2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

by Rowanbi Sat 30 Jan 2016, 9:36 am

First topic message reminder :

The Rugby World Cup should return to South Africa in 2023, and the tournament should be expanded to 24 teams.

The other three candidates are Ireland, France and Italy. Were any of these successful, that would mean a third straight World Cup in the Northern Hemisphere, even though it is the Southern Hemisphere which overwhelmingly dominates.

It would also entail a return to the Six Nations for the fifth time in just ten tournaments, which is a little ridiculous for a sport with over one hundred affiliated member nations and self-professed global pretentions.

Should it go to Ireland, that would also mean, technically-speaking, that the United Kingdom were involved to some degree in hosting the event for the fifth time, given at least a few of the games would be staged north of the border.

France, meanwhile, hosted the World Cup as recently as eight years ago, and was also a co-host in 1991 and 1999.

That leaves Italy, to my mind the most attractive of the European bids, as it is a newcomer to the heavyweight ranks with a large number of registered players. However, World Rugby might want to go with a more established rugby playing nation for its 10th World Cup. Japan is already facing problems as it prepares to stage the 2019 event, with its new Olympic Stadium having now been removed from the venue list.

As for South Africa, it has the biggest and best rugby-purpose stadia in the world - with the possible exception of England, which has just hosted the event for the second time. It has the second largest number of registered players (also behind England), and it is the second most successful rugby playing nation after New Zealand.

By the time 2023 rolls around, an entire generation will have grown up since the last time the tournament was held in South Africa. This, even though the 1995 installment was one of the most successful and spectacular World Cups to date.

So if New Zealand, Austrlalia and England can all host it twice, and France can be involved as either host or co-host on three occasions, why on earth shouldn't it return to South Africa in 2023? Why does World Rugby appear to have lost faith in the republic, having overlooked it for both 2011 and 2019?

It's time to break the cycle. The World Cup can not continue to return to Western Europe on every second occasion. That is a myopic approach and anathema to the globalization cause.

But it does need to return to the Southern Hemisphere in 2023 for what will be the first time in 12 years. Moreover, it needs to return to the African continent, one of the hotbeds of international rugby development in recent decades.

This leads me to my final point in South Africa's favour. World Rugby officials have raised the possibility of an expanded tournament, and this is undoubtedly overdue. Again, with its vast array of rugby-purpose stadia, South Africa's credentials are unsurpassed as a potential host nation for a 24-team World Cup.

The last - and only - increase in teams was from 16 to 20 in 1999. This appears to have been successful, judging by the improved performances of the fringe teams in New Zealand and England.

In fact, no centuries have been recorded since 2003, while Japan's stunning victory over the Springboks this year suggests the days of foregone conclusions is World Cup rugby may be drawing to a close.

That said, a lot of work needs to be done in the interim if the additional teams are going to be genuinely competitive. One of the biggest obstacles to the game's global development is the stratification of its international competitions.

Not only are the elite championships closed-shop, but there is little interaction between the top teams and the emerging nations in between World Cups. How on earth are the up-and-comers supposed to be competitive in the big exam if they have been denied the lessons to prepare in between?

New Zealand and Australia should be playing annual tests with the Pacific Islands and Japan, as should the Six Nations with their Eastern European neighbours. South Africa ought to engage Namibia in a 'Bledisloe Cup'-style annual trophy match, and Hong Kong and Korea should be playing in the Pacific Challenge tournament, alongside the Pacific Islands B teams and Argentina's 'Pampas,' with a possible view to future inclusion in the Pacific Nations Championship.

In addition to this, would it not be a fairly straightforward exercise for Six Nations teams to stop in for tests against Namibia and Uruguay enroute to South Africa and Argentina, respectively - as well as the Pacific Islands while touring New Zealand or Australia?

By the same token, how about the Southern Hemisphere teams playing Georgia, Romania or Russia on their Autumn tours to Europe? Argentina might even take on Spain or Portugal.

If rugby is to more forward, it needs to expand its World Cup, and this can only be successful with a more integrated international rugby calendar.

by Mad for Chelsea Tue 02 Feb 2016, 11:29 am

you've clearly not seen Biltong when Bryce Lawrence is mentioned Run

TBH the French had more cause to moan about the 95 WC than NZ, the refereeing in that semi was diabolical!

by FerN Wed 03 Feb 2016, 7:32 am

Rowanbi wrote:So I think it's time for the Kiwis to let 1995 go. We don't hear the French or South Africans whinging about the refereeing at the 2011 RWC, though both have plenty of grounds for doing so.

Then you don't know South Africans, if there is any suspicion placed on the referee we refer to at as being Bryced. We are certainly not immune to being whiners.

But on the filling the Stadia issue - I don't think we will have an issue with filling the stadia. Rugby ticket prices are on average more than 10x more expensive than soccer tickets here in SA and we regularly fill up our stadia for insignificant matches.

On the stampede issue - Safa and Saru are not the same. Not that I particularly like any of them, but SARU's things seems to be much better organized.

Yes, we have a big crime issue in SA, but it is very different in cities vs rural places. And in the cities you can also generally avoid the hotspots

by GunsGerms Wed 03 Feb 2016, 9:42 am

How much is a ticket to a rugby championship match?

You probably wouldn't have a problem filling stadia but I do think SA would find it harder than other nations to attract overseas visitors. Not because people don't want to go but because it isn't really close to anywhere. Crime rates might put others off too. My guess is that SA has less European expats than NZ and Australia too.

I think a good WC relies heavily on overseas fans to create a party atmosphere.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:58 am

GunsGerms wrote:How much is a ticket to a rugby championship match?

You probably wouldn't have a problem filling stadia but I do think SA would find it harder than other nations to attract overseas visitors. Not because people don't want to go but because it isn't really close to anywhere. Crime rates might put others off too. My guess is that SA has less European expats than NZ and Australia too.

I think a good WC relies heavily on overseas fans to create a party atmosphere.

