Wales and Scotland are big meanies - Discuss

First topic message reminder :

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.

Ireland has a very long history of not being safe for anyone, routinely blowing each other up and anyone who dismisses that needs their head examining.

Which historical rebellion in particular do you think would affect fan safety at a sporting event in 2023?

Try the random bombing of civvies into this century for starters. No wonder there was no tourism, major commercial investment or international sporting events.

Irish rep won't change overnight. Too soon for an RWC

You are some moron.

An Bhreatain Bheag. Such an apt description

He didn't even make a point. Just a statement that is at best ignorant and worst nastily provocative.

I just feel sorry for him really. It’s the usual inferiority complex the welsh have for the Irish when it comes to certain matters. I guess it annoys them how we view them.

Gwlad wrote:Try the random bombing of civvies into this century for starters. No wonder there was no tourism, major commercial investment or international sporting events.

South Africa is far more dangerous than Ireland by any rational measure, for the so called review suggest otherwise shows what a farce it is.

To be honest you are far more likely to be blown up in Paris than in Dublin, or indeed Belfast.
In fact bit of a joke here that Belfast is probably the safest city in the UK these days due to ISIS and their ilk.

No tourism ??? Belfast was the third most visited city in the UK last year (after London and Edinburgh) and Lonely Planet have named it THE place to go in Europe in 2018.
Ireland likewise is awash with tourist

Your inferiority complex is really showing and a bit sad

I was hoping it would have gone to Ireland - I think they would have put on a great event.

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:You are some moron.

An Bhreatain Bheag. Such an apt description

and you are only capable of making inane personal remarks

run home laddie

South Africa is a beautiful country, but, I would never, ever go there again. It is just too dangerous, never before have I felt so uncomfortable in a country.

Gwlad, could you visit SA please?

World rugby's report is garbage. How can any rational minded organisation rank Ireland and SA the same on security threat? The global world peace index ranks Ireland 10th in the world and SA 123rd

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

It uses 10 general indicators to broadly assess what might be described as a safety and security in society. The assertion is that low crime rates, minimal incidences of terrorist acts and violent demonstrations, harmonious relations with neighboring countries, a stable political scene and a small proportion of the population being internally displaced or refugees can be equated with peacefulness.

It seems absolutely bananas that Ireland doesn't score higher than SA and France in this area while SA scored significantly higher than Ireland because they have better ideas for fan zones and have experience hosting tournaments.

I would have thought that selecting a nation that hasn't hosted before is the sort of risk that world rugby should be glossing over rather than the security levels in a country.

Would it be down to security at stadia rather than the country as a whole?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Would it be down to security at stadia rather than the country as a whole?

Would that not be quite a stupid evaluation given that you cant just host a tournament in a stadium/s?

Similar has been used for other tournaments in Brazil etc for other sporting events as an acknowledgment that there's only a certain level organisations can influence. Given as you said the disparity between the overall peace index vs the finding here it suggests to me theyve looked only at the plans for the stadia and immediate areas.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Similar has been used for other tournaments in Brazil etc for other sporting events as an acknowledgment that there's only a certain level organisations can influence. Given as you said the disparity between the overall peace index vs the finding here it suggests to me theyve looked only at the plans for the stadia and immediate areas.

If that's the case the evaluation is absolute garbage.

Not sure I agree. I'd have preferred it go to ireland and Italy before they pulled out but not sure the overall crime stats etc should necessarily be used.

SA and France's bids provided a comprehensive overview of a range of security threats and risks and strategies for overcoming each. Ireland's bid focused mainly on international terrorism. They lost points for not including all risks.

Ireland's examples of hosting similar international events are simply for one stadium at a time, SA hosted the Football World Cup. Lost points for this. SA gained points for successfully hosting major tournaments with good security outcomes.

SA contracted an outside company for an independent risk assessment.

I agree that SA is a more dangerous country (although peaceful in a lot of areas), but it seems like it was a mix of experience in security planning on this scale and a more comprehensive strategy that bridged the gap.

Scottrf wrote:SA and France's bids provided a comprehensive overview of a range of security threats and risks and strategies for overcoming each. Ireland's bid focused mainly on international terrorism. They lost points for not including all risks.

Ireland's examples of hosting similar international events are simply for one stadium at a time, SA hosted the Football World Cup. Lost points for this. SA gained points for successfully hosting major tournaments with good security outcomes.

SA contracted an outside company for an independent risk assessment.

