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.

LordDowlais wrote:

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.  

And how are you ever going to host something you never bid for?

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

Ok, well maybe you can explain how they are dealing with crime?

It was only a tongue in cheek comment martyn, don't get your knickers in a twist.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

Ok, well maybe you can explain how they are dealing with crime?

It's more to do with the amount of crime they are dealing with when compared to other countries, none of us up here have to put up with half of what they have to in South Africa.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

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.

Ok, well maybe you can explain how they are dealing with crime?

It's more to do with the amount of crime they are dealing with when compared to other countries, none of us up here have to put up with half of what they have to in South Africa.

And how are they doing that?

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.

Yes Lorddowlais but so should a country like USA but the gun crime in both USA and SA is much higher than other countries.

Ireland is safer. Ireland didn't lose base on security IMO.

It lost because in terms of stadia, venues etc according to the world cup committee there is less on offer.


Now I personally think Ireland would have been a good host but stadia was always going to be a disadvantage compared to SA and France.


Obviously Ireland didn't push the security reason more. It's perhaps something Ireland should have done.

What would you say Ireland's unique selling points were?

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

Yes it's harder because there's more crime. Doesn't make SA safer than Ireland.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

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.  

And how are you ever going to host something you never bid for?

Cardiff has hosted the Champions/Heineken cup 7 times. London 5, Dublin 3, Edinburgh 3, Paris 2 times. You aren't doing too bad.

beshocked wrote:Yes Lorddowlais but so should a country like USA but the gun crime in both USA and SA is much higher than other countries.

Yes, but the USA did not apply.

beshocked wrote:It lost because in terms of stadia, venues etc according to the world cup committee there is less on offer.

South Africa have more modern stadiums I would suppose, because they have the football world cup ones.

But Ireland have some very good stadiums as well, there are a lot of big Gealic or whatever they call them stadiums, that were more than capable of hosting games.

beshocked wrote:Obviously Ireland didn't push the security reason more. It's perhaps something Ireland should have done.

Yes, I agree, they probably didn't as they probably felt they did not need to, as Ireland is safe enough without having to throw as much resources at as South Africa would need to.

beshocked wrote:What would you say Ireland's unique selling points were?

In one word, Ireland.

As a country Ireland is beautiful, steeped in history, with lots to do, with a massive rugby heritage, and also, because they have never had a world cup and South Africa have, give somebody else a chance.

I would have loved a world cup in Ireland.

beshocked wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

Yes it's harder because there's more crime. Doesn't make SA safer than Ireland.

Never said it did, in fact I have said the complete opposite.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

And yet that would seem to be not very well and yet are expected to deal with the increase in visitors and opportunities for criminals?

beshocked wrote:

What would you say Ireland's unique selling points were?

This will give you a summary:


Ireland’s Rugby World Cup bid was on a par with South Africa
Redacted section of controversial technical review shows Irish bid matched commercial offer and fee

The Irish Times has learned that Ireland’s overall financial bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup closely matched South Africa’s commercial offer and tournament fee.

These figures are contained in the redacted section of World Rugby’s technical review released last Tuesday, the contents of which were made known to the newspaper.

The impact of the report, which recommends South Africa host the tournament, has been heavily criticised by both French and Irish delegations ahead of the November 15th World Rugby Council vote.

World Rugby deny they only gave the bidding countries a few weeks’ notice of their intention to release the report – and not just a recommendation – into the public domain.

Before the damning assessment of Irish stadiums and technological failings, the IRFU anticipated at least 16 of the necessary 20 votes required to secure the tournament.

French Rugby Federation president Bernard Laporte highlighted perceived “lies” “negligence” and “amateurism” in World Rugby’s recommendation while Ireland’s bid chairman, Dick Spring, expressed “amazement” at the “narrow, operational and theoretical approach” of the report in a letter to World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont.

IRFU employed Deloitte to go through the report before submitting a response document highlighting inconsistencies that led to the South African and French bids scoring higher in key areas.