When you've got a population of more than 50 million I don't think attracting overseas visitors is such a big issue. Obviously it adds to the atmosphere, but so does having a non-white majority population - unique among the sport's major playing nations. South Africa is hardly out in the middle of the ocean either. It has many rugby playing neighbours. Zimbabwe and Madagascar (where rugby is the national sport) have more than 20,000 registered players each, according to World Rugby stats, while Namibia, Botswana and Swaziland all have over 10,000. In the latter's case, that actually makes it one of the most rugby-mad countries on the planet in this respect. & further north you've got 7s-mad Kenya with over 13,000 players and African Cup first division newcomers Uganda with over 20,000. We shouldn't think of overseas visitors only in terms of Europeans, Antipodeans, Americans and Japanese... Rolling Eyes

by No 7&1/2 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 11:06 am

A big part of a world cup is the visitors from other countries. It wouldn't work with only people from one country. What on earth has the amount of non white people in SA got to do with anything? I can't really see a strong argument for SA over 2 new countries to host.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 1:00 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:A big part of a world cup is the visitors from other countries. It wouldn't work with only people from one country. What on earth has the amount of non white people in SA got to do with anything? I can't really see a strong argument for SA over 2 new countries to host.

I have just demonstrated that South Africa is surrounded by countries with significant rugby communities. Are you discounting African countries? What has a non-white majority in SA got to do with anything? An awful lot, I'd say. The World Cup is an international competition, a major part of the attraction is cultural diversity, and SAfrica has a rich and vibrant culture which is unique among the major rugby playing nations. I think most people are excited about the tournament going to Japan largely for the same reason. Britain, Ireland, Australia & NZ have very similar cultures, and throughout the amateur era France was really considered the only outsider, as the game in South Africa was confined to the white community, and Argentina hadn't really been accepted into the fold at that time, despite its qualifications. But things have changed, and today South Africa's non-white majority have control of the country and are also participating in rugby in increasing numbers. So a World Cup in the republic in 2023 will be very much a World Cup for Africa.

Italy also appeals for reasons of cultural diversity, and it is a RWC hosting virgin. That's why I genuinely hope they'll get the 2027 event. Why not 2023? For one thing, they are likely to include Marseille as a venue, going by the stadia presented in their previous bid, and France hosted the tournament just 9 years ago. For another, they would have to resolve the issue of the Serie A being in full swing at the time the tournament is generally held. Thirdly, Japan has already had some issues with their main stadium and awarding it to another "new" nation before we see how 2019 goes off would be a little reckless IMHO. Rugby is a relatively minor sport in both countries, to be realistic. It would be folly to neglect your biggest, most established markets, and a 4th straight rejection will come like a slap in the face to South Africa. Finally, it will be time for the event to return to its Southern Hemisphere stronghold after 3 straight tournaments in the north, and SA is perfectly placed as the antipodes of Japan.

Ireland is not a "new" host nation. Repeating this does not make it true. It has hosted 12 RWC games, including 3 play-offs. It is too small for the modern World Cup, which is purportedly the third biggest sports event in the world - NOW. What will it be like in 2023, particularly if it is expanded to 24? New Zealand showed that small nation World Cups are no longer anywhere near as lucrative. Average attendances were actually higher in SA 1995 than NZ 2011.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 1:06 pm

No, it has nothing to do with running a successful competition. We should definitely be looking to expand the comp into new areas such as Italy and Ireland, SA again in the future sure but it's not a priority and shouldn't be in my opinion.

I doubt SA will get it, do you?

by Hazel Sapling Wed 03 Feb 2016, 1:56 pm

Not convinced that SA is the right choice for 2023. Japan are in southern hemisphere comps more than European comps if we are asking for a north/south alternation. The RWC should provide money for the next development cycle and expand the games frontiers.

If it does come to Europe, Italy is the right choice. Marseilles would be okay as an additional stadia, but Italy has the San Siro, Turin's new stadium, Rome has a couple of options, Genoa, Naples...there are plenty of football stadiums to choose from. They have many small rugby clubs and need to develop large scale support/money. Ultimately excitement, sponsors and TV focusing purely on rugby for 6 weeks should push on Italian rugby.

Ireland does not do it for me. I would attend the games and have a ball, but it is not economically large enough to justify as a money making venture and is not a rugby frontier. Scotland is the nearest relative frontier and could do with a boost, but no where near the same need as Italy.

France is a money making venture and could attract new fans in northern France. Depends how they did it though. I can see clubs pushing for the majority of the games to be played in the rugby heartlands to the south and that would fail to expand the game's frontiers. They could be a decent choice but feel the execution would fail.

If SA were to host it, then I would ask they put a few games in Namibia (as a fringe WC team for several tournaments), Botswana (wealthy comparatively for Africa and a well run country that could attract local fans) and/or in Madagascar (they hosted the qualifying from Africa and it looked like the stadium was packed). The problems with crime is an issue but they held the football version alright so think this might be overblown. The political issues (racial quotas which are racist by default) make me hesitant. The SARU could use the money with the amount of players leaving and the local provinces needing a bit of extra capital. I think they are my 2nd choice even if I am less likely to attend a tournament there than the other 3 (the selfish factor).

The World Cup should be about making money while expanding the game sustainably. Italy has quite a few rugby team and could do with a push, and SA could act as a financial anchor while providing a taste to surrounding nations. SA alone to me does not extend rugby's frontiers nor provide the money that France can. Ireland is like the NZ choice. Last chance to host it largely by themselves rather than as a GB host. Ultimately, I expect 2023 to go to Italy or SA and the loser to get 2027.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 03 Feb 2016, 2:35 pm

Good synopsis Hazel.

Of course this whole issue is subject to the voting next year, I understand that Australia have already said that they will support South Africa and one presumes that as the other SANZAR partner New Zealand will as well.

Just on a side issue the USA may well still put in a bid, Im not for one minute suggesting as a first timer that it will be successful, but it could make for some fresh options further down the track.

by doctor_grey Wed 03 Feb 2016, 3:03 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Good synopsis Hazel.

Of course this whole issue is subject to the voting next year, I understand that Australia have already said that they will support South Africa and one presumes that as the other SANZAR partner New Zealand will as well.

Just on a side issue the USA may well still put in a bid, Im not for one minute suggesting as a first timer that it will be successful, but it could make for some fresh options further down the track.

Mate, If the Yanks can hype up and fill Soldier Field in Chicago for the ABs in the middle of a cold November, then I wouldn't underestimate what they can do, especially in a proper Autumn. Running parallel with the American football season would be huge. One playing off the other. The groups operating the stadiums would be in heaven.

by GunsGerms Wed 03 Feb 2016, 3:29 pm

Rowanbi wrote:

Ireland is not a "new" host nation. Repeating this does not make it true. It has hosted 12 RWC games, including 3 play-offs. It is too small for the modern World Cup, which is purportedly the third biggest sports event in the world - NOW. What will it be like in 2023, particularly if it is expanded to 24? New Zealand showed that small nation World Cups are no longer anywhere near as lucrative. Average attendances were actually higher in SA 1995 than NZ 2011.