I agree that SA is a more dangerous country (although peaceful in a lot of areas), but it seems like it was a mix of experience in security planning on this scale and a more comprehensive strategy that bridged the gap.

It is ridiculous to dock marks for countries that have never hosted anything before. You will end up with the same wealthy countries hosting everything all the time which is not in the spirit of rugby. World Rugby claims that "solidarity" is one of their five core values that they strive to "focus on social inclusion and equality through rugby". As it is if SA wins the bid all three SANZAR sides will have hosted 3 times (NZ and Oz 1.5 times) while other big nations have never hosted. I fail to see the equality and inclusion in those figures.

Ireland concentrated on the threat of international terrorism because there is virtually no other threat. Do you expect them to make something up?

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland concentrated on the threat of international terrorism because there is virtually no other threat.

Clearly World Rugby didn't take that kind of complacency well.

It's more about risk assessment and mitigation plans then scott? Ie if ireland had said there's virtually no other threat without a full risk assessment more risky than if sa had said well there's a tonne actually but here's the plan.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Ireland concentrated on the threat of international terrorism because there is virtually no other threat.

Clearly World Rugby didn't take that kind of complacency well.

That's very unlikely given they gave SA a moderate risk rating. They are complacent themselves, bordering on idiotic.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:SA and France's bids provided a comprehensive overview of a range of security threats and risks and strategies for overcoming each. Ireland's bid focused mainly on international terrorism. They lost points for not including all risks.

Ireland's examples of hosting similar international events are simply for one stadium at a time, SA hosted the Football World Cup. Lost points for this. SA gained points for successfully hosting major tournaments with good security outcomes.

SA contracted an outside company for an independent risk assessment.

I agree that SA is a more dangerous country (although peaceful in a lot of areas), but it seems like it was a mix of experience in security planning on this scale and a more comprehensive strategy that bridged the gap.

It is ridiculous to dock marks for countries that have never hosted anything before. You will end up with the same wealthy countries hosting everything all the time which is not in the spirit of rugby. World Rugby claims that "solidarity" is one of their five core values that they strive to "focus on social inclusion and equality through rugby". As it is if SA wins the bid all three SANZAR sides will have hosted 3 times (NZ and Oz 1.5 times) while other big nations have never hosted. I fail to see the equality and inclusion in those figures.

Ireland concentrated on the threat of international terrorism because there is virtually no other threat. Do you expect them to make something up?

World Rugby are making a technical recommendation. The destination of the tournament will be decided by the Unions.

I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure how WR would go about impartially recommending a host destination based on anything other than technicalities.

Look at this thread and the reaction to a technical report. Can you imagine the uproar if they were to base their recommendation on more subjective things?

Well, I guess without seeing the actual bid I'm guessing. But maybe they didn't put in a plan for evacuation in case of fire? Probably it was felt that they didn't properly address all areas and if others know there is a problem but have successfully planned for it that is preferred to unknowns.

Perhaps World Rugby did not want it to go to Ireland because they did not want to shell out 7-8 Euros plus for a pint.

Seriously though, to say South Africa is a safer place than Ireland is a joke. I think that film with the alien compound was about right.

I would have loved for Ireland to have the World cup, from a selfish point of view, but I am not going to moan about it.

I just hope South Africa put on a good show, and ban the bloody vuvuzelas.

LordDowlais wrote:Seriously though, to say South Africa is a safer place than Ireland is a joke.

They didn't say that. In fact their ratings show the opposite. They scored the same, despite Ireland putting in nowhere near the level of risk assessment or contingencies.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Seriously though, to say South Africa is a safer place than Ireland is a joke.

They didn't say that. In fact their ratings show the opposite. They scored the same, despite Ireland putting in nowhere near the level of risk assessment or contingencies.

You mean despite the fact that the report states that the Irish security report is listed as showing 'a thorough understanding of the requirements for a tournament of the scale of a Rugby World Cup'?

That is after criticising the limited description of risks, it's surely contradictory?

It does seem contradictory. Maybe they are saying they they understood the requirements to host a tournament (e.g. in terms of resources) but not in terms of risks?

I'm not particularly defending the recommendation or bids, I'm just asking that people actually discuss the document not cry conspiracy based on their country not winning.

France had the RWC only in 2007. Even though they were probably the best commercial choice that rules them out in my mind.

Whether you agree or not I just don't think the Irish bid would have done enough to convince that the stadia options were strong enough.

