Ireland's bid for 2023 World Cup - venues announced + Gov. underwriting 320m

First topic message reminder :

Venues announced and both Govs underwriting cost.


http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/government-to-underwrite-320m-in-bid-for-2023-rugby-world-cup-414609.html


Croke Park, The Aviva stadium, RDS in Dublin; (3)
Casement Park and Kingspan Stadium in Belfast (2)
Pairc Uí Chaoimh in Cork;

These include Croke Park, the Aviva Stadium and the RDS in Dublin;
Casement Park and Kingspan Stadium in Belfast;
Pairc Uí Chaoimh in Cork;
Thomond Park, Limerick;
Fitzgerald Stadium, Killarney;
Pearse Stadium, Galway;
McHale Park in Castlebar;
Nowlan Park, Kilkenny;
and Celtic Park in Derry.

Great to see how evenly spread around the island (Derry & Kilkenny for example).

The operational costs for redeveloping some of these venues and bringing them up to standards and sizes for the tournament is estimated to cost in the region of €60m.

I think we have a good chance.

Irish Londoner wrote:PH - I think it's the amount generated above the guarantee that' interests them - the guarantee covers the "basic" costs/expected income and they also get a slice of whatever is made over and above that.

I don't think there is an amount "above" the guarantee fee.  There's a hosting fee.  Which must be govt underwritten.

The TV rights and RWC tournament sponsorships are managed and sold by WR - they receive that money directly. (Industry estimates put sponsorship value at £45m for RWC 2015. ITV paid £65m approx for UK rights for RWC 2011 and host broadcaster rights for RWC 2015. France apparently paid €40m for RWC 2015). Brett Gosper was quoted by BBC after RWC 2015 as saying they would have £150m accruing from the event to reinvest in the game globally.

Hosting costs such as stadium hire/upgrading, facilities, accommodation, security, policing, etc are met by the host nation.   The host nation generates its income from ticket sales.  Here's this quote from a RWC 2015 report:  

"The revenue generated through ticket sales facilitates the Tournament and flows back into the economy.  The ticket revenue is used to run, deliver and promote the Tournament. This includes the hire of the stadia, operational costs, technology upgrades and other essential costs that are involved in delivering the Tournament. The spend on these essential products and services stimulates a variety of sectors in the economy and has further impacts throughout the supply chain. Total net ticket revenue is based upon forecast ticket sales, totalling £250m."

Infrastructure/stadium spend including Twickenham upgrade was about £85m according to a number of official reports on the event.

Within RWC sponsorship, there would appear to be a correlation between commercial attractiveness of the comp when it moves between European destinations and elsewhere.

wolfball wrote:

Welly wrote:

wolfball wrote:

Welly wrote: I hope and I think Italy will win this.

Nothing against Ireland (I personally would be able to go to Ireland one with ease). But I think this will make or break Italian rugby.

They have the stadiums for it at least.

Hope it goes
2019 Japan
2023 Italy
2027 USA
2031 Argentina
2035 Ireland/Canada

Then after that look at countries like Spain etc.

it will never go like that. Not having a top (well, original rugby playing) 8 country host for +20 years would be a big mistake.

Why would it be a mistake? Out of interest.

And don't say money as all those countries have potential to turn a profit. (Something NZ didn't do in 2011)

If rugby wants to expand it needs to introduce the RWC in different continents. NA being the biggest.

The only reason not to is for tradition.

I am all for spreading rugby around, but there has to be some focus on the fans that have always been there supporting their country for decades. Japan is a big trip for most of the world's rugby fans and having the following tournament in one of the homeland's of rugby is more than reasonable in my view. Also, if we want to look at rugby more as a business (which I am loath to do but is very relevant when talking about the reasons for picking RWC locations), like any business, keeping your current customers and moving them from low value to high value spenders is an easier task then getting completely new fans on board. I honestly think that the rugby union markets in ireland and australia are far from saturated (with rugby down the list of most popular sports) and winning new fans in those countries is easier than getting americans to leave NFL or italians to leave football.

So just say you want Ireland to host but don't say it would be a big mistake to host it in a non traditional 8 country, when it most likely wouldn't be. Rugby 7's World Cup in 2018 will give us a good gauge on what to expect in a USA market.

But then again why not South Africa if they are allowed to keep there bid? After all the last SA World Cup gave Rugby its most iconic moment.

I am not saying give it to ireland. I am not saying it is a mistake to host in non-traditional country. I am saying your original pitch was to not have a traditional 8 host for +20 years. That's the mistake. Switching it from traditional to non-traditional every second time makes alot of sense (and more sense than the old NH vs SH switching).


also

Rugby 7's World Cup in 2018 will give us a good gauge on what to expect in a USA market.