Actually Ireland hasn't hosted the world cup by itself whereas SA has. This has been pointed out many times to you.

Similarly, it has been pointed out ad nauseum that Ireland is not too small for the WC. In fact being a small country would be an advantage because it would create a very unique atmosphere unlike any other world cup.

The New Zealand WC generated more revenue for World Rugby than every other WC before it. So your comments are mainly nonsense.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 3:32 pm

The chairman of for the Ireland bid says that Ireland has 40% of the vote already secured. I'd imagine New Zealand will support Ireland because there was some deal done for the Irish voted to host the tournament in NZ. I also think Ireland have some people from the NZRU advising on the tournament bid.

As for the ABs in the US - Ireland would probably be a bigger attraction than the ABs in Chicago!

by GunsGerms Wed 03 Feb 2016, 3:34 pm

Hazel Sapling wrote:Not convinced that SA is the right choice for 2023. Japan are in southern hemisphere comps more than European comps if we are asking for a north/south alternation. The RWC should provide money for the next development cycle and expand the games frontiers.

If it does come to Europe, Italy is the right choice. Marseilles would be okay as an additional stadia, but Italy has the San Siro, Turin's new stadium, Rome has a couple of options, Genoa, Naples...there are plenty of football stadiums to choose from. They have many small rugby clubs and need to develop large scale support/money. Ultimately excitement, sponsors and TV focusing purely on rugby for 6 weeks should push on Italian rugby.

Ireland does not do it for me. I would attend the games and have a ball, but it is not economically large enough to justify as a money making venture and is not a rugby frontier. Scotland is the nearest relative frontier and could do with a boost, but no where near the same need as Italy.

France is a money making venture and could attract new fans in northern France. Depends how they did it though. I can see clubs pushing for the majority of the games to be played in the rugby heartlands to the south and that would fail to expand the game's frontiers. They could be a decent choice but feel the execution would fail.

If SA were to host it, then I would ask they put a few games in Namibia (as a fringe WC team for several tournaments), Botswana (wealthy comparatively for Africa and a well run country that could attract local fans) and/or in Madagascar (they hosted the qualifying from Africa and it looked like the stadium was packed). The problems with crime is an issue but they held the football version alright so think this might be overblown. The political issues (racial quotas which are racist by default) make me hesitant. The SARU could use the money with the amount of players leaving and the local provinces needing a bit of extra capital. I think they are my 2nd choice even if I am less likely to attend a tournament there than the other 3 (the selfish factor).

The World Cup should be about making money while expanding the game sustainably. Italy has quite a few rugby team and could do with a push, and SA could act as a financial anchor while providing a taste to surrounding nations. SA alone to me does not extend rugby's frontiers nor provide the money that France can. Ireland is like the NZ choice. Last chance to host it largely by themselves rather than as a GB host. Ultimately, I expect 2023 to go to Italy or SA and the loser to get 2027.

Revenue is generated by World Rugby through an up front fee and through broadcasting and sponsorship. They could host the WC on the moon and it wouldn't put much a dent in their coffers provided the host nation can put up the fee. Host nation keeps the gate fees and uses that to pay back the up front fee, be that at a loss or a small profit. That's their problem.

So really the revenue argument against Ireland holding the tournament doesn't hold any water what so ever because World Rugby gets paid whatever the location.

For example World Rugby earned more in broadcasting and sponsorship for the NZ tournament than any WC beforehand because interest in rugby has grown globally world wide.

Also putting games on in Madagascar is a nice idea in theory but horrific in practice both because of the travel times and the loss of atmosphere in having such a fragmented spread out world cup.

by Gwlad Wed 03 Feb 2016, 3:56 pm

Sin é wrote:The chairman of for the Ireland bid says that Ireland has 40% of the vote already secured. I'd imagine New Zealand will support Ireland because there was some deal done for the Irish voted to host the tournament in NZ. I also think Ireland have some people from the NZRU advising on the tournament bid.

As for the ABs in the US - Ireland would probably be a bigger attraction than the ABs in Chicago!

I disagree

Its exactly what rugby needs, an Excited States of America RWC.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 4:11 pm

I doubt SA will get it, do you?

Everything I've read in the British press has suggested they are the favorites, while one pundit suggested Ireland had already cut a deal to secure their support for 2027. There have been a few bullish Irish reports touting the Emerald Isle as favorites as well, of course. Italy and France don't seem to be taken so seriously.

Japan are in southern hemisphere comps more than European comps if we are asking for a north/south alternation.

It's not about comps. It's about geography. Japan is in the Northern Hemisphere, suggesting otherwise is just clutching at straws, and it is almost the direct antipodes of South Africa.

Italy has the San Siro, Turin's new stadium, Rome has a couple of options, Genoa, Naples...there are plenty of football stadiums to choose from. They have many small rugby clubs and need to develop large scale support/money. Ultimately excitement, sponsors and TV focusing purely on rugby for 6 weeks should push on Italian rugby.

I share your ebullience and would love to see them get it in 2027 after it has returned to a traditional heartland. But still I wonder how it would work alongside the Serie A. It would be kind of embarrassing if it were overshadowed by the football, and in Italy that could certainly happen. I don't mind France co-hosting either, but preferably as a junior parner - not so soon as 2023.

f SA were to host it, then I would ask they put a few games in Namibia

Agreed. If it's a 24-team event with 6 groups of 4, let Namibia host their own group. They might even win a game! If it's a status quo 20-team tournament, let Namibia at least host their own games in the group stages. & perhaps ship the 3rd-place playoff to Antananarivo. Rugby is the national sport in Madagascar, they get crowds of 30 & 40,000 there for African Cup games & would go nuts over a RWC fixture. As for quotas, I think that's an internal issue and it would be precarious for World Rugby to intervene or take a stand in any way.

Ultimately, I expect 2023 to go to Italy or SA and the loser to get 2027.