“There were surprises in the report,” said Kevin Potts, head of the Irish bid. “Take Paírc Uí Chaoimh. It has been built and active since August. We sent World Rugby footage of the stadium yet commentary in the report inferred it was not yet built and required significant upgrade.”

The French Federation also sent a 50-page report to World Rugby offices in Dublin criticising the technical review led by Alan Gilpin, the head of Rugby World Cup.

The problem now for both French and Irish bids is perception. New Zealand chief executive Steve Tew has already publicly stated they will support South Africa’s bid because of the report.

Clear third
“Our match venue proposal was not designed to compete with big stadia built for soccer World Cups outside cities,” Potts said of Ireland’s bid finishing a clear third in the stadium category (where South Africa received a perfect score).

“We are offering sustainable sporting arenas in an ideal capacity mix – both rugby and GAA – in the hearts of towns and communities that will be full of passionate fans that can walk to and enjoy a genuine festival atmosphere pre- and post-match, rather than being stuck on trains for hours.

“That resonated in our travels around the world. Unions such as Argentina, Italy, New Zealand, North America, Asia, the smaller unions and many more got that and liked it.”

The Irish bid also fell down on technological failings.

“Yes, some of the stadia do not have updated technology but we planned these in our upgrade plans,” Potts continued, “But what I was surprised at was the apparent loss of marks for not specifically naming a technology partner. We were not required to do this. The other bidders must have named one.”

However, a major global tech company wrote to Rugby World Cup supporting Ireland’s 2023 bid.

“If the World Cup comes to Ireland they stated they would do everything in their power to ensure the fan experience would be like no other.”

Ireland scored the same marks on security despite France having only ended a state of emergency on November 1st and widespread crime concerns in South Africa. The Irish bid, the report stated, focused primarily on terrorist attacks.

Dow Jones Sports Intelligence provided “independent assessment of the political and economic climate in each host country”.

The IRFU are also struggling to understand losing marks in the sustainability section after links to the untapped US market was not accepted as a positive with World Rugby stating the union showed “little focus on working in partnership with Rugby Europe or any of the other regional associations.”

During the process World Rugby had to instruct the bidding nations to stop promising TV rights and other agreements to voting regions. This was not directed at the Irish bid.

The Sports Consultancy firm – co-founded by Robert Datnow and Angus Buchanan – had a significant input into the technical report.

“The whole cross island aspect of our bid resonated very powerfully with every union we met,” Potts added.

“None of the non-technical aspects of our bid were reflected in the report. We hope council members consider these as that’s what makes Ireland 2023 different from the French or South African bids. We have exceeded all of the technical requirements and RWCL confirm Ireland can deliver a World Cup, but there are other issues to consider that count and we will be using the full resources of the union to point this out to voters in the next 10 days. We have a duty to do so to the bid and the process.”

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

And yet that would seem to be not very well and yet are expected to deal with the increase in visitors and opportunities for criminals?

Football World Cup was okay? Crime markedly decreased during it because of the amount they spent on policing and security.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:And how are they doing that?

As best as they can would be my answer, but they have a lot harder job than most countries as well.

And yet that would seem to be not very well and yet are expected to deal with the increase in visitors and opportunities for criminals?

You are missing the point though, it's not about how they are dealing with it, it's about how they say they will be dealing with it, because they have more to do they probably are more aware of what to tell world rugby.

Look, I would not bat an eyelid at falling out of a club at 2am and meandering back to my hotel after a game in a UK or Ireland city, that is something we all take for granted. There would not be a snowballs chance in hell I would do that in South Africa, no way.

And that is the issue, in South Africa they are well aware of the problems, and they try and put measures in place for things that we might take for granted. That is probably the difference.

I see the point though. It's best to not have the concerns SA has, rather than find ways to deal with them.

Scottrf wrote:I see the point though. It's best to not have the concerns SA has, rather than find ways to deal with them.

Yes, I agree.