I really hope it isn't a gauge of a proper RWC, as 7s in 2018 won't even be a blip on the US sporting scene. It will be reported as a minor sporting event by local californian press. The larger efforts for a pro league in the US is more of an indicator of where rugby is there.

wolfball wrote:I am not saying give it to ireland. I am not saying it is a mistake to host in non-traditional country. I am saying your original pitch was to not have a traditional 8 host for +20 years. That's the mistake. Switching it from traditional to non-traditional every second time makes alot of sense (and more sense than the old NH vs SH switching).


also

Rugby 7's World Cup in 2018 will give us a good gauge on what to expect in a USA market.

I really hope it isn't a gauge of a proper RWC, as 7s in 2018 won't even be a blip on the US sporting scene. It will be reported as a minor sporting event by local californian press. The larger efforts for a pro league in the US is more of an indicator of where rugby is there.

The World Cup is a 4 year thing not every 2 years so holding it in a non traditional country every 8 years is to long IMO. the fact is Rugby needs to try and start spreading it's wings and the traditional countries have held it for 29 years.

The traditional countries play 10 + times a year against other tier 1 countries already.

I could understand the reason if it struggles in a tier 2 country. But if rugby really want to try and expand the sport as it says it does it needs to do this IMO.

I can't see the Aus government forking money over ATM and can see them wanting to try and focus on mounting a bid for the Football World Cup.

My preference is for an Irish 2023, though this then makes it very difficult for Italy, unless they are awarded 2027 which could be awkward from a SH perspective, remembering also that Japan is in the north.

RSA and Argentina plus the US (maybe US & Canada?) appear to be the other contenders so how's about;

23 Irish 27 Argentina 31 US 35 RSA (sorry Italy)

South Africa submitted a bid by deadline of 1 Sept so they're in the mix for the tenders for 2023.

All four bids have the relevant Government guarantees in place.

Pot Hale wrote:South Africa submitted a bid by deadline of 1 Sept so they're in the mix for the tenders for 2023.

All four bids have the relevant Government guarantees in place.

What happened the SA not being able to bid because they hadn't met the racial quotas?

marty2086 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:South Africa submitted a bid by deadline of 1 Sept so they're in the mix for the tenders for 2023.

All four bids have the relevant Government guarantees in place.

What happened the SA not being able to bid because they hadn't met the racial quotas?

Don't think they have passed that yet. That stage was just being accepted as a candidate. Next steps are:



The official announcement of the winning bid will take place in November 2017.

The bids that were submitted to World Rugby will be judged on seven objectives:

1. Venues and infrastructure commensurate with a top-tier major event

2. Comprehensive and enforceable public and private sector guarantees

3. A commercially successful event with a fully funded, robust financial model

4. Operational excellence through an integrated and experienced delivery team

5. A vision that engages and inspires domestic and international audiences and contributes to the growth of rugby at all levels

6. An enabling environment of political and financial stability that respects the diversity of Rugby World Cup's global stakeholders

7. An environment and climate suited to top-level sport in a geography that allows maximum fan mobility

I don't mean with World Rugby I mean the SA govt said that the SARU could not bid for any tournaments for at least a year because they failed to meet the quotas, that was 6 months ago

Seems like a lot of what they say is just sabre rattling to put pressure on the SARU with no real follow through. They're just playing to the crowd.

Not interested in "spreading rugby" at all. At least not forcing it anyway.

Ireland deserve it the most. The oldest rugby nation not to host it. Would be farcical if some nations hosted it twice before Ireland have had it once.

marty2086 wrote:I don't mean with World Rugby I mean the SA govt said that the SARU could not bid for any tournaments for at least a year because they failed to meet the quotas, that was 6 months ago

They submitted a bid with SARU head honcho saying they expect the next transformation report will see targets met.

Pot Hale wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I don't mean with World Rugby I mean the SA govt said that the SARU could not bid for any tournaments for at least a year because they failed to meet the quotas, that was 6 months ago

They submitted a bid with SARU head honcho saying they expect the next transformation report will see targets met.  

As you said earlier they have govt guarantees so the report should be irrelevant, to pull those guarantees would hurt SA long term

The SA bid is not serious, its a non bid so whoever goes against it have nothing to worry about. The fight for quotas goes on. They're asking the impossible and if they followed them to the T they'd probably drop out of the top 10 rugby nations. A directive such as that only works as long as the results are acceptable. When they're losing regular games to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France, England and even the odd one to Italy when other "SA" players are gracing the top14 then its difficult to justify its a working model.