That's what I'm hoping for. Obviously I prefer the latter first and the former second, for all the reasons I've been expounding, but if it were the other way I wouldn't be disappointed. However, I'm not as confident as this because I think the issue will ultimately be determined by wheeling and dealing among the central committee members behind the scenes (vote trading). So I wouldn't be at all surprised to see SA & Ireland awarded the next two, in whichever order. Of course, that would be another disgraceful decision.

Running parallel with the American football season would be huge. One playing off the other. The groups operating the stadiums would be in heaven.

That's a no-contest and would make rugby look ridiculous. Anyway, I think late 30s or 40s will be the time for America. They're still a minnow but with Pro Rugby getting underway this year, and the Americas 6 Nations about to kickoff, I fully expect the States to make huge strides over the next couple of decades. They certainly have the potential.

The New Zealand WC generated more revenue for World Rugby than every other WC before it. So your comments are mainly nonsense.

Gate receipts fell markedly as there was a massive drop in overall attendance - the biggest drop ever at 35%. In fact, it was the least attended tournament since expansion to 20 teams in 1995. As pointed out, average attendances were also the lowest since 1987 (also in NZ). Broadcasting figures certainly increased, though not by as much as they had at the previous few tournaments, while sponsorship only increased by 1% on 2007, again failing to match the gains of previous instalments. So, while no means a disaster, it is clear small nation tournaments are just not as lucrative, and that must be among the major priorities, obviously.

by GunsGerms Wed 03 Feb 2016, 4:16 pm

Its unlikely to go to SA. They have failed in their last three bids. I'd imagine there is a good reason for this. Corruption, crime, vuvuzelas, Oscar Pistorius, already had their turn, geographical position. Take your pick, they are the underdogs.

Attendances are fairly meaningless. All that matters it that the stadia are full and the atmosphere is good. The NZ WC was excellent, Seriously good atmosphere, world rugby made their money, everyone was happy. It will be the same and more if it goes to Ireland.

Italy wouldn't garner the same local interest as rugby only has pockets of support throughout their country and much of the country would probably have no interest whatsoever as demonstrated by the fact that Italy has the lowest average home attendances in the 6 nations by far despite being a country of approx. 60 million.

by Knowsit17 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 4:40 pm

Rowanbi wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:A big part of a world cup is the visitors from other countries. It wouldn't work with only people from one country. What on earth has the amount of non white people in SA got to do with anything? I can't really see a strong argument for SA over 2 new countries to host.

I have just demonstrated that South Africa is surrounded by countries with significant rugby communities. Are you discounting African countries? What has a non-white majority in SA got to do with anything? An awful lot, I'd say. The World Cup is an international competition, a major part of the attraction is cultural diversity, and SAfrica has a rich and vibrant culture which is unique among the major rugby playing nations. I think most people are excited about the tournament going to Japan largely for the same reason. Britain, Ireland, Australia & NZ have very similar cultures, and throughout the amateur era France was really considered the only outsider, as the game in South Africa was confined to the white community, and Argentina hadn't really been accepted into the fold at that time, despite its qualifications. But things have changed, and today South Africa's non-white majority have control of the country and are also participating in rugby in increasing numbers. So a World Cup in the republic in 2023 will be very much a World Cup for Africa.

Italy also appeals for reasons of cultural diversity, and it is a RWC hosting virgin. That's why I genuinely hope they'll get the 2027 event. Why not 2023? For one thing, they are likely to include Marseille as a venue, going by the stadia presented in their previous bid, and France hosted the tournament just 9 years ago. For another, they would have to resolve the issue of the Serie A being in full swing at the time the tournament is generally held. Thirdly, Japan has already had some issues with their main stadium and awarding it to another "new" nation before we see how 2019 goes off would be a little reckless IMHO. Rugby is a relatively minor sport in both countries, to be realistic. It would be folly to neglect your biggest, most established markets, and a 4th straight rejection will come like a slap in the face to South Africa. Finally, it will be time for the event to return to its Southern Hemisphere stronghold after 3 straight tournaments in the north, and SA is perfectly placed as the antipodes of Japan.

Ireland is not a "new" host nation. Repeating this does not make it true. It has hosted 12 RWC games, including 3 play-offs. It is too small for the modern World Cup, which is purportedly the third biggest sports event in the world - NOW. What will it be like in 2023, particularly if it is expanded to 24? New Zealand showed that small nation World Cups are no longer anywhere near as lucrative. Average attendances were actually higher in SA 1995 than NZ 2011.

The last paragraph just shows you're twisting facts to support your argument. As admitted by yourself on pages past, Ireland could comfortably host a RWC within its geographical boundaries. It is certainly not too small to do so. Your sole argument against Irish hosting rights is that SA is bigger, which I and many others have pointed out is not a successful argument. You alternate between this and talking down Ireland, Britain and similar places as you would a tiny desert island. If you're perceive such places as small in size, perhaps your sense of size should be realigned to correspond with most normal perceptions.

The last three RWC's, held in what you yourself refer to as small nations, have all crushed the last 'big nation cup' (Aus 2003) in all revenue stats and most attendance stats, effectively destroying your 'small nations are less lucrative' argument.

Funny you should also choose to nitpick the avg attendance stat for NZ 2011, as it's virtually the only stat in SA's favour. NZ still managed to fill 85% of their total stadia capacity in 2011 compared to 77% by SA in 1995, strongly indicating the drop in avg attendance is purely down to NZ just having smaller stadia.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:00 pm

I still fail to see any benefit of SA over Italy and Ireland. They have another Lions tour to keep them ticking over.

by Hazel Sapling Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:04 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Hazel Sapling wrote:Not convinced that SA is the right choice for 2023. Japan are in southern hemisphere comps more than European comps if we are asking for a north/south alternation. The RWC should provide money for the next development cycle and expand the games frontiers.

If it does come to Europe, Italy is the right choice. Marseilles would be okay as an additional stadia, but Italy has the San Siro, Turin's new stadium, Rome has a couple of options, Genoa, Naples...there are plenty of football stadiums to choose from. They have many small rugby clubs and need to develop large scale support/money. Ultimately excitement, sponsors and TV focusing purely on rugby for 6 weeks should push on Italian rugby.

Ireland does not do it for me. I would attend the games and have a ball, but it is not economically large enough to justify as a money making venture and is not a rugby frontier. Scotland is the nearest relative frontier and could do with a boost, but no where near the same need as Italy.