As you see on the criteria that's where Ireland did weakest.

I think it's a fair point.

In regards to security I agree. Of course I think Ireland is safer but I think SA has come out on top vs Ireland based on stadia.


France should be more aggrieved based on the criteria IMO.


I also was personally unimpressed with SA's hosting of the football world cup to be honest.

Those vuvuzelas certainly detracted from the spectacle.

I agree with Lorddowlais I hope those abominations are banned.

Scottrf wrote:It does seem contradictory. Maybe they are saying they they understood the requirements to host a tournament (e.g. in terms of resources) but not in terms of risks?

I'm not particularly defending the recommendation or bids, I'm just asking that people actually discuss the document not cry conspiracy based on their country not winning.

Eh the report ranks Ireland and SA the same in terms of risk, Moderate. Its in the report and that's what is being discussed. You don't have to be a genius to know that is utter garbage.

Scottrf wrote:It does seem contradictory. Maybe they are saying they they understood the requirements to host a tournament (e.g. in terms of resources) but not in terms of risks?

I'm not particularly defending the recommendation or bids, I'm just asking that people actually discuss the document not cry conspiracy based on their country not winning.

That's the problem though, how can you understand what resources are required without understanding the risks?

Maybe Ireland failed to explain the risks and the resources required but I'd bet each bidder had a template to work with and it asked for the risks and how you mitigate them and what resources you'd use like a typical tender template uses

beshocked wrote:France had the RWC only in 2007. Even though they were probably the best commercial choice that rules them out in my mind.

Whether you agree or not I just don't think the Irish bid would have done enough to convince that the stadia options were strong enough.

As you see on the criteria that's where Ireland did weakest.

I think it's a fair point.

In regards to security I agree. Of course I think Ireland is safer but I think SA has come out on top vs Ireland based on stadia.


France should be more aggrieved based on the criteria IMO.


I also was personally unimpressed with SA's hosting of the football world cup to be honest.

Those vuvuzelas certainly detracted from the spectacle.

I agree with Lorddowlais I hope those abominations are banned.

Yes SA have better Stadia but Id much rather watch a match in a full stadium in a town or city in Ireland than a half empty soccer stadium on the edge of Soweto. There was no evaluation in the document that measured SA's ability to fill their stadia which is a bit odd when rugby attendances in SA are down in general.

The biggest difference between the Irish bids came down to stadia and previous experience hosting. Basically that just rules out all smaller nations going forward.

I doubt any stadia anywhere in a rugby world.cup is going to be half full for a big game.

Collapse2005 wrote:

beshocked wrote:France had the RWC only in 2007. Even though they were probably the best commercial choice that rules them out in my mind.

Whether you agree or not I just don't think the Irish bid would have done enough to convince that the stadia options were strong enough.

As you see on the criteria that's where Ireland did weakest.

I think it's a fair point.

In regards to security I agree. Of course I think Ireland is safer but I think SA has come out on top vs Ireland based on stadia.


France should be more aggrieved based on the criteria IMO.


I also was personally unimpressed with SA's hosting of the football world cup to be honest.

Those vuvuzelas certainly detracted from the spectacle.

I agree with Lorddowlais I hope those abominations are banned.

Yes SA have better Stadia but Id much rather watch a match in a full stadium in a town or city in Ireland than a half empty soccer stadium on the edge of Soweto. There was no evaluation in the document that measured SA's ability to fill their stadia which is a bit odd when rugby attendances in SA are down in general.

I bet SA will be able to fill the stadia to a respectable level. It's a RWC. Not a normal club game.

Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

Plus think about it if you are an executive working for the world cup committee would you rather an all expenses paid trip to SA or to France or Ireland?

Sorry SA wins in that regard hands down.

God I hope that they're not into the bribes the football lot are into.

beshocked wrote:I bet SA will be able to fill the stadia to a respectable level. It's a RWC. Not a normal club game.

I would guess that all games would be a sell out.

beshocked wrote:Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

If you think about it, South Africa's security is probably better, because they have always had more to do, they are probably more experienced at fighting crime, and murder, and burglaries, and robberies than any other country that applied, thus they would be able to give a more in depth report, thus makes them look more genned up.

beshocked wrote:Plus think about it if you are an executive working for the world cup committee would you rather an all expenses paid trip to SA or to France or Ireland?

