosting it over the benefits of hosting it by one union?   The infrastructure, stadia, and facilities are all there, and the numbers can be generated for what's required.

The more I hear the word "Celtic" being bandied about as a catch-all rally cry to do something, the more I start to dislike it.  If it's meant to be truly Celtic, then we should be involving Cornwall, parts of Northern Spain, and Brittany.  Oh and the Isle of Man while we're at it.

If Ireland can't bid on its own, then it shouldn't do it, is my view.   There's plenty of other countries out there who'd be more than willing.....

I just feel that the atmosphere on game day in Edinburgh and Cardiff (as well as Dublin, Belfast, Limerick etc.) is a major selling point and strategically we would have been more likely to win with a combined bid than solo. The stadia are just about there, but other nations bidding have better stadia than us. If you add in the Millennium Stadium, Murrayfield and Hampden Park it just puts it over the top in terms of the quality of the stadia and the history and the experience for visitors. It also increases the amount that can be invested in the tournament when you are bringing in other unions and local governments.

It's not meant to be truly Celtic either. It's meant to be an appealing brand to tag onto the bid- also named after Celtic Rugby, the umbrella organisation that runs the Pro12 which is a joint venture of the IRFU, SRU and WRU. In reality we are probably going to end up doing what France did in 2007 and farming out games to Scotland and Wales in exchange for their votes. In practice, if we win, I fully expect games to be held in those countries. So why not get them in from the outset?

Poorfour you call rugby union a minority sport. Well if the aspiration is to make rugby union a global sport then the RWC needs to be global and shared among other countries.

E.g. tapping into the USA and Chinese markets.

The RFU had a revenue of over £150 million in 2013 - wouldn't call that small.



http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/20151/no-england-costs-wales-5m-world-cup-bonus/

This is interesting.

Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

beshocked wrote:
This is interesting.

Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

Roger Lewis. What a legacy he has left.

beshocked wrote:This is interesting. Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

I'd be surprised by this, I doubt if either side or coach would want a game against their pool rivals so close to the tournament.

The RWC is about money and self interest of the 8 to date 5 have been SH Australia twice,
Nz twice.SA once.
NH England twice,France once but in practical terms all matches were top 5 NH sides
based.
The Millenium has the some of the best facilities and the worst playing surface in
World Rugby.Champagne bashes for the SUITS over the Rugby it was ever thus.
Incidentally I read somewhere on the net 2011 was THE Second best financially of
ALL the RWCS to date.

Irish Londoner wrote:

beshocked wrote:This is interesting. Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

I'd be surprised by this, I doubt if either side or coach would want a game against their pool rivals so close to the tournament.

That's the whole point, that's why it isn't happening.

The deal was made way back in 2011 before the World Cup draw and was cancelled after it became known they would be playing each other. It wasn't that England directly pulled out because Wales were low ranked- it was Wales low rank that meant they got drawn with England, if Wales hadn't slipped out of the Top 8 they and England would have been in the same tier of seeds for the RWC draw. Hence they couldn't have been drawn together, hence their lucrative deal for the warm-ups wouldn't have had to be cancelled.

So Wales low ranking indirectly led to that deal being cancelled.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:
This is interesting.

Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

Roger Lewis. What a legacy he has left.

They should erect a statue of him on Westgate Street.

A voodoo statue.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:
This is interesting.

Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

Roger Lewis. What a legacy he has left.

They should erect a statue of him on Westgate Street.

A voodoo statue.

It would just be of a massive c0ck.

Well explained Notch. Exactly the case.

Silly Wales - losing to Argentina and Samoa at home in consecutive matches cost them.

It's odd when you think that Wales won GS in 2012 and 6 nations in 2013 but at that time couldn't lose to a NH side but also couldn't beat a SH one!

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Poorfour wrote:beshocked I think that's an admirably idealistic point of view but ignores the reality that rugby is a minority sport that is in the grand scheme of things strapped for cash.