In a perfect world I would have said yes its the right time for SA but to be truthful the last year has proved they are not ready again to do so.

So its Italy vs. Ireland. I think Ireland will have the old boys vote. I think WR will want a cash cow after the experiment of Japan (could be good could be bad) but who that is out of those two? Debatable.

fa0019 wrote:The SA bid is not serious, its a non bid so whoever goes against it have nothing to worry about. The fight for quotas goes on. They're asking the impossible and if they followed them to the T they'd probably drop out of the top 10 rugby nations. A directive such as that only works as long as the results are acceptable. When they're losing regular games to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France, England and even the odd one to Italy when other "SA" players are gracing the top14 then its difficult to justify its a working model.

In a perfect world I would have said yes its the right time for SA but to be truthful the last year has proved they are not ready again to do so.

So its Italy vs. Ireland. I think Ireland will have the old boys vote. I think WR will want a cash cow after the experiment of Japan (could be good could be bad) but who that is out of those two? Debatable.

Really, FA? Making a bid costs a fair chunk of money, do you really think SARU are just going through the motions on this one?

With the Olympic Council of Ireland tickets scandal looming large you have to wonder whether this will have an effect on voting confidence. Having said that, SA and Italy don't exactly have a clean record with regards to corruption either.

Might as well give it to Russia

GunsGerms wrote:Not interested in "spreading rugby" at all. At least not forcing it anyway.

Ireland deserve it the most. The oldest rugby nation not to host it. Would be farcical if some nations hosted it twice before Ireland have had it once.

To be fair though its only pretty recently it could have even been considered. The popularity of the game has risen dramaticaly in the wider Irish public and the stadia have improved vastly alongside that. The last 20 years has seen a rela fundamental change in the importance of rugby in Ireland both as a spectator sport and as an economic force. So really its a pretty ideal time to be getting a world cup over there too, talk of spreading the game should also mean bolstering it up in countries that have shown long term development and the potential to actually mount a serious challenge for a world cup so its not just the same 4 or 5 nations ( or 1 really) in the mix.
Ireland would be a safe host from a number of perspectives, but also one that would help to embed the sport as the premier international team sport in that country. Having the governement willing to back this by mortaging the silver is very important and shows how serious they are about the long term devlopment of the game in Ireland.
Ticks all the boxes for me.

South Africa s=to me just isnt as attractive now that they dont have Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon playing for them anymore.

Sin é wrote:

Rome Olympic Stadium - capacity 72,698

Roma, Flaminio Stadium - capacity 30,000 ca

Milan, Stadium "Giuseppe Meazza" - capacity 81 277

Turin, Olympic Stadium - capacity 27,958

Genoa Stadium "Luigi Ferraris" - capacity 36,599

Florence Stadium "Artemio Franchi" - capacity 47 290

Bologna, Stadium "Renato Dall'Ara" - capacity 38 279

Udine, "Stadio Friuli" - capacity 25 144

Padua, Stadium "Euganeo" - capacity 32 420

Napoli, Stadio "San Paolo" - capacity 60.240

Bari, Stadium "St. Nicholas" - capacity 58 248

Palermo, Stadium "Renzo Barbera" - capacity 37 619

That's a lot of big stadiums, with no small stadiums for the games like Georgia V Tonga.

Given the lack of local domestic support an Italian world cup could do a Rio and be known for half full stadiums! It would also require significant partnership with Serie A to work around their games, which is the life and blood of Italy.

Cyril wrote:With the Olympic Council of Ireland tickets scandal looming large you have to wonder whether this will have an effect on voting confidence. Having said that, SA and Italy don't exactly have a clean record with regards to corruption either.

Having said that, the Pope could be considered to be something of a Catholic... all things considered!

A lot of institutions in Ireland has been pretty corrupt for a while, and it seems the OCI has joined them. But there's no evidence that the IRFU is corrupt. Giving free tickets to the wives and families of the blazer brigade is as bad as it gets atm as far as I know. So either they are clean, in which case they can host it or they aren't. And if they aren't they're obviously competent enough not to get caught and therefore definitely competent enough to run a good RWC! Sorted

All joking aside I'm sure the OCI scandal does do some damage to our image, but at the end of the day we're not bidding for the Olympics

Pot Hale wrote:

fa0019 wrote:The SA bid is not serious, its a non bid so whoever goes against it have nothing to worry about. The fight for quotas goes on. They're asking the impossible and if they followed them to the T they'd probably drop out of the top 10 rugby nations. A directive such as that only works as long as the results are acceptable. When they're losing regular games to Ireland, Wales, Scotland, France, England and even the odd one to Italy when other "SA" players are gracing the top14 then its difficult to justify its a working model.