But it's probably because they have shown due dilligence in how they are going to deal with them that put a bit more meat on the bone for their case.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I see the point though. It's best to not have the concerns SA has, rather than find ways to deal with them.

Yes, I agree.

But it's probably because they have shown due dilligence in how they are going to deal with them that put a bit more meat on the bone for their case.

Spot on LD. That’s a good summary of the security question. It was assessing capability to deal with a threat as opposed to the likelihood of one.

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I see the point though. It's best to not have the concerns SA has, rather than find ways to deal with them.

Yes, I agree.

But it's probably because they have shown due dilligence in how they are going to deal with them that put a bit more meat on the bone for their case.

According to Steve Tew (NZRU), SA won't play Super Rugby games at night because no one will go to them as its too dangerous.

World Rugby did not employ any independent security consultant to assess security in each country. The World Rugby Technical Review group did the assessment on Security for each nation. That tells you all you need to know really.

I'm assuming that the security put on would be pretty similar to the successful football world cup. After that and lions tours seems pretty obvious the country does have a successful history of keeping fans safe.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm assuming that the security put on would be pretty similar to the successful football world cup. After that and lions tours seems pretty obvious the country does have a successful history of keeping fans safe.

As far as I can recall the large security force employed went on strike because they were not being paid during the 2010 world cup. I've also heard that the people who usually commit the carjacking, robberies etc. are soccer fans. A rugby world cup would be a different kettle of fish whose supporters are white South Africans.

The world average of murders per 100,000 is 6.2. In SA, the average is 34.1. White farmers (traditionally rugby supporters) are really under siege at the moment, with 156 murders per 100,000.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm assuming that the security put on would be pretty similar to the successful football world cup. After that and lions tours seems pretty obvious the country does have a successful history of keeping fans safe.

True but those events were in 2009 and 2010. Things can change a lot in such time. For instances in the last couple of weeks prominent South Africans like Ernie Els have been calling on the international community to take notice of the rise in murders of farmers in SA.

https://rekordnorth.co.za/114557/multimedia-local-celebrities-add-voice-farm-murders/

There were incidents during the 2009 Lions tour anyway:

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/confed-team-fans-robbed-446981

and the 2010 WC:
http://metro.co.uk/2010/06/09/world-cup-2010-gun-robbery-raises-fears-for-football-fans-377910/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282154/WORLD-CUP-2010-Colombian-football-team-robbed-South-Africa.html

This year 2 killed in Soccer City:
http://ewn.co.za/2017/07/29/carlingcup-2-people-killed-in-stampede-as-chiefs-takes-on-pirates


I think it is pretty obvious that security threats also make for a less enjoyable fan experience regardless of the amount of security presence. The moderate security assessment is absolutely laughable.

There'll be incidents of course as this is the real world but we've seen concerns set out about these things for sa Brazil etc. Normally works out fine. Like I said all.along of prefer ireland but I wouldn't be too concerned over it going to sa because of safety reasons.

Isn't there a fair amount of organised crime violence in Dublin at the moment ?

I remember the trams and sometimes trains being shady do to the heroin problems too.

munkian wrote:Isn't there a fair amount of organised crime violence in Dublin at the moment ?

I remember the trams and sometimes trains being shady do to the heroin problems too.

There is a feud going on between two of the big drug families (who mostly live in Spain). Their targets are family members, many of whom are not involved in crime. One of the Luas lines (Tallaght) does have problems on it and they have guards on it at night. The other main line is fine. Don't think there are any problems with the DART or the trains.

On the global index of security, crime etc. Ireland is the 10th safest country in the world (just after Iceland, New Zealand and a few others like that). In the index on likelihood of a terrorist attack, its ranked 55, with SA ranked at 52. France is ranked 29 and UK 34.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index

Strange that SA are listed as having a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack yet pretty much dismissed the idea in their bid yet Ireland were marked down for not addressing the risks properly

Almost like WR didn't scrutinise the SA bid properly

marty2086 wrote:Strange that SA are listed as having a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack yet pretty much dismissed the idea in their bid yet Ireland were marked down for not addressing the risks properly

Almost like WR didn't scrutinise the SA bid properly

Ireland were marked down significantly on stadia not being ready including Pairc Ui Caoimh (which is ready) and SAs security issues werent even asessed by security experts. The report was littered with errors and incompetance.