France is a money making venture and could attract new fans in northern France. Depends how they did it though. I can see clubs pushing for the majority of the games to be played in the rugby heartlands to the south and that would fail to expand the game's frontiers. They could be a decent choice but feel the execution would fail.

If SA were to host it, then I would ask they put a few games in Namibia (as a fringe WC team for several tournaments), Botswana (wealthy comparatively for Africa and a well run country that could attract local fans) and/or in Madagascar (they hosted the qualifying from Africa and it looked like the stadium was packed). The problems with crime is an issue but they held the football version alright so think this might be overblown. The political issues (racial quotas which are racist by default) make me hesitant. The SARU could use the money with the amount of players leaving and the local provinces needing a bit of extra capital. I think they are my 2nd choice even if I am less likely to attend a tournament there than the other 3 (the selfish factor).

The World Cup should be about making money while expanding the game sustainably. Italy has quite a few rugby team and could do with a push, and SA could act as a financial anchor while providing a taste to surrounding nations. SA alone to me does not extend rugby's frontiers nor provide the money that France can. Ireland is like the NZ choice. Last chance to host it largely by themselves rather than as a GB host. Ultimately, I expect 2023 to go to Italy or SA and the loser to get 2027.

Revenue is generated by World Rugby through an up front fee and through broadcasting and sponsorship. They could host the WC on the moon and it wouldn't put much a dent in their coffers provided the host nation can put up the fee. Host nation keeps the gate fees and uses that to pay back the up front fee, be that at a loss or a small profit. That's their problem.

So really the revenue argument against Ireland holding the tournament doesn't hold any water what so ever because World Rugby gets paid whatever the location.

For example World Rugby earned more in broadcasting and sponsorship for the NZ tournament than any WC beforehand because interest in rugby has grown globally world wide.

Also putting games on in Madagascar is a nice idea in theory but horrific in practice both because of the travel times and the loss of atmosphere in having such a fragmented spread out world cup.

Having a couple of game in Antan...the Madagascan capital would not kill the local atmosphere though I could see a team getting annoyed about travel. If your based in Durban for most of your games, then give them an extra day turnaround to make it worthwhile. I like the idea of an anchor country with games in new areas. France could do it with Barcelona and Milan easily. Ireland could do it with Aberdeen (equally as sexy a location of course though not as frontier). Ireland is a romantic choice more than an expansionary, a lot like New Zealand was. Last chance before the tournament becomes too big to host.

The upfront fee is paid for by the host nation who would expect to make a profit. Ireland could offer the same money as France, but doubt they could make a similar profit and running a loss is not the worst idea if you are spreading the game. Ireland is already near saturation. If you pay it, fair play but not sure it is worth it to the IRFU and I would hate to see a union crush themselves for 15 years on 1 big ticket item (like Scotland managed).

As for claiming Japan as a North Hemisphere Rowanbi, it is geographically. However it plays the Pacific Nations Cup with Samoa, Fiji, Tonga (none of whom get the home games they deserve) and is playing Super 18. I am not clutching at straws when they primarily compete in the Southern Hemisphere comps as associating with SANZAR unions. They are closer to joining the 4 nations than to the 6 nations. It is also several thousand miles away from Europe as well as SA and every other rugby nation so I associate it with contests it plays rather than direct geography.

As for who hosted what, that is a mess. Ireland hosted a few games, SA got the post Apartheid RWC for Mandela, France hosted 2001 and Italy is the virgin. If we go in order of who has had most: France, SA, Ireland, Italy. No point arguing who was the official host or co-host otherwise Wales count as a co-host with England. SA and France will get another, but Ireland probably needs 1 of the next 3 to be a primary host especially if it goes up to 24 or more teams. If they host 2023 and then expand the tournament for 2027, it would be a clean way to do it.

by GunsGerms Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:16 pm

As part of your bid you have to outline how much you are willing to pay as the up front fee. The Irish Government in conjunction with the NI executive and IRFU wouldn't bid a fee if they couldn't back it up. The Irish bid is in reality a two country bid obviously because Ireland rugby is made up of two countries on one small island. If world rugby are happy with the bid and Ireland gets enough votes it will be accepted.

I don't think finances are as much an issue as people make out certainly given that Ireland as part of a European market would probably charge more per ticket than they could justify in SA. Although that is just a hunch.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:21 pm

US is a prime emerging market and Ireland is particularly well placed for US visitors to attend (38,000 US visitors came over for a weekend for a college football league game between Notre Dame V Navy two or 3 years ago in Lansdowne Rd). These league games are now becoming an annual event.

North Americans will not travel to South Africa for a weekend which they can easily do now to Ireland.

Then there are all those emerging markets in Europe to look to like Poland & Russia.

THe comments about lack of cultural diversity are laughable. The commentator has confused a common ability to speak English with offering a sameness culturally.

edit: the important thing is timezones not geography of north or southern hemisphere.

by Gwlad Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:28 pm

Sin é wrote:US is a prime emerging market and Ireland is particularly well placed for US visitors to attend (38,000 US visitors came over for a weekend for a college football league game between Notre Dame V Navy two or 3 years ago in Lansdowne Rd). These league games are now becoming an annual event.

North Americans will not travel to South Africa for a weekend which they can easily do now to Ireland.

Then there are all those emerging markets in Europe to look to like Poland & Russia.

THe comments about lack of cultural diversity are laughable. The commentator has confused a common ability to speak English with offering a sameness culturally.

edit: the important thing is timezones not geography of north or southern hemisphere.

i agree

The US is the place to grow rugby and the potential there is massive

Soccer has become a huge sport here which i thought would never happen, and with talk of a pro league in the US there is no reason with their love of contact sport and the huge pool of nearly made it NFL and CFL players that it couldn't become just as big in 10-15 years. With players like Isles in their hundreds.

The LA Sevens is huge event and Vancouver gets a leg this year, there is a bedrock of support for the game in Canada which has already spilled over into the US.

From a pro sport business perspective its the way forward.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 5:31 pm

GunsGerms wrote:As part of your bid you have to outline how much you are willing to pay as the up front fee. The Irish Government in conjunction with the NI executive and IRFU wouldn't bid a fee if they couldn't back it up. The Irish bid is in reality a two country bid obviously because Ireland rugby is made up of two countries on one small island. If world rugby are happy with the bid and Ireland gets enough votes it will be accepted.