In a perfect world I would have said yes its the right time for SA but to be truthful the last year has proved they are not ready again to do so.

So its Italy vs. Ireland. I think Ireland will have the old boys vote. I think WR will want a cash cow after the experiment of Japan (could be good could be bad) but who that is out of those two? Debatable.

Really, FA?   Making a bid costs a fair chunk of money, do you really think SARU are just going through the motions on this one?  

No financial commitment yet. From this article, it seems the only reason SA are still in it is because SA is the only SH country to put a bid in. 1 November 2016 is when the serious business begins when countries are accepted as candidates by World Rugby.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/rugby/2016/09/01/SA-Rugby-submits-Rugby-World-Cup-bid-application

Notch wrote:

Cyril wrote:With the Olympic Council of Ireland tickets scandal looming large you have to wonder whether this will have an effect on voting confidence. Having said that, SA and Italy don't exactly have a clean record with regards to corruption either.

Having said that, the Pope could be considered to be something of a Catholic... all things considered!

A lot of institutions in Ireland has been pretty corrupt for a while, and it seems the OCI has joined them. But there's no evidence that the IRFU is corrupt. Giving free tickets to the wives and families of the blazer brigade is as bad as it gets atm as far as I know. So either they are clean, in which case they can host it or they aren't. And if they aren't they're obviously competent enough not to get caught and therefore definitely competent enough to run a good RWC! Sorted  

All joking aside I'm sure the OCI scandal does do some damage to our image, but at the end of the day we're not bidding for the Olympics

Hickey it seems offered his services to the IRFU to help with the bid.

In fairness to Ireland, it has no representation involved in senior committee level of world rugby. Both France & South Africa has had though with Lapasset & Oregan Hoskins president & VP of World Rugby. I'd imagine Beaumont will only be too happy to kick those two up the yard after their carry-on with him on World Rugby.

Notch wrote:

Cyril wrote:With the Olympic Council of Ireland tickets scandal looming large you have to wonder whether this will have an effect on voting confidence. Having said that, SA and Italy don't exactly have a clean record with regards to corruption either.

Having said that, the Pope could be considered to be something of a Catholic... all things considered!

A lot of institutions in Ireland has been pretty corrupt for a while, and it seems the OCI has joined them. But there's no evidence that the IRFU is corrupt. Giving free tickets to the wives and families of the blazer brigade is as bad as it gets atm as far as I know. So either they are clean, in which case they can host it or they aren't. And if they aren't they're obviously competent enough not to get caught and therefore definitely competent enough to run a good RWC! Sorted  

All joking aside I'm sure the OCI scandal does do some damage to our image, but at the end of the day we're not bidding for the Olympics

Apparently Hickey was at it in London with his tickets too but there are plenty at it in most organisations when it comes to big events.

I think the cross border, multi body approach the Irish bid is taking will be helpful as long as everybody acts like grown ups

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rome Olympic Stadium - capacity 72,698

Roma, Flaminio Stadium - capacity 30,000 ca

Milan, Stadium "Giuseppe Meazza" - capacity 81 277

Turin, Olympic Stadium - capacity 27,958

Genoa Stadium "Luigi Ferraris" - capacity 36,599

Florence Stadium "Artemio Franchi" - capacity 47 290

Bologna, Stadium "Renato Dall'Ara" - capacity 38 279

Udine, "Stadio Friuli" - capacity 25 144

Padua, Stadium "Euganeo" - capacity 32 420

Napoli, Stadio "San Paolo" - capacity 60.240

Bari, Stadium "St. Nicholas" - capacity 58 248

Palermo, Stadium "Renzo Barbera" - capacity 37 619

That's a lot of big stadiums, with no small stadiums for the games like Georgia V Tonga.

Given the lack of local domestic support an Italian world cup could do a Rio and be known for half full stadiums! It would also require significant partnership with Serie A to work around their games, which is the life and blood of Italy.