In an ideal world, we'd share the RWC around between nations of every tier. In the real world, the sport would go bust within a couple of RWC cycles.

Making Wales play 2 matches at Ashton Gate / Kingsholm / Welford Road won't make rugby union go bust.

It would be negligent though of World Rugby to not maximise their only source of funding (the World Cup). What would the difference be for Fiji if the game was played in Welford Rd. The ground would be just as intimidating for them as most the attendance at the game would be Welsh.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

beshocked wrote:
This is interesting.

Wales wanted to play England in the RWC warm ups but shot themselves in the foot by being too low ranked.

Roger Lewis. What a legacy he has left.

Weren't the Regions getting half the gate or something for the 4th international?

beshocked wrote:Well explained Notch. Exactly the case.

Silly Wales - losing to Argentina and Samoa at home in consecutive matches cost them.

It's odd when you think that Wales won GS in 2012 and 6 nations in 2013 but at that time couldn't lose to a NH side but also couldn't beat a SH one!

Amusingly, if they had just played three internationals instead of cramming in a money-grubbing fourth those results still wouldn't have meant they lost their place.

Notch wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well explained Notch. Exactly the case.

Silly Wales - losing to Argentina and Samoa at home in consecutive matches cost them.

It's odd when you think that Wales won GS in 2012 and 6 nations in 2013 but at that time couldn't lose to a NH side but also couldn't beat a SH one!

Amusingly, if they had just played three internationals instead of cramming in a money-grubbing fourth those results still wouldn't have meant they lost their place.

Amusing for some!

Sin é wrote:

Weren't the Regions getting half the gate or something for the 4th international?

Where did you get that from? They got £100,000 each according to the Scarlets chairman.

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Poorfour wrote:beshocked I think that's an admirably idealistic point of view but ignores the reality that rugby is a minority sport that is in the grand scheme of things strapped for cash.

In an ideal world, we'd share the RWC around between nations of every tier. In the real world, the sport would go bust within a couple of RWC cycles.

Making Wales play 2 matches at Ashton Gate / Kingsholm / Welford Road won't make rugby union go bust.

It would be negligent though of World Rugby to not maximise their only source of funding (the World Cup). What would the difference be for Fiji if the game was played in Welford Rd. The ground would be just as intimidating for them as most the attendance at the game would be Welsh.

The difference would be a sport with integrity.

beshocked wrote:Well explained Notch. Exactly the case.

Silly Wales - losing to Argentina and Samoa at home in consecutive matches cost them.

It's odd when you think that Wales won GS in 2012 and 6 nations in 2013 but at that time couldn't lose to a NH side but also couldn't beat a SH one!

I think Gatland's strategy was the more you played them, the better their chances of beating them.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Weren't the Regions getting half the gate or something for the 4th international?

 Where did you get that from? They got £100,000 each according to the Scarlets chairman.

So the Regions would have got 400,000 (which would be about half the gate once costs (such as paying the opposition) were taken into account!

Sin é wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Weren't the Regions getting half the gate or something for the 4th international?

 Where did you get that from? They got £100,000 each according to the Scarlets chairman.

So the Regions would have got 400,000 (which would be about half the gate once costs (such as paying the opposition) were taken into account!

No. Gate receipts are upwards of £4m. Opposition cost £750,000 maximum. It's nowhere near half.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Notch wrote:

beshocked wrote:Well explained Notch. Exactly the case.

Silly Wales - losing to Argentina and Samoa at home in consecutive matches cost them.

It's odd when you think that Wales won GS in 2012 and 6 nations in 2013 but at that time couldn't lose to a NH side but also couldn't beat a SH one!

Amusingly, if they had just played three internationals instead of cramming in a money-grubbing fourth those results still wouldn't have meant they lost their place.

Amusing for some!

Indeed... my sympathies go to the Welsh fans but I'm no fan of Unions arranging that extra fourth fixture outside the window, so I find it amusing when it backfires on them so spectacularly,