The whole thing would be a lot cheaper in South Africa than anywhere in the Eurozone, which in my opinion is probably one of the biggest factors when deciding, whether they admit it or not. An all expenses paid trip to South Africa, will be far, far cheaper than one to France or Ireland. Also, so would hosting the whole damn thing.

beshocked wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

beshocked wrote:France had the RWC only in 2007. Even though they were probably the best commercial choice that rules them out in my mind.

Whether you agree or not I just don't think the Irish bid would have done enough to convince that the stadia options were strong enough.

As you see on the criteria that's where Ireland did weakest.

I think it's a fair point.

In regards to security I agree. Of course I think Ireland is safer but I think SA has come out on top vs Ireland based on stadia.


France should be more aggrieved based on the criteria IMO.


I also was personally unimpressed with SA's hosting of the football world cup to be honest.

Those vuvuzelas certainly detracted from the spectacle.

I agree with Lorddowlais I hope those abominations are banned.

Yes SA have better Stadia but Id much rather watch a match in a full stadium in a town or city in Ireland than a half empty soccer stadium on the edge of Soweto. There was no evaluation in the document that measured SA's ability to fill their stadia which is a bit odd when rugby attendances in SA are down in general.

I bet SA will be able to fill the stadia to a respectable level. It's a RWC. Not a normal club game.

Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

Plus think about it if you are an executive working for the world cup committee would you rather an all expenses paid trip to SA or to France or Ireland?

Sorry SA wins in that regard hands down.

Surely a report assessing suitability should address that though?

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

If you think about it, South Africa's security is probably better, because they have always had more to do, they are probably more experienced at fighting crime, and murder, and burglaries, and robberies than any other country that applied, thus they would be able to give a more in depth report, thus makes them look more genned up.

Always had more to do? Really?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

If you think about it, South Africa's security is probably better, because they have always had more to do, they are probably more experienced at fighting crime, and murder, and burglaries, and robberies than any other country that applied, thus they would be able to give a more in depth report, thus makes them look more genned up.

Always had more to do? Really?

Yes, Ireland/Northern Ireland have been pretty peaceful for years now, they are nothing like the 70's or 80's.

If you have never been to South Africa, then unless you are advised well and have proper security around you I would not recommend it, unless you are going on safari or something, and you have a hotel that has everything you need.

I have witnessed first hand how scary the place is, and a family member who went on the last Lions tour there had a much worse experience than I did. It's rife, and it's everywhere, the crime there is nuts, and I would wager that there are not many places in the modern world that are as bad.

beshocked wrote:

I bet SA will be able to fill the stadia to a respectable level. It's a RWC. Not a normal club game.

Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

Plus think about it if you are an executive working for the world cup committee would you rather an all expenses paid trip to SA or to France or Ireland?

Sorry SA wins in that regard hands down.

97% of the difference in Ireland's score and SAs was down to stadia and history of hosting prior tournaments. If SA were given such a good score in security based on their rock solid plans yet high risk environment I fail to understand why Ireland were marked down or disadvantaged so much by having a rock solid plan in place for new stadia and a very strong plan for hosting the tournament in general.

IMO the report is a sham. Basically it paves the way for wealthy bigger nations to host all the time while everyone gets shafted.

marty2086 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

beshocked wrote:France had the RWC only in 2007. Even though they were probably the best commercial choice that rules them out in my mind.

Whether you agree or not I just don't think the Irish bid would have done enough to convince that the stadia options were strong enough.

As you see on the criteria that's where Ireland did weakest.

I think it's a fair point.

In regards to security I agree. Of course I think Ireland is safer but I think SA has come out on top vs Ireland based on stadia.


France should be more aggrieved based on the criteria IMO.


I also was personally unimpressed with SA's hosting of the football world cup to be honest.

Those vuvuzelas certainly detracted from the spectacle.

I agree with Lorddowlais I hope those abominations are banned.

Yes SA have better Stadia but Id much rather watch a match in a full stadium in a town or city in Ireland than a half empty soccer stadium on the edge of Soweto. There was no evaluation in the document that measured SA's ability to fill their stadia which is a bit odd when rugby attendances in SA are down in general.

I bet SA will be able to fill the stadia to a respectable level. It's a RWC. Not a normal club game.

Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

Plus think about it if you are an executive working for the world cup committee would you rather an all expenses paid trip to SA or to France or Ireland?

Sorry SA wins in that regard hands down.

Surely a report assessing suitability should address that though?

marty well I can imagine the South Africans had to give some sort of pricing strategy.