Assuming the RWC is going to be in September, I just can't figure out how it can fit in with the Serie A season. Rome Olympic stadium is shared by Roma and Lazio, Milan stadium shared by AC and Inter, Genoa stadium shared by Sampdoria and Genoa, Turin stadium shared by Juve and Torino - that means those stadiums are in use every week so how are they going to Squeeze RWC games. Will be interesting to see final proposal from Italy

brennomac wrote:
Assuming the RWC is going to be in September, I just can't figure out how it can fit in with the Serie A season.  Rome Olympic stadium is shared by Roma and Lazio, Milan stadium shared by AC and Inter, Genoa stadium shared by Sampdoria and Genoa, Turin stadium shared by Juve and Torino - that means those stadiums are in use every week so how are they going to Squeeze RWC games.  Will be interesting to see final proposal from Italy

None of the stadiums belong to the clubs so they may get little say in it, also Juve got their own stadium about 5 years ago and Roma and Milan are working on new stadiums though Milans are on a back burner at the minute

That'll shift some of the congestion

marty2086 wrote:

brennomac wrote:
Assuming the RWC is going to be in September, I just can't figure out how it can fit in with the Serie A season.  Rome Olympic stadium is shared by Roma and Lazio, Milan stadium shared by AC and Inter, Genoa stadium shared by Sampdoria and Genoa, Turin stadium shared by Juve and Torino - that means those stadiums are in use every week so how are they going to Squeeze RWC games.  Will be interesting to see final proposal from Italy

None of the stadiums belong to the clubs so they may get little say in it, also Juve got their own stadium about 5 years ago and Roma and Milan are working on new stadiums though Milans are on a back burner at the minute

That'll shift some of the congestion

So a long sitting tenant would have no say in it? They might have leases and stuff like that!

I think FIR said in their announcement that they were about to contact each municipality to get their approval. They also will have to get the Italian Gov. to back it.

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

brennomac wrote:
Assuming the RWC is going to be in September, I just can't figure out how it can fit in with the Serie A season.  Rome Olympic stadium is shared by Roma and Lazio, Milan stadium shared by AC and Inter, Genoa stadium shared by Sampdoria and Genoa, Turin stadium shared by Juve and Torino - that means those stadiums are in use every week so how are they going to Squeeze RWC games.  Will be interesting to see final proposal from Italy

None of the stadiums belong to the clubs so they may get little say in it, also Juve got their own stadium about 5 years ago and Roma and Milan are working on new stadiums though Milans are on a back burner at the minute

That'll shift some of the congestion

So a long sitting tenant would have no say in it?  They might have leases and stuff like that!

I think FIR said in their announcement that they were about to contact each municipality to get their approval. They also will have to get the Italian Gov. to back it.

I said little say not no say, the stadia belong to municipalities and the IOC so they have larger agendas at work. Dont forget that England used 7 stadium being used by clubs who actually own the ground, the football fixture computer would factor in the RWC before spitting out its list thogh Im sure the RWC matches would be designed in a way to allow crossover, plus most RWC games are midweek

Can't see Serie A minding too much since they will prob get the stadiums redeveloped for it. (a lot of the serie A stadiums need it) moving their season to fit in prob be worth it in their eyes.

I also can't see Italy rugby putting the stadiums forward if they weren't positive they will get them.

It would be interesting to find out more detail on the proposed Irish, current and proposed capacities and planned upgrading programmes.  From my reading/research, there would appear to be some conflicting reports on what upgrades are being planned e.g. Nowlan Park, MacHale Park, Fitzgerald, Casement Park and Pearse Stadium

Croker, Lansdowne, RDS, Ravenhill, Thomond and Pairc Ui Chaoimh all seem to fit the bill.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Rome Olympic Stadium - capacity 72,698

Roma, Flaminio Stadium - capacity 30,000 ca

Milan, Stadium "Giuseppe Meazza" - capacity 81 277

Turin, Olympic Stadium - capacity 27,958

Genoa Stadium "Luigi Ferraris" - capacity 36,599

Florence Stadium "Artemio Franchi" - capacity 47 290

Bologna, Stadium "Renato Dall'Ara" - capacity 38 279

Udine, "Stadio Friuli" - capacity 25 144

Padua, Stadium "Euganeo" - capacity 32 420

Napoli, Stadio "San Paolo" - capacity 60.240

Bari, Stadium "St. Nicholas" - capacity 58 248

Palermo, Stadium "Renzo Barbera" - capacity 37 619

That's a lot of big stadiums, with no small stadiums for the games like Georgia V Tonga.

Given the lack of local domestic support an Italian world cup could do a Rio and be known for half full stadiums! It would also require significant partnership with Serie A to work around their games, which is the life and blood of Italy.

Another issue is a lot of the stadiums have a running track around them which doesn't make for great viewing on the tv and especially being at the game.

Pot Hale wrote:It would be interesting to find out more detail on the proposed Irish, current and proposed capacities and planned upgrading programmes.  From my reading/research, there would appear to be some conflicting reports on what upgrades are being planned e.g. Nowlan Park, MacHale Park, Fitzgerald, Casement Park and Pearse Stadium

Croker, Lansdowne, RDS, Ravenhill, Thomond and Pairc Ui Chaoimh all seem to fit the bill.