Anyway. As much as I would have preferred a world cup in Ireland, the facts are that it is not going to happen, and any cries of conspiracy should stop.

Were Ireland a distant 3rd behind South Africa and France ?

Perhaps you should look at what France have done better as well if this is the case, not just focus on South Africa.

The way I look at this, is the NH had the last World Cup, they are giving an emerging nation a turn this time around, the next World Cup should be the SH turn, should it not ?

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway. As much as I would have preferred a world cup in Ireland, the facts are that it is not going to happen, and any cries of conspiracy should stop.

Were Ireland a distant 3rd behind South Africa and France ?

Perhaps you should look at what France have done better as well if this is the case, not just focus on South Africa.

The way I look at this, is the NH had the last World Cup, they are giving an emerging nation a turn this time around, the next World Cup should be the SH turn, should it not ?

It may well still happen. I assume each union will employ an independant asessor of the report.

Ireland scored 72 out of 100 SA 79. Not that different considering the report was garbage and skewed in SAs favour
.

Japan is closer to Aus and NZ. There is zero logic to rotating between the NH and SH.

LordDowlais wrote:Anyway. As much as I would have preferred a world cup in Ireland, the facts are that it is not going to happen, and any cries of conspiracy should stop.

Why?

Were Ireland a distant 3rd behind South Africa and France ?

Not really. All countries involved are capable of hosting it against the criteria set.

Perhaps you should look at what France have done better as well if this is the case, not just focus on South Africa.

My main criticism of France would be that there will be country fatigue with France between football and Olympics (with a world cup recently been held there) which could affect attendance.

The way I look at this, is the NH had the last World Cup, they are giving an emerging nation a turn this time around, the next World Cup should be the SH turn, should it not ?

Why should it be rotated according to hemispheres bearing in mind that there are only 2 (possibly 3 countries that could host it in the SH and there are 6 countries in the NH). The reason why there are question marks over Japan (and NZ in the past) is because of the time zone they are in, not the hemisphere.

Sin é wrote:Why?

because you are all being hypocrites.

Sin é wrote:Not really. All countries involved are capable of hosting it against the criteria set.

Yes, but some have made a better fist of showing what they can do than Ireland have.

Sin é wrote:My main criticism of France would be that there will be country fatigue with France between football and Olympics (with a world cup recently been held there) which could affect attendance.

Lame.

The football fans will support the football, regardless, and the rugby fans will support the rugby, regardless, we see this every week with the attendances for both sports all having large support.

Sin é wrote:Why should it be rotated according to hemispheres bearing in mind that there are only 2 (possibly 3 countries that could host it in the SH and there are 6 countries in the NH). The reason why there are question marks over Japan (and NZ in the past) is because of the time zone they are in, not the hemisphere.

Because that is how it has always been done, also, I do not think the time zone is a sticking point for New Zealand, they will not get another WC because it will cost them too much money.

Sin é wrote:

beshocked wrote:

What would you say Ireland's unique selling points were?

This will give you a summary:


Ireland’s Rugby World Cup bid was on a par with South Africa
Redacted section of controversial technical review shows Irish bid matched commercial offer and fee

The Irish Times has learned that Ireland’s overall financial bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup closely matched South Africa’s commercial offer and tournament fee.

These figures are contained in the redacted section of World Rugby’s technical review released last Tuesday, the contents of which were made known to the newspaper.

The impact of the report, which recommends South Africa host the tournament, has been heavily criticised by both French and Irish delegations ahead of the November 15th World Rugby Council vote.

World Rugby deny they only gave the bidding countries a few weeks’ notice of their intention to release the report – and not just a recommendation – into the public domain.

Before the damning assessment of Irish stadiums and technological failings, the IRFU anticipated at least 16 of the necessary 20 votes required to secure the tournament.