I don't think finances are as much an issue as people make out certainly given that Ireland as part of a European market would probably charge more per ticket than they could justify in SA. Although that is just a hunch.

Yea, I did some analysis of the recent RWC on ticket prices. Irish fan were ripped off more than anyone else!

Its also worth noting the part rugby has played in the peace process in Northern Ireland which should get wider recognition. Traditionally, rugby would have been a Protestant/Unionist sport in NI, and the hosting of RWC games in GAA stadia (Catholic/Nationalist sport) would aid Ulster Rugby/IRFU spreading the sport to the Nationalist/Catholic population.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:05 pm

Attendances are fairly meaningless. All that matters it that the stadia are full and the atmosphere is good. The NZ WC was excellent, Seriously good atmosphere, world rugby made their money, everyone was happy. It will be the same and more if it goes to Ireland.

&

The last three RWC's, held in what you yourself refer to as small nations, have all crushed the last 'big nation cup' (Aus 2003) in all revenue stats and most attendance stats, effectively destroying your 'small nations are less lucrative' argument.

That's revenue you're talking about. South Africa has far more and far bigger stadiums, which means more revenue. Again, gate proceeds dropped by 35% in 2011, with the lowest average attendances since 1987, while the percentage gains from television and sponsorship were not a fraction as much as previous tournaments.

NZ still managed to fill 85% of their total stadia capacity in 2011 compared to 77% by SA in 1995, strongly indicating the drop in avg attendance is purely down to NZ just having smaller stadia.

If South Africa has larger venues that surely indicates expectations of larger crowds, and indeed that is the case in Super Rugby. South Africa staged its World Cup in the amateur age, and the tournament has come on in leaps and bounds since then. But still their average attendance in 1995 was higher than NZ's in 2011. So I don't think we can use this as an argument against SA hosting a World Cup in 2023.

As for claiming Japan as a North Hemisphere Rowanbi, it is geographically. However it plays the Pacific Nations Cup with Samoa, Fiji, Tonga (none of whom get the home games they deserve) and is playing Super 18. I am not clutching at straws when they primarily compete in the Southern Hemisphere comps as associating with SANZAR unions. They are closer to joining the 4 nations than to the 6 nations. It is also several thousand miles away from Europe as well as SA and every other rugby nation so I associate it with contests it plays rather than direct geography.

Er, Canada and the US also play in the PNC. So that's the PNC argument out the window. Or are we now going to be told a potential US World Cup in the future would also be one for the Southern Hemisphere because they play in the PNC with the islands and also now in the Americas 6 Nations with 4 South American teams ?? This really is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry. Fact: Japan is in the Northern Hemisphere. Fact: it is basically the antipodes of South Africa. Fact: It is about as far from NZ & Australia as SA is from Britain and France.

Ireland hosted a few games

12, including 3 play-offs, over two tournaments. Not bad for a geographically tiny nation with a small population, only two major centres, one major rugby stadium and a rugby team which has never made the semis at a RWC, never won a RWC play-off game and NEVER beaten the All Blacks.

a European market would probably charge more per ticket than they could justify in SA.

Probably right, but this is offset by the larger stadiums in SA. Otherwise, we can use economic conditions to deprive many other nations too.

North Americans will not travel to South Africa for a weekend which they can easily do now to Ireland.

Then there are all those emerging markets in Europe to look to like Poland & Russia.

THe comments about lack of cultural diversity are laughable. The commentator has confused a common ability to speak English with offering a sameness culturally.

North Americans are not going to make or break a World Cup bid, that's for sure. Eastern Europeans? Maybe you missed the part about all of the southern African nations which play rugby - including regular participant Namibia. I haven't confused anything with regards to cultural diversity. The UK, Australia and NZ all have more or less the same culture.

the important thing is timezones not geography of north or southern hemisphere.

South Africa is only an hour ahead of Britain.

Its also worth noting the part rugby has played in the peace process in Northern Ireland which should get wider recognition. Traditionally, rugby would have been a Protestant/Unionist sport in NI, and the hosting of RWC games in GAA stadia (Catholic/Nationalist sport) would aid Ulster Rugby/IRFU spreading the sport to the Nationalist/Catholic population.

True, and the 1995 World Cup was heralded as a great step toward uniting blacks and whites in post-Apartheid South Africa. It was also a step along the path of redemption, for the game was long perceived as a symbol of oppression. An entire generation has grown up since then, and by 2023 almost 3 decades will have passed. Time to return the event to the continent, I say, and not least of all for this very reason.

by doctor_grey Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:18 pm

Rowanbi wrote:I doubt SA will get it, do you?

Everything I've read in the British press has suggested they are the favorites, while one pundit suggested Ireland had already cut a deal to secure their support for 2027. There have been a few
Running parallel with the American football season would be huge. One playing off the other. The groups operating the stadiums would be in heaven.

That's a no-contest and would make rugby look ridiculous. Anyway, I think late 30s or 40s will be the time for America. They're still a minnow but with Pro Rugby getting underway this year, and the Americas 6 Nations about to kickoff, I fully expect the States to make huge strides over the next couple of decades. They certainly have the potential.

I take it you know this from your intimate knowledge of the American sporting landscape? Living in America and working with NFL sports teams as I do on occasion? Last I heard the NFL is excited to work with Rugby, but maybe the ownership of the NY Giants are out of touch........

by No 7&1/2 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:25 pm

You seem to have a real dislike for Ireland, why?

by nlpnlp Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:32 pm

I think World Rugby will primarily look at the World Cup as a money making exercise. The simple stats are that RWC2015 sold 2.47 million tickets generating more than £250 million in ticket revenues. The next best was France 2007 with 2.26m ticket sale an £147m of ticket revenue. Timezone will determine the TV receipts with England and France again being the big hitters.

Sadly morals and other fine ideas are great, but they don't sell tickets. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa will get their turn to keep rugby going there, but I think you can expect Europe to dominate the choice of World Cup. I think the answer will be for England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland to have a joint World Cup, only England have a plethora of Stadiums, people to fill them, hotels,etc. For France to team up with Italy, Germany, etc. Maybe South Africa with Argentina and other African countries. I know this won't be popular, but as the Italians say it is business not personal.

As for America, rugby is just one more sport that seems to think it can crack the market there, but baseball, basketball and American football will always dominate.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:39 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem to have a real dislike for Ireland, why?