Casement should be around 40k once they finally clear the legal hurdles, it was out to public consultation at the end of May and got something like 90% support from residents so thats one of the big issues dealt with

marty2086 wrote:

Notch wrote:

Cyril wrote:With the Olympic Council of Ireland tickets scandal looming large you have to wonder whether this will have an effect on voting confidence. Having said that, SA and Italy don't exactly have a clean record with regards to corruption either.

Having said that, the Pope could be considered to be something of a Catholic... all things considered!

A lot of institutions in Ireland has been pretty corrupt for a while, and it seems the OCI has joined them. But there's no evidence that the IRFU is corrupt. Giving free tickets to the wives and families of the blazer brigade is as bad as it gets atm as far as I know. So either they are clean, in which case they can host it or they aren't. And if they aren't they're obviously competent enough not to get caught and therefore definitely competent enough to run a good RWC! Sorted  

All joking aside I'm sure the OCI scandal does do some damage to our image, but at the end of the day we're not bidding for the Olympics

Apparently Hickey was at it in London with his tickets too but there are plenty at it in most organisations when it comes to big events.

I think the cross border, multi body approach the Irish bid is taking will be helpful as long as everybody acts like grown ups

Just one thing confuses me about the ticket selling thing, the games in Rio were notoriously poorly attended compared to other games of recent times, to the point that you could buy tickets on the day. Why would anyone want "under the counter" tickets, I presume at a mark-up when you can get them at face value ? I'd have thought it would be difficult to sell tickets for an unsold event.

As me Da would have said "only an Irishman...."

They were sold to a tour operator, so they would have been package deals for boxes etc so those buying didn't have to sit with the peasants.

Probably would have been for some of the high value events too like the 100m final

England and France will always be the most profitable locations for a world cup, as they have enough ready made large stadiums to be able to pack in lots of fans without having to spend large amounts on stadium building/upgrading.  They also have a relatively large population compared to other countries.  Which means less sexy games will still get a good attendance and more TV money will come in because more local people will buy a TV subscription as it is a home world cup.

Not having a world cup for 32+ years in one of the 'big' rugby playing nations doesn't make sense and may lead to the game withering.  Getting in new countries like Kenya, Spain, Germany, etc may seem like a brilliant idea, but not if it means losing a Scotland or a Wales.  The only way to ensure the big countries have fairly regular world cups will be to hold combined world cups.  Having a world cup in New Zealand or Australia makes little sense financially, so combined world cups would seem to be the way to go.  Likewise having a world cup in just Scotland (2 professional teams) or Wales (4 professional teams) makes no sense.  So England would need to combine with one or both of these.  France with Italy and other European countries.  South Africa and Argentina.  With a 'new' country every 4th world cup, so Japan, the USA, etc.

Does having a world cup in Ireland with a population of just over 6million and 4 professional rugby teams make great sense?  Whether people like or not rugby is now a professional game and what makes a sport professional is the money.  So money matters have to be front and centre in any decision.

nlpnlp wrote:England and France will always be the most profitable locations for a world cup, as they have enough ready made large stadiums to be able to pack in lots of fans without having to spend large amounts on stadium building/upgrading.  They also have a relatively large population compared to other countries.  Which means less sexy games will still get a good attendance and more TV money will come in because more local people will buy a TV subscription as it is a home world cup.

Not having a world cup for 32+ years in one of the 'big' rugby playing nations doesn't make sense and may lead to the game withering.  Getting in new countries like Kenya, Spain, Germany, etc may seem like a brilliant idea, but not if it means losing a Scotland or a Wales.  The only way to ensure the big countries have fairly regular world cups will be to hold combined world cups.  Having a world cup in New Zealand or Australia makes little sense financially, so combined world cups would seem to be the way to go.  Likewise having a world cup in just Scotland (2 professional teams) or Wales (4 professional teams) makes no sense.  So England would need to combine with one or both of these.  France with Italy and other European countries.  South Africa and Argentina.  With a 'new' country every 4th world cup, so Japan, the USA, etc.

Does having a world cup in Ireland with a population of just over 6million and 4 professional rugby teams make great sense?  Whether people like or not rugby is now a professional game and what makes a sport professional is the money.  So money matters have to be front and centre in any decision.

Not if Ireland were a Mars colony but when its a shorter journey to Irleand from the whole of Europe than it is from one side of Australia to the other then that issue sort of goes away (even more so as some games would actually be in the UK). It has a TV friendly time zone too.
There wont be much of an issue selling tickets for games in Ireland.

nlpnlp wrote:England and France will always be the most profitable locations for a world cup, as they have enough ready made large stadiums to be able to pack in lots of fans without having to spend large amounts on stadium building/upgrading.  They also have a relatively large population compared to other countries.  Which means less sexy games will still get a good attendance and more TV money will come in because more local people will buy a TV subscription as it is a home world cup.