Even England did though that one was just charge as much as you can. From a commercial point of view it was successful I guess.


Lorddowlais not sure I'd go with that logic - England and France have a lot of experience too but sometimes some scum get through the net.

SA is more dangerous than Ireland. Not going to deny that but have to hope there's enough security in place to keep problems to a bare minimum.


collapse 2005 sorry but can any Irish fan seriously suggest that they have as good stadia as SA or France?

France should win that category but were according to the criteria well off SA.

Perhaps weather has a part to play ridiculous as it sounds?

I know how Ireland could get a WC.

Ditch the Euro.

Simples.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Anyway I don't think Ireland lost based on security.

If you think about it, South Africa's security is probably better, because they have always had more to do, they are probably more experienced at fighting crime, and murder, and burglaries, and robberies than any other country that applied, thus they would be able to give a more in depth report, thus makes them look more genned up.

Always had more to do? Really?

Yes, Ireland/Northern Ireland have been pretty peaceful for years now, they are nothing like the 70's or 80's.

If you have never been to South Africa, then unless you are advised well and have proper security around you I would not recommend it, unless you are going on safari or something, and you have a hotel that has everything you need.

I have witnessed first hand how scary the place is, and a family member who went on the last Lions tour there had a much worse experience than I did. It's rife, and it's everywhere, the crime there is nuts, and I would wager that there are not many places in the modern world that are as bad.

You are confusing crime taking place to the ability to combat it

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais not sure I'd go with that logic - England and France have a lot of experience too but sometimes some scum get through the net.

SA is more dangerous than Ireland. Not going to deny that but have to hope there's enough security in place to keep problems to a bare minimum.

But imagine the resources SA have in place already. Think about it, compared to South Africa, most 1st world counties are Shangri-la.

South Africa are ready made to tackle most security issues ten fold compared to other countries, South Africa have offered very secure fan zones to keep people safe, in Ireland there is no need for such a thing, as people can walk around at anytime getting bladdered in the city/town centers, so Ireland probably did not even think of offereing up such events.

It's little things like that which may have made the difference.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/98524663/mark-reason-how-world-rugby-just-barred-new-zealand-from-hosting-another-world-cup

Mark Reason's report in the NZ Herald sums it up nicely.

marty2086 wrote:You are confusing crime taking place to the ability to combat it

Nope, sorry I am not.

Go to South Africa and find out for yourself if you want to understand.

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais not sure I'd go with that logic - England and France have a lot of experience too but sometimes some scum get through the net.

SA is more dangerous than Ireland. Not going to deny that but have to hope there's enough security in place to keep problems to a bare minimum.

But imagine the resources SA have in place already. Think about it, compared to South Africa, most 1st world counties are Shangri-la.

South Africa are ready made to tackle most security issues ten fold compared to other countries, South Africa have offered very secure fan zones to keep people safe, in Ireland there is no need for such a thing, as people can walk around at anytime getting bladdered in the city/town centers, so Ireland probably did not even think of offereing up such events.

It's little things like that which may have made the difference.

SA have to have good fan zones because half their stadia are out of town close to townships. Soccer city is on the edge of Soweto.

Irelands stadia are all in towns or cities which act as fairly natural and safe fan zones.

Collapse2005 wrote:https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/98524663/mark-reason-how-world-rugby-just-barred-new-zealand-from-hosting-another-world-cup

Mark Reason's report in the NZ Herald sums it up nicely.

Just read all that, and you could replace World Cup with Pro14 final, and change New Zealand to Wales.

Collapse2005 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

beshocked wrote:Lorddowlais not sure I'd go with that logic - England and France have a lot of experience too but sometimes some scum get through the net.

SA is more dangerous than Ireland. Not going to deny that but have to hope there's enough security in place to keep problems to a bare minimum.

But imagine the resources SA have in place already. Think about it, compared to South Africa, most 1st world counties are Shangri-la.

South Africa are ready made to tackle most security issues ten fold compared to other countries, South Africa have offered very secure fan zones to keep people safe, in Ireland there is no need for such a thing, as people can walk around at anytime getting bladdered in the city/town centers, so Ireland probably did not even think of offereing up such events.

It's little things like that which may have made the difference.

SA have to have good fan zones because half their stadia are out of town close to townships. Soccer city is on the edge of Soweto.

Irelands stadia are all in towns or cities which act as fairly natural and safe fan zones.

Which kind of proves my point.