Wales and Scotland are big meanies - Discuss

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 01:55

Oct 31, Tuesday morning, World Rugby plans to announce who is the recommended host country for RWC 2023. The recommendation is contained in a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who have pored through every detail of the three bids. Apparently they've looked at everything from travel times, to accommodation, stadia facilities, and how long the queues would be for the loo.

Bookies had Ireland as favourites but their odds have lengthened slightly. Bill Beaumont and Agustin Pichot were given the report last Friday. The full document will be released to media today Oct 31, to maintain transparency and integrity of the bid process.

All the WR unions, except the three bidders, will vote on who should get it on November 15. It's a secret ballot, but the likelihood of a vote going against the recommendation would cause more than a few raised eyebrows. It could still happen though.

There could be a lot of glum faces by midday in either Dublin, or Paris or Cape Town.

*******************************
Nov 15, Wednesday, World Rugby plans to announce who the World Rugby Council of Unions have voted in favour to be host country for RWC 2023. The various unions can relay on a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who pored through every detail of the three bids. And they said that any of the three bidders could host the RWC but based on their scoring, their recommendation was South Africa.

Irelamd didn’t get the RWC.

Snot fair.

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 07:48

Allez le bleus ! RedWine

by stevetynant Tue 31 Oct 2017, 07:50

I would dearly like Ireland to host this event but they are far and away promising less money than anyone to the World Governing body and in this day and age we all know what comes top in professional sport

I hope I'm wrong

by **LondonTiger** Tue 31 Oct 2017, 08:29

Money will probably be one of the issues, especially following a "Development RWC". Not the only issue though. Suggestions are that the report costs doubt on Ireland's ability to host and move the volume of spectators expected at what is now a massive event.

by geoff999rugby Tue 31 Oct 2017, 09:22

In the Irish rugby establishment I understand they reckon it is 50/50 SA or Ireland with France out of the running.

We will know soon enough

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 09:40

Bid unions being informed at 10am. WR announcement at 11am.

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:06

Saffas win recommendation.

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:07

South Africa are the recommended hosts to World Rugby.

Congrats SA.

Disappointing for Ireland.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:09

The announcement came after an intensive selection process where all three countries were examined according to pre-determined criteria, a financial model and the viability to host the tournament, as well as ensuring the revenues needed to continue the development of World Rugby.

In the assessment the South African bid scored the highest at 79, followed by France with 76 and Ireland with 72.

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:20

LondonTiger wrote:
The announcement came after an intensive selection process where all three countries were examined according to pre-determined criteria, a financial model and the viability to host the tournament, as well as ensuring the revenues needed to continue the development of World Rugby.

In the assessment the South African bid scored the highest at 79, followed by France with 76 and Ireland with 72.

That about sums it up, LT. Sad

Apparently, Ireland came last in 6 out of the seven criteria.

Ah well, back to the drawing board - maybe they'll go for 2027?

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:21

Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

by Scottrf Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:27

munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

They are keeping it, but moving Japan to the Southern Hemisphere...

by tigertattie Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:27

munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

Nah, that idea was binned when it was granted to japan

Year Host

1987 Australia & New Zealand SH
1991 Britain, France & Ireland NH
1995 South Africa SH
1999 Wales NH
2003 Australia SH
2007 France NH
2011 New Zealand SH
2015 England NH
2019 Japan NH

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:28

Scottrf wrote:
munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

They are keeping it, but moving SA to the Northern Hemisphere...

Well that's just doubled Ireland's player pool

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:29

munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

Nope. If it's done on this basis from now on, and the recommendation is voted in favour of by the unions, then it's down to assessment of technical bids.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/assets/uploads/files/1509448857059-wc2023-resized.jpg

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:30

Pot Hale wrote:
munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

Nope. If it's done on this basis from now on, and the recommendation is voted in favour of by the unions, then it's down to assessment of technical bids.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/assets/uploads/files/1509448857059-wc2023-resized.jpg

Ta

by thebandwagonsociety Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:36

Pot Hale wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
The announcement came after an intensive selection process where all three countries were examined according to pre-determined criteria, a financial model and the viability to host the tournament, as well as ensuring the revenues needed to continue the development of World Rugby.

In the assessment the South African bid scored the highest at 79, followed by France with 76 and Ireland with 72.

That about sums it up, LT.

Apparently, Ireland came last in 6 out of the seven criteria.

Ah well, back to the drawing board - maybe they'll go for 2027?

That's the damning part of it all. Last in 6 of seven criteria.

It was worth the punt this time around. But we're clearly well behind the others if we're naive to go after it again.

8-12 years down the line the comp is likely too big to host in Ireland at that stage.