Yet the best attended game in the last world cup was Ireland v Romania - better even than the All Blacks v Argentina in Wembley!

260,000 went to the Ryder Cup in the K Club (Ireland) in 2006 compared to 147,000 in 2002 when it was in the Belfry, 244,000 when it was in Celtic Manor (2010). For comparision - Ryder Cup in US (Medinah) was 240,000 people.

The spend when in Ireland was €143m. Spend when in wales was £82.4m

Does having a world cup in Ireland with a population of just over 6million and 4 professional rugby teams make great sense?  Whether people like or not rugby is now a professional game and what makes a sport professional is the money.  So money matters have to be front and centre in any decision.

The amateur sport of GAA (who own most the stadia in Ireland) was €91m last year. (IRFU about 70m, FAI about 45m). Since the GAA is placed very strongly in the community and the games will be mostly in GAA stadia who are represented on the bid committee, unlike say the RFU who were hiring stadia from Football clubs. There is a huge crossover between rugby and GAA in Ireland - for instance, the former captain of Dublin Football team Bryan Cullen was a Strength & Conditioning Coach with Leinster Rugby and more recently Denis Leamy is part of the backroom staff of Tipperary (who won the hurling final last week). Ian Dowling is Tipperary Football's physio.

If Ireland get to host a Rugby World Cup, everyone will be out in force to make it a success.

Ireland are getting to host a rugby world cup next year I wonder if that'll be a success

Ireland will be able to do a fantastic job. In fact, if they are short a stadium or two, the SRU should see if Scotstoun, Pittodrie and Murrayfield can be made available to host Scotland's group...

Italy are still my favourite option even if some of the fixture concerns are justified. The government over there is in a bit of bother over their own referendum this autumn and the problems economically (MPS). The stadiums do need massive updates and, as noted, the municipalities have not been upgrading them over the years. A push from the RWC will help.

nlpnlp wrote:England and France will always be the most profitable locations for a world cup, as they have enough ready made large stadiums to be able to pack in lots of fans without having to spend large amounts on stadium building/upgrading.  They also have a relatively large population compared to other countries.  Which means less sexy games will still get a good attendance and more TV money will come in because more local people will buy a TV subscription as it is a home world cup.

From what I recall from a RWC 2015 report, the English RFU spent £75m on stadium upgrading - a good chunk of it on Twickenham.

More local people will buy a TV subscription??? You mean to watch ITV on free to air? TV revenues are made from selling broadcasting rights in various territories globally. ITV made a joint RWC 2011/2015 bid to cover both tournaments.

Italy have pulled out of the running,it's between Ireland,S.A. and France now.

Only France/SA left in the running. I think we are strong favorites now, between France hosting previously and SA with their quota controversies...

Hmmm

Italy have pulled out because Rome Govt canned the Olympics bid the week before and the two bids were linked.

Shame. That's going to set Italy back in future bids as well.

wolfball wrote:Only France/SA left in the running. I think we are strong favorites now, between France hosting previously and SA with their quota controversies...

Oh I'd say we should all - especially the men running the campaign - all resist any lure to complacency.  These things have a habit of coming up and biting you in the ass when you least expect it.  The campaign has to be 100% committed and serious - and the earnestness must tell in those leading the charge.  "We WANT this!" rather than anything like 'We got this.'.  
I'd dread the comfy feel of 'deal's done' in the lead up and then the faces of shock when winner is announced.  Didn't something like that happen to England in a Football WC bid?  Embarrassing position to be in

wolfball wrote:Only France/SA left in the running. I think we are strong favorites now, between France hosting previously and SA with their quota controversies...

Saw this point made on Leinsterfans,what does Brexit mean for the bid.What will the border situation be and will visitors need a visa to enter the U.K. if their team has matches in both jurisdictions.That could be a stumbling block because right now nobody has a clue what's really going to happen.

I wouldn't discount France just yet. Their bid is being linked to their bid for the Paris Olympics the following year. If their Paris Olympic bid is successful (Chaired by Bernard Lapassat) I'd say they might have a very good chance of getting the Rugby World Cup as it will cost them nothing and a good practice run for the Olympics. They might really make it worth World Rugby's while to do so.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Saw this point made on Leinsterfans,what does Brexit mean for the bid.What will the border situation be and will visitors need a visa to enter the U.K. if their team has matches in both jurisdictions.That could be a stumbling block because right now nobody has a clue what's really going to happen.