French Rugby Federation president Bernard Laporte highlighted perceived “lies” “negligence” and “amateurism” in World Rugby’s recommendation while Ireland’s bid chairman, Dick Spring, expressed “amazement” at the “narrow, operational and theoretical approach” of the report in a letter to World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont.

IRFU employed Deloitte to go through the report before submitting a response document highlighting inconsistencies that led to the South African and French bids scoring higher in key areas.

“There were surprises in the report,” said Kevin Potts, head of the Irish bid. “Take Paírc Uí Chaoimh. It has been built and active since August. We sent World Rugby footage of the stadium yet commentary in the report inferred it was not yet built and required significant upgrade.”

The French Federation also sent a 50-page report to World Rugby offices in Dublin criticising the technical review led by Alan Gilpin, the head of Rugby World Cup.

The problem now for both French and Irish bids is perception. New Zealand chief executive Steve Tew has already publicly stated they will support South Africa’s bid because of the report.

Clear third
“Our match venue proposal was not designed to compete with big stadia built for soccer World Cups outside cities,” Potts said of Ireland’s bid finishing a clear third in the stadium category (where South Africa received a perfect score).

“We are offering sustainable sporting arenas in an ideal capacity mix – both rugby and GAA – in the hearts of towns and communities that will be full of passionate fans that can walk to and enjoy a genuine festival atmosphere pre- and post-match, rather than being stuck on trains for hours.

“That resonated in our travels around the world. Unions such as Argentina, Italy, New Zealand, North America, Asia, the smaller unions and many more got that and liked it.”

The Irish bid also fell down on technological failings.

“Yes, some of the stadia do not have updated technology but we planned these in our upgrade plans,” Potts continued, “But what I was surprised at was the apparent loss of marks for not specifically naming a technology partner. We were not required to do this. The other bidders must have named one.”

However, a major global tech company wrote to Rugby World Cup supporting Ireland’s 2023 bid.

“If the World Cup comes to Ireland they stated they would do everything in their power to ensure the fan experience would be like no other.”

Ireland scored the same marks on security despite France having only ended a state of emergency on November 1st and widespread crime concerns in South Africa. The Irish bid, the report stated, focused primarily on terrorist attacks.

Dow Jones Sports Intelligence provided “independent assessment of the political and economic climate in each host country”.

The IRFU are also struggling to understand losing marks in the sustainability section after links to the untapped US market was not accepted as a positive with World Rugby stating the union showed “little focus on working in partnership with Rugby Europe or any of the other regional associations.”

During the process World Rugby had to instruct the bidding nations to stop promising TV rights and other agreements to voting regions. This was not directed at the Irish bid.

The Sports Consultancy firm – co-founded by Robert Datnow and Angus Buchanan – had a significant input into the technical report.

“The whole cross island aspect of our bid resonated very powerfully with every union we met,” Potts added.

“None of the non-technical aspects of our bid were reflected in the report. We hope council members consider these as that’s what makes Ireland 2023 different from the French or South African bids. We have exceeded all of the technical requirements and RWCL confirm Ireland can deliver a World Cup, but there are other issues to consider that count and we will be using the full resources of the union to point this out to voters in the next 10 days. We have a duty to do so to the bid and the process.”

Fair enough.

After Italy dropped out, I wouldn't have minded, Ireland getting the RWC.

From what you are saying it does seem Ireland and France are a bit hard done by.

Perception can definitely affect things.

How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

"Because its how its always been done" - that has to be the quote of the day. There is absolutely no logic to rotating the world cup between hemispheres. A WC in Ireland suits South African fans much better than a WC in Aus or NZ. It is marginally shorter in distance and almost exactly the same time zone.

Similarly a WC in Japan suits NZ and Aus better because it is closer in distance and in time zone.

Collapse2005 wrote:How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

You are all being hypocritical, because when myself and others were saying the same thing about the venues for the Pro12/14 finals we were told to stop being stupid.