Best of luck to SA.

by tigertattie Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:48

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
The announcement came after an intensive selection process where all three countries were examined according to pre-determined criteria, a financial model and the viability to host the tournament, as well as ensuring the revenues needed to continue the development of World Rugby.

In the assessment the South African bid scored the highest at 79, followed by France with 76 and Ireland with 72.

That about sums it up, LT.

Apparently, Ireland came last in 6 out of the seven criteria.

Ah well, back to the drawing board - maybe they'll go for 2027?

That's the damning part of it all. Last in 6 of seven criteria.

It was worth the punt this time around. But we're clearly well behind the others if we're naive to go after it again.

8-12 years down the line the comp is likely too big to host in Ireland at that stage.

Best of luck to SA.

I think it's already too big to be held in Ireland alone. If Ireland want it I think they'll need a combined bid with Scotland and Wales!

Each nation playing their games in their own country. Each getting a 1/4 final with one getting a 2nd 1/4. Whoever gets 2 1/4 finals doesn't get the final but would get one of the semis. The other nation who doesn't get the final gets the other semi and the 3/4 playoff.

Games could easliy be played in:
Murryfield
Hampden Park

The Aviva (Landsdown road)
Croke Park

The Principality stadium
Cardiff City stadium or the Liberty?

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:05

tigertattie wrote:
thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
The announcement came after an intensive selection process where all three countries were examined according to pre-determined criteria, a financial model and the viability to host the tournament, as well as ensuring the revenues needed to continue the development of World Rugby.

In the assessment the South African bid scored the highest at 79, followed by France with 76 and Ireland with 72.

That about sums it up, LT.

Apparently, Ireland came last in 6 out of the seven criteria.

Ah well, back to the drawing board - maybe they'll go for 2027?

That's the damning part of it all. Last in 6 of seven criteria.

It was worth the punt this time around. But we're clearly well behind the others if we're naive to go after it again.

8-12 years down the line the comp is likely too big to host in Ireland at that stage.

Best of luck to SA.

I think it's already too big to be held in Ireland alone. If Ireland want it I think they'll need a combined bid with Scotland and Wales!

Each nation playing their games in their own country. Each getting a 1/4 final with one getting a 2nd 1/4. Whoever gets 2 1/4 finals doesn't get the final but would get one of the semis. The other nation who doesn't get the final gets the other semi and the 3/4 playoff.

Games could easliy be played in:
Murryfield
Hampden Park

The Aviva (Landsdown road)
Croke Park

The Principality stadium
Cardiff City stadium or the Liberty?

World Rugby specified it had to be in a single union territory. So if that continues, then unlikely.

by propdavid_london Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:28

Wow, I am surprised that the Ireland bid was ranked like that.
Fair play to SA though - Bit more expensive for me to get to, but I will still seriously think about going.
Ireland have their work-on's and should consider bidding for the following tournament.

On a different note - why did world rugby not announce the next 2 WC hosts like they did with England and Japan?

by stevetynant Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:31

Possible Ireland one and only chance to host to be honest - very disappointing but completely predictable - anyways congratulations SA and lets have a great tournament -they'll have a long way to go to top the last one for sure

by marty2086 Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:34

IRFU wrote:The Ireland 2023 Bid Team, which developed and submitted Ireland's bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup, has vowed to compete to the final minute in its quest to secure the Rugby World Cup for Ireland in 2023.

This follows the announcement today, from the Board of Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) that South Africa has received the initial recommendation to host the tournament, based on the results of the scoring system employed.

Ireland's bid, led by The Irish Rugby Football Union with the full support of the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, scored highly across all areas.

Commenting on the announcement Dick Spring, Chairman, Ireland 2023 Bid Oversight Board, said: "While It is disappointing not to have received the initial recommendation from Rugby World Cup Board Limited, there is nothing in the report which is insurmountable and this is certainly not the end of the road. We absolutely believe Ireland can secure the tournament for 2023.

"On a first reading of the report, It is clear that the Evaluation Commission is impressed by the quality and detail of the bid put forward on behalf of Ireland. It is also clear from the report that Ireland has all the capabilities to host an outstanding Rugby World Cup in 2023 stating as it does …'any of the three candidates could host a successful Rugby World Cup'.

"Ultimately, the decision rests with the Council Members of World Rugby, who are elected by Rugby Unions from across the globe. These are individuals and unions who have reacted positively to our message and vision for the tournament, as we criss-crossed the globe over the past two years.

"We will again, in the coming weeks, renew our vision to the Council Members - A commercially successful rugby tournament based on rugby's values of integrity and camaraderie, played in full stadia in the hearts of towns and cities.