The only thing wrong with Ireland is the colour of the beer, but a Jameson solves that problem.

by doctor_grey Wed 03 Feb 2016, 6:52 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem to have a real dislike for Ireland, why?

The only thing wrong with Ireland is the colour of the beer, but a Jameson solves that problem.

Can't have one without the other.............

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 7:33 pm

I take it you know this from your intimate knowledge of the American sporting landscape? Living in America and working with NFL sports teams as I do on occasion? Last I heard the NFL is excited to work with Rugby, but maybe the ownership of the NY Giants are out of touch........

I played more American football than rugby in my youth, as a matter of fact, including two years at college in the Midwest, trained with the university squad, attended a number of NFL games and personally met giant Chiefs running backs Christian Okoya (Nigerian) and Barry Word. I know enough to know that right now rugby would seem like rounders compared to MLB or netball compared to NBA. I'm a rugby fan first and foremost, which is why I'd hate to see it matched up with NFL stateside. 8 million registered football players v. 110,000 ruggers to begin with.

You seem to have a real dislike for Ireland, why?
Well, I certainly don't hate my paternal ancestors. I simply hate the idea of a RWC in Ireland, for all the reasons I've mentioned, just as much as I'd hate to see it in Fiji in 2023, even though I regard the Fijians as the 'Brazilians' of rugby and would love nothing more than to see them pick up gold in Rio. So at the very least I'm a neutral on the issue. My only allegiance is to the game and what I regard as being in the best interests of its showpiece event. I've followed it from the beginning and have been delighted in its growth. My only frustrations are with the lack of steady progress made by anyone except Argentina, and the fact that it keeps going back to the same corner of Europe on every second occasion . . .

So I won't ask you such a silly question as 'why do you hate South Africa?' because I'm sure that's not the driving factor behind your comments.

As for America, rugby is just one more sport that seems to think it can crack the market there, but baseball, basketball and American football will always dominate.

Good posts, & yes, I've already touched on this. Rugby has a long, long way to go in the US. A World Cup would be lost there any time in the foreseeable future. It may have a niche market in a select few regions, but the majority of Americans wouldn't know the tournament was going on - or at least they wouldn't care. I've lived there. They're very proud of their own variety of football, and if anyone thinks the whole nation is just waiting to embrace what many regard as a potential 'rival' code with open arms, they'd better think again. Late 30s or 2040s at the soonest, and that's only as far away from today as the first two tournaments - not exactly an eternity.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 7:44 pm

You should surely want Italy or Ireland rather than same old.

by doctor_grey Wed 03 Feb 2016, 7:59 pm

So...........living in America thirty years ago and (gasp) talking to a couple of NFL players qualifies you as an expert on the current thinking of the NFL and their future business opportunities. Brilliant.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 8:47 pm

doctor_grey wrote:So...........living in America thirty years ago and (gasp) talking to a couple of NFL players qualifies you as an expert on the current thinking of the NFL and their future business opportunities. Brilliant.

That's not what I wrote. If you wan't to imagine that's what I wrote, fine. What I actually wrote was that I had played a lot of American football, including at college in the Midwest, and attended a number of NFL games. It wasn't as long ago as 30 years, and the fact I met a couple of NFL players was incidental. I don't claim to be an expert on the current thinking of the NFL. But your previous comment appeared to imply I knew nothing about the topic at all, which is very far from the truth. I am fully cognizant of the vast gulf that exists between a mainstrean professional sport with 8 million registered player and an hitherto mostly amateur game with little over 100,000 players. The latter figure would scale down to 1500 players in NZ, btw, which I estimate would be about how many gridiron players they have. If gridiron tried to compete with rugby in NZ, of course, it would be laughed out of town. I'd just hate to see that happen to rugby in the US. In the meantime, I'm very excited about professional rugby getting off the ground there at long last, albeit with just five clubs, I believe, and also the brand new Americas 6 Nations. It'll be interesting to see how the US progresses over the next decade or two. No doubting it's the sleeping giant of world rugby, and once it fully awakens, that'll be the time to stage the RWC there.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 03 Feb 2016, 9:28 pm

I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 9:35 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here laughing

by aucklandlaurie Wed 03 Feb 2016, 9:44 pm

Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

Yes youve mentioned a couple of things twice, but being "at University" may not be interpreted by some as being an occupation, but being a lecturer has some traits to that of a preacher.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:11 pm

Rowanbi wrote:That's revenue you're talking about. South Africa has far more and far bigger stadiums, which means more revenue. Again, gate proceeds dropped by 35% in 2011, with the lowest average attendances since 1987, while the percentage gains from television and sponsorship were not a fraction as much as previous tournaments.

It doesn't mean more stadia. In Ireland it would be possible to charge 3 or 4 times what you charge the locals in SA because of the better economy. Most indigenous SAs couldn't afford to go to soccer games for the last world cup (and soccer is their game in SA. Has anything changed that they even want to go to a rugby world cup now?

North Americans are not going to make or break a World Cup bid, that's for sure. Eastern Europeans? Maybe you missed the part about all of the southern African nations which play rugby - including regular participant Namibia. I haven't confused anything with regards to cultural diversity. The UK, Australia and NZ all have more or less the same culture.

No, they are not. But if you are looking to break the US, Ireland are probably the best authority on how to do it with its huge diaspara there and having supplied a couple of coaches to the US team in recent times. Munster were playing
preseason games over there in 2008/2009.

South Africa is only an hour ahead of Britain.

Yes, like SA Ireland is in the primary timezone for the game.

Its also worth noting the part rugby has played in the peace process in Northern Ireland which should get wider recognition. Traditionally, rugby would have been a Protestant/Unionist sport in NI, and the hosting of RWC games in GAA stadia (Catholic/Nationalist sport) would aid Ulster Rugby/IRFU spreading the sport to the Nationalist/Catholic population.

True, and the 1995 World Cup was heralded as a great step toward uniting blacks and whites in post-Apartheid South Africa. It was also a step along the path of redemption, for the game was long perceived as a symbol of oppression. An entire generation has grown up since then, and by 2023 almost 3 decades will have passed. Time to return the event to the continent, I say, and not least of all for this very reason.

We know all of what happened in SA in 1995 -time to promote what rugby has done for unifying the island of Ireland which many people are not aware of. It seems you are totally ignorant of the differing cultural identities that exist on the island of Ireland, let alone in the English speaking world.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:13 pm

Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

by robbo277 Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:25 pm

I don't think Ireland should be favoured because it's their "last chance before expansion".