Since any form of "hard" border control - i.e. customs posts or even more contentiously police/army "checkpoints" would cause absolute meltdown to the GFA I doubt very much if there are going to be any restrictions placed on cross border travel so should not be an issue for spectators arriving via the Republic.
Might be an issue if they come in to NI on direct flights from outside the UK or travel via a mainland airport but only would impact EU visitors - it's unlikely that it would be more than the formality of waving a passport at the airport.
I think people from Aus/NZ/SA need tourist visas anyway but could be wrong on that.
That said I doubt if Brexit (as in a total opt out) is likely anyway - both sides have too much to lose.

Hazel Sapling wrote:Ireland will be able to do a fantastic job. In fact, if they are short a stadium or two, the SRU should see if Scotstoun, Pittodrie and Murrayfield can be made available to host Scotland's group...

Italy are still my favourite option even if some of the fixture concerns are justified. The government over there is in a bit of bother over their own referendum this autumn and the problems economically (MPS). The stadiums do need massive updates and, as noted, the municipalities have not been upgrading them over the years. A push from the RWC will help.  

If Ireland were to consider using stadia outside Ireland then the bid falls because it's not a self-contained all-Ireland bid. Hopefully, World Rugby would not allow this.

Irish Londoner wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Saw this point made on Leinsterfans,what does Brexit mean for the bid.What will the border situation be and will visitors need a visa to enter the U.K. if their team has matches in both jurisdictions.That could be a stumbling block because right now nobody has a clue what's really going to happen.

Since any form of "hard" border control - i.e. customs posts or even more contentiously police/army "checkpoints" would cause absolute meltdown to the GFA I doubt very much if there are going to be any restrictions placed on cross border travel so should not be an issue for spectators arriving via the Republic.
Might be an issue if they come in to NI on direct flights from outside the UK or travel via a mainland airport but only would impact EU visitors  - it's unlikely that it would be more than the formality of waving a passport at the airport.
I think people from Aus/NZ/SA need tourist visas anyway but could be wrong on that.
That said I doubt if Brexit (as in a total opt out) is likely anyway - both sides have too much to lose.

Yeah I hope that it won't be a problem but I think the point the post is the uncertainty.Can they hand us the tournament when they don't know (nobody does for sure) how these issues will be resolved.I'd say there will more than likely be minimal disruption to how things are done now but it's the uncertainty that could cause a problem for our bid.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:Saw this point made on Leinsterfans,what does Brexit mean for the bid.What will the border situation be and will visitors need a visa to enter the U.K. if their team has matches in both jurisdictions.That could be a stumbling block because right now nobody has a clue what's really going to happen.

Since any form of "hard" border control - i.e. customs posts or even more contentiously police/army "checkpoints" would cause absolute meltdown to the GFA I doubt very much if there are going to be any restrictions placed on cross border travel so should not be an issue for spectators arriving via the Republic.
Might be an issue if they come in to NI on direct flights from outside the UK or travel via a mainland airport but only would impact EU visitors  - it's unlikely that it would be more than the formality of waving a passport at the airport.
I think people from Aus/NZ/SA need tourist visas anyway but could be wrong on that.
That said I doubt if Brexit (as in a total opt out) is likely anyway - both sides have too much to lose.

Yeah I hope that it won't be a problem but I think the point the post is the uncertainty.Can they hand us the tournament when they don't know (nobody does for sure) how these issues will be resolved.I'd say there will more than likely be minimal disruption to how things are done now but it's the uncertainty that could cause a problem for our bid.

If a question mark arises over this issue - and it might - it would cause ructions, not just because of the RWC and its potential economic value which is not insubstantial, but also the wider implications for tourism as a whole, since the island is marketed by the one all-island body with freedom/ease of movement a big assumption/plus. I really hope we do not have to re-intorduce hard border controls and customs checks - I remember the queues that would occur only too well.

Of course you could make the Brexit argument about a RWC in France and the impact on GB fans travelling there - who lets face it will be a large proportion of the non-French fans attending.

I don't understand the point about Brexit to be honest. Ireland/UK have a common travel zone unrelated to schengen. If Brexit happens that travel zone would remain UNLESS ireland joined schengen. If ireland stays out of schengen (and there is no reason to think we want to join it) then a uk citizen entering the republic via NI or flight from GB would enter the same as now (no passport control), and any person, UK, irish or other flying from ireland to europe would have to show passport/visa etc as normal for entering schengen. Post brexit UK citizens at worst will have the same accss to schengen that yanks have (3months visa free) and so again, don't see how it effects RWC in either ireland or france at all.