"Ireland's proposition in this regard is compelling, and so our team will compete to the final whistle as we bid to turn our historic bid plans into reality. We still have confidence that the Council members, who vote on November 15th, will place their trust in Ireland to deliver an outstanding 2023 Rugby World Cup."

by Pot Hale Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:40

marty2086 wrote:
IRFU wrote:The Ireland 2023 Bid Team, which developed and submitted Ireland's bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup, has vowed to compete to the final minute in its quest to secure the Rugby World Cup for Ireland in 2023........
"Ireland's proposition in this regard is compelling, and so our team will compete to the final whistle as we bid to turn our historic bid plans into reality. We still have confidence that the Council members, who vote on November 15th, will place their trust in Ireland to deliver an outstanding 2023 Rugby World Cup."

A number of the Tier One unions already said in advance that they would vote with the recommendation.
Unlikely to see it being overturned.

The South African bid was very strong across a number of the criteria with their stadium and host cities a big plus.

Hopefully, it will have a big impact on how the game is being developed at the moment. Jurie Roux is looking in a very strong position in SARU with some of the decisions going his way this year on PRO14 development and now the RWC.

by marty2086 Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:42

Im wondering if SA dropped the Commonwealth Games to free up cash for the RWC?

'South Africa's sports minister Fikile Mbalula indicated Durban may not be able to host the 2022 event because of financial constraints.

"We gave it our best shot but we can't go beyond. If the country says we don't have this money, we can't," he said.'

by LeinsterFan4life Tue 31 Oct 2017, 12:43

It's a disgrace that a country that advocates racial quotas is even considered to host an event like this. What Kind of message is that supposed to send to the rest of WR?

I think France would have gotten it only for they hosted it in 07. I'm glad Ireland aren't getting it, I can only imagine how the various companies would find a way of screwing us out of as much money as they could.

by munkian Tue 31 Oct 2017, 13:07

LeinsterFan4life wrote:It's a disgrace that a country that advocates racial quotas is even considered to host an event like this. What Kind of message is that supposed to send to the rest of WR?

I think France would have gotten it only for they hosted it in 07. I'm glad Ireland aren't getting it, I can only imagine how the various companies would find a way of screwing us out of as much money as they could.

If we are getting political then there is a glaring negative against Ireland..

by Sin é Tue 31 Oct 2017, 13:27

Pot Hale wrote:
munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

Nope. If it's done on this basis from now on, and the recommendation is voted in favour of by the unions, then it's down to assessment of technical bids.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/assets/uploads/files/1509448857059-wc2023-resized.jpg

Whats the point of having a vote if the selection is on technical bids only. It looks an ass covering exercise by the board of World Rugby who unaminously accepted the technical recommendation evaluation report. Going on that Bernard La Porte & Pat Whelan voted against their own countries!

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/291551

by marty2086 Tue 31 Oct 2017, 13:44

munkian wrote:
LeinsterFan4life wrote:It's a disgrace that a country that advocates racial quotas is even considered to host an event like this. What Kind of message is that supposed to send to the rest of WR?

I think France would have gotten it only for they hosted it in 07. I'm glad Ireland aren't getting it, I can only imagine how the various companies would find a way of screwing us out of as much money as they could.

If we are getting political then there is a glaring negative against Ireland..

by TightHEAD Tue 31 Oct 2017, 14:24

This sounds like a last ditch effort to try and save SA rugby.

It should have gone to Ireland.

by Gwlad Tue 31 Oct 2017, 16:26

Congrats SA superb decision, already hosts of a memorable RWC and recently hosted the Lions, will do so again as a warm up to RWC. Proper stage for the event.

by whocares Wed 01 Nov 2017, 07:49

Sin é wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
munkian wrote:Are the RWCs not rotated between NH/SH anymore then ?

Nope. If it's done on this basis from now on, and the recommendation is voted in favour of by the unions, then it's down to assessment of technical bids.

http://www.thesilverfern.com/assets/uploads/files/1509448857059-wc2023-resized.jpg

Whats the point of having a vote if the selection is on technical bids only. It looks an ass covering exercise by the board of World Rugby who unaminously accepted the technical recommendation evaluation report. Going on that Bernard La Porte & Pat Whelan voted against their own countries!

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/291551

Personally I prefer to have the bids properly evaluated against detailed and measurable criterias than just a joke technical process , a few rounds of brown envelopes and a vote as it's done for the FIFA world cups... that said you could challenge the weighting of each of those criterias.

Actually gone through the actual report describing the results and it's quite interesting at times. Showing that France could have had the better mark of it wasn't for technicalities such as stadium availabilities not being 100% guaranteed (given it's subject to vote in each council) or WorldRugby being afraid of the potential implication of French law on (anti) doping (where it can be considered as a criminal offense).

by catchweight Wed 01 Nov 2017, 07:50

South africa were able to guarantee around 30% more money than ireland. Thats a significant amount. If it was the other way around i have a feeling the reccommendation would be different. Surprising that ireland were the favourites to host prior to the reccommendation. Report would seem to suggest they didnt have a snowballs. Was hoping they would get it.

by cascough Wed 01 Nov 2017, 08:23

catchweight wrote:South africa were able to guarantee around 30% more money than ireland. Thats a significant amount. If it was the other way around i have a feeling the reccommendation would be different. Surprising that ireland were the favourites to host prior to the reccommendation. Report would seem to suggest they didnt have a snowballs. Was hoping they would get it.