And that is putting it mildly.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

You are all being hypocritical, because when myself and others were saying the same thing about the venues for the Pro12/14 finals we were told to stop being stupid.

Don't recall that conversation. I doubt I was involved in it. Wales has hosted the RWC 1.5 times and he Heineken/champions cup more than any other country. You don't really have a lot to complain about.

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

You are all being hypocritical, because when myself and others were saying the same thing about the venues for the Pro12/14 finals we were told to stop being stupid.

You mean when you complained about Wales never getting it when they never bid for it?

I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

[quote="LordDowlais"]

Sin é wrote:Why?

because you are all being hypocrites.

Sin é wrote:Not really. All countries involved are capable of hosting it against the criteria set.

Yes, but some have made a better fist of showing what they can do than Ireland have.

No they haven't. And that is a problem

Sin é wrote:My main criticism of France would be that there will be country fatigue with France between football and Olympics (with a world cup recently been held there) which could affect attendance.

Lame. How is it lame. I think France is a better option than SA, but there will be nothing new about a French world cup since they hosted it so recently.

The football fans will support the football, regardless, and the rugby fans will support the rugby, regardless, we see this every week with the attendances for both sports all having large support. There would be a big cross over in sports in Ireland and probably why Irish people fill every stadium that they are playing in.

Sin é wrote:Why should it be rotated according to hemispheres bearing in mind that there are only 2 (possibly 3 countries that could host it in the SH and there are 6 countries in the NH). The reason why there are question marks over Japan (and NZ in the past) is because of the time zone they are in, not the hemisphere.

Because that is how it has always been done, also, I do not think the time zone is a sticking point for New Zealand, they will not get another WC because it will cost them too much money.

Well, its a nonsense reason.

Scottrf wrote:I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

No one has lost yet

Sin é wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

No one has lost yet

Well your bid is doing a remarkably good impression.

Scottrf wrote:I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

No one has lost. Ireland and france are a try down with 10 minutes to go and Wayne Barnes reffing. In other words its still a bit of a lottery.

You come across as a loser yourself.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

No one has lost. Ireland and france are a try down with 10 minutes to go and Wayne Barnes reffing.

You come across as a loser yourself.

And you come across as a whiny child.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

You are all being hypocritical, because when myself and others were saying the same thing about the venues for the Pro12/14 finals we were told to stop being stupid.

You mean when you complained about Wales never getting it when they never bid for it?

No point bidding for something you have no chance of getting because the criteria is way one sided.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:I thought New Zealand were bad losers until this thread.

No one has lost. Ireland and france are a try down with 10 minutes to go and Wayne Barnes reffing.

You come across as a loser yourself.

And you come across as a whiny child.

That's only because you are clearly quite gullible.

LordDowlais wrote: No point bidding for something you have no chance of getting because the criteria is way one sided.

I think it will go down to the wire. I expect that some of the more sensible unions will be able to see beyond the inaccuracies in the report.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:How is it hypocritical pointing out the blatant errors in the report? It stated Pairc Ui Chaoimh needs upgrade when it doesn't for example. The upgrade was completed earlier in the year.

You are all being hypocritical, because when myself and others were saying the same thing about the venues for the Pro12/14 finals we were told to stop being stupid.

You mean when you complained about Wales never getting it when they never bid for it?

No point bidding for something you have no chance of getting because the criteria is way one sided.

So you don't met the standards it's one sided?

It's hardly hypocritical to point out the stupidity of your argument and the pettiness of the regions when pointing out the inaccuracies of a report and the failure to properly evaluate bids

marty2086 wrote:So you don't met the standards it's one sided?

Have you read this thread?

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So you don't met the standards it's one sided?

Have you read this thread?

Exactly.

Look, I am as disappointed as our Irish members on here that the WC is not going to Ireland. I just wish on times they would practice what they preach.

Some of our Irish members on here can be so hypocritical on times. I just wish they could see it. I have no problem with it either. Lets just acknowledge how we are behaving before we start something.