Personally, I'd like to see it go to Italy in 2023 and Argentina in 2027. Both have hosted football world cups and both could do the job. Holding the tournament in these places could do wonders for the countries hosting in terms of inspiring a new generation.

by aucklandlaurie Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:36 pm

Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.

by Rowanbi Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:42 pm

I don't think Ireland should be favoured because it's their "last chance before expansion".

I think their last chance before expansion was in 1995, when the game was still amateur and only 16 nations were involved. By 1999 it was already too late for the likes of Ireland & Scotland, while Wales had to get help from the rest of the Home Unions & France to manage it.

It doesn't mean more stadia. In Ireland it would be possible to charge 3 or 4 times what you charge the locals in SA because of the better economy. Most indigenous SAs couldn't afford to go to soccer games for the last world cup (and soccer is their game in SA. Has anything changed that they even want to go to a rugby world cup now?

Not true. There are more wealthy South Africans than there are people in Ireland. They have a vast array of both rugby and football stadia, and they get the biggest attendances in the world for club games. So I don't think they'll have trouble filling their stadiums. Your comment about "indigenous SAs" is bizarre on all levels. Firstly, the indigenous people of South Africa are San Bushmen (a unique ethnic group unrelated to black Africans), and secondly it's a wild generalization. Do you think the non-white folk in Africa are all begging in the streets, robbing banks or just plain starving to death?

No, they are not. But if you are looking to break the US, Ireland are probably the best authority on how to do it with its huge diaspara there and having supplied a couple of coaches to the US team in recent times.

I don't think a RWC in Ireland is going to attract much interest from the US, I'm afraid. By this logic we should ask why Americans don't have professional Gaelic football and hurling leagues, if they are so concerned by whatever is going on in Ireland.

Yes, like SA Ireland is in the primary timezone for the game.

Sure, so that's a tie. But I was actually responding to the comment about time zones being more important than the hemispheres. So obviously on that front anywhere on the opposite side of the planet to Japan works out. & since that's a tie, let's go back to those not-so-important hemispheres . . .

We know all of what happened in SA in 1995 -time to promote what rugby has done for unifying the island of Ireland which many people are not aware of. It seems you are totally ignorant of the differing cultural identities that exist on the island of Ireland, let alone in the English speaking world.

They have an all-Ireland national team. That's nice. But hardly a reason for staging a World Cup there and it surely will not enter into the reckoning. I think that what the tournament did for South Africa in 1995 was a great deal more significant, and indeed a Hollywood film has even been made about it. But that was two decades ago, and by 2023 it will be almost three. The Irish get to catch a ferry or take a cheap short-haul flight to the World Cup every 8 years, whereas the vastly more numerous people of the considerably more successful rugby nation of South Africa have to wait at least a generation.

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 10:50 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.

Thats our President! thumbsup

by doctor_grey Wed 03 Feb 2016, 11:03 pm

Sin é wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.
Thats our President!

Balin the Dwarf from the Hobbit is your President?

2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa - Page 4 Latest?cb=20120911171656

by Sin é Wed 03 Feb 2016, 11:52 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
Sin é wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.
Thats our President!
Balin the Dwarf from the Hobbit is your President?

Our elected president has one of the great minds (with principles) of the 20th century as indeed our last two former presidnets, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. We're lucky to have him as our president.

You insult him, you insult all Irish people.

by doctor_grey Thu 04 Feb 2016, 12:17 am

Sin é wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Sin é wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.
Thats our President!
Balin the Dwarf from the Hobbit is your President?

Our elected president has one of the great minds (with principles) of the 20th century as indeed our last two former presidnets, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. We're lucky to have him as our president.

You insult him, you insult all Irish people.

Well, no offense, mate. Thought you were joking.

by Pot Hale Thu 04 Feb 2016, 10:15 am

Sin é wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
Sin é wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Rowanbi wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I cant even guess what your occupation was when you were in the Midwest of the USA, if you had one, but it wasnt a preacher by any chance?

I think I already mentioned (twice) that I was at university there.

But, enough about me. Can we get back on topic now? Anyone would think there was a little shoot-the-messenger activity going on here

I wonder if you came away from the midwest of the US with the same attitudes of this guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI

Sine e youve excelled yourself.
Thats our President!
Balin the Dwarf from the Hobbit is your President?

Our elected president has one of the great minds (with principles) of the 20th century as indeed our last two former presidnets, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. We're lucky to have him as our president.

You insult him, you insult all Irish people.

He doesn't insult me. Higgins has been caricatured and lampooned by a good few Irish comedians, writers, satirists. Balin the Dwarf is mild compared to some of those.

Himself and Peter Stringer could be part of the bid team representing scrum-halves.

by Knowsit17 Thu 04 Feb 2016, 4:52 pm

Sin e, if visual comparisons insult you I'm not sure how your range of internet activity hasn't driven you insane yet.

More a praise than an insult as from what (very) little I've seen of the Hobbit franchise Balin is meant to be one of the more down to earth dwarves of the company.

by Pot Hale Thu 04 Feb 2016, 5:18 pm

I've worked out who Rowanbi/Quentin Poulson is from his time in the States.

Here he is explaining his concerns about small islands and the dangers of too many people arriving onto them at the one time.

Apparently, this testimony will be used as part of Quentin's bid for RWC 2023 on behalf of South Africa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&list=RD7P-DqRpn8yw

by Pot Hale Thu 04 Feb 2016, 5:23 pm

And for those who don't have the patience to listen to him droning on, here's a graphic illustration showing how a small island (that looks remarkably like Ireland) could be in danger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITx4aFhASTE&list=RD7P-DqRpn8yw&index=4

by Knowsit17 Thu 04 Feb 2016, 6:00 pm

Pot Hale wrote:I've worked out who Rowanbi/Quentin Poulson is from his time in the States.

Here he is explaining his concerns about small islands and the dangers of too many people arriving onto them at the one time.

Apparently, this testimony will be used as part of Quentin's bid for RWC 2023 on behalf of South Africa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg&list=RD7P-DqRpn8yw

I googled Rowan Quinn and all I found was a twitter account belonging to somebody who seems touched in the head. Weird stuff Headscratch

Quentin Poulson brings up a selection of various profiles.

by Sponsored content