Based on what?

Ireland would then have been last out of only 5 of 7 categories?

The weighting for each category is in the report. For Financial and commercial commitments, that accounted for 35% of the overall score, however SA and France scored the same in this category. I really don't think it's as black and white as making more money.

by catchweight Wed 01 Nov 2017, 11:45

Money tends to talk above all else. Just because they say it only accounted for 35% doesnt make it so.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 11:50

Not to mention that SA guaranteed money for the Commonwealth Games and 6 months ago aid they didn't have it, now they have a bigger sum to guarantee for WR?

by Scottrf Wed 01 Nov 2017, 11:51

A country can get a lot of money in 6 years.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 12:23

The Commonwealth games are in 5 years, they claim they wouldn't have less money in that time frame. Maybe the extra 13/14 months was crucial

by Scottrf Wed 01 Nov 2017, 12:32

South Africa GDP: 294.8 billion USD. So yeah could get a lot in 13/14 months.

by **Galted** Wed 01 Nov 2017, 12:41

Depends on how much of the 294.8 billion they can keep away from Zuma and his cronies.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 12:56

GDP is the value of goods and services not how much money a country has

by **Galted** Wed 01 Nov 2017, 13:41

Wasn't meant to be taken literally but thanks, Marty, you're awesome.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 13:42

Was directed at Scott Rolling Eyes

by **Galted** Wed 01 Nov 2017, 13:46

Oops, my apologies.

by cascough Wed 01 Nov 2017, 13:53

catchweight wrote:Money tends to talk above all else. Just because they say it only accounted for 35% doesnt make it so.

I don't quite know what you're saying.

Despite saying they'd (SA) make more money, the Ireland and SA bids scored the same in the commercial scoring. That commercial scoring then accounted for 35% of the overall scoring. That overall score is what the recommendation was based on.

Incidentally, had they said "bugger everything else, let's base it entirely on the commercial scores" Then France would have won the recommendation. Ireland's bid was the weaker of the 3 in too many areas. Read the report, it's actually quite interesting. I really don't think it's as black and white as all about money.

by Scottrf Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:12

They are saying that they judged other countries higher in the non-commercial scores because they promised more money.

Conspiracy with no evidence basically vs a weighted report with detailed findings and analysis.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:19

Scottrf wrote:They are saying that they judged other countries higher in the non-commercial scores because they promised more money.

Conspiracy with no evidence basically vs a weighted report with detailed findings and analysis.

No evidence of something dodgy except for SA saying 6 months ago they didn't have less money than they guaranteed for the RWC. Guess the detailed analysis missed that one

by Scottrf Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:21

marty2086 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:They are saying that they judged other countries higher in the non-commercial scores because they promised more money.

Conspiracy with no evidence basically vs a weighted report with detailed findings and analysis.

No evidence of something dodgy except for SA saying 6 months ago they didn't have less money than they guaranteed for the RWC. Guess the detailed analysis missed that one

You haven't read it.

by Collapse2005 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:24

Depending on the criteria and weighting you set you could easily alter it so that any of the three countries win the recommendation so for me the process is a little flawed.

I wonder did World Rugby just decide they wanted to lean voting towards SA this time around? Who knows but I would have thought of all three the SA bid was the weakest proposition for reasons of security and political instability both in terms of rugby governance and politically.

by marty2086 Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:26

Scottrf wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Scottrf wrote:They are saying that they judged other countries higher in the non-commercial scores because they promised more money.

Conspiracy with no evidence basically vs a weighted report with detailed findings and analysis.

No evidence of something dodgy except for SA saying 6 months ago they didn't have less money than they guaranteed for the RWC. Guess the detailed analysis missed that one
You haven't read it.

You mean the part were SA told them there was no agreement for them to host it, yeah that one is all above aboard

by Scottrf Wed 01 Nov 2017, 14:27

Collapse2005 wrote:Depending on the criteria and weighting you set you could easily alter it so that any of the three countries win the recommendation so for me the process is a little flawed.

I wonder did World Rugby just decide they wanted to lean voting towards SA this time around? Who knows but I would have thought of all three the SA bid was the weakest proposition for reasons of security and political instability both in terms of rugby governance and politically.

Read it and criticize what they actually did. These hypothetical 'maybe they did this' posts are nonsense unless you talk specifics.

by Sponsored content