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.

What are you waffling on about Lord?

Scottrf wrote:

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

Have you read this thread?

Have you?

There are clear deficiencies in the application of WRs standards that seems to be the problem here, yes some are just bitching but that'll happen

The BBC posted the IRFU letter to Brent Gosper in World Rugby. It think it is a very good letter and a good diplomatic summary of the issues with the review.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_17_irfu_letter.pdf

Weird it just focuses on sa bid.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Weird it just focuses on sa bid.

Why? That's where a lot of the issues in the report were the letter also focuses on Ireland too. The letter also refers to France on a few occasions, just not by name. It is also just a preliminary letter, the full list of queries was sent yesterday.

Interesting to see what comes of the letter. Some good points I think.

Curious that you were quite dismissive of many of those points previously. Philip Browne is it seems a very diligent CEO.

Collapse2005 wrote:Curious that you were quite dismissive of many of those points previously. Philip Browne is it seems a very diligent CEO.

Providing a counter argument not dismissing. Didn't want it to just be Irish whinging, and wanted people to actually refer to the report, which they weren't intially.

Maybe SA was the first to confirm that some games would be held in Cardiff?

It's weird that they focus on sa rather than where they feel they were undersold. Why ask a question on attendances based on super rugby. Look at a fair few attendances in England compared the world cups. It's apples and oranges. I understand a team would want clarification but think he'd be better focusing on the weaker areas of Ireland bid and saying this is wrong look at x y and z to see why.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's weird that they focus on sa rather than where they feel they were undersold. Why ask a question on attendances based on super rugby. Look at a fair few attendances in England compared the world cups. It's apples and oranges. I understand a team would want clarification but think he'd be better focusing on the weaker areas of Ireland bid and saying this is wrong look at x y and z to see why.

Yeah he's going to need a second letter for France.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's weird that they focus on sa rather than where they feel they were undersold. Why ask a question on attendances based on super rugby. Look at a fair few attendances in England compared the world cups. It's apples and oranges. I understand a team would want clarification but think he'd be better focusing on the weaker areas of Ireland bid and saying this is wrong look at x y and z to see why.

Maybe something to do with the claim that there is a strong rugby base in SA, while that's true it hasn't translated to attendances in SA

As I said I don't really see the importance of that as it's quite different.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's weird that they focus on sa rather than where they feel they were undersold. Why ask a question on attendances based on super rugby. Look at a fair few attendances in England compared the world cups. It's apples and oranges. I understand a team would want clarification but think he'd be better focusing on the weaker areas of Ireland bid and saying this is wrong look at x y and z to see why.

Its pretty obvious the report glossed over the obvious weaknesses in the SA bid. That's why.

The IRFU is considering suing world rugby now.

It's digging their own grave. They acknowledge it's not game over yet. They should be shouting from the roof tops.over what they can do. Spreading the WC to a new country looking at positives and trying to reassure around their stadia. O just feel this is going to ensure it going to sa or france.

They aren't going to sue but when you are looking for answers such threats are a effective means of focusing minds. Its over to World Rugby now to explain the obvious issues with their report. The letter will put doubts in the minds of the voting unions and rightly so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As I said I don't really see the importance of that as it's quite different.

The importance is that Ireland are usuing stadia suitable for the expected attendance - i.e., you won't see Tonga v. Romania in a 50,000 seater. In Ireland they would be in an 18K stadium and so it will look good on tv.

Like I said collapse I don't think it will; more likely toharden resolve.

Just sell the first tier first sin and the side facing the cameras! Sorry no idea how to get thee thingy on my phone.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's digging their own grave. They acknowledge it's not game over yet. They should be shouting from the roof tops.over what they can do. Spreading the WC to a new country looking at positives and trying to reassure around their stadia. O just feel this is going to ensure it going to sa or france.

The point they are making is that a) Ireland is capable of holding a world cup b) the report is flawed (in particular on issues such as security so people who don't support the recommendation shouldn't be concerned about it c) Its a secret ballot and god only knows what is going on in the background!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Like I said collapse I don't think it will; more likely toharden resolve.

Just sell the first tier first sin and the side facing the cameras! Sorry no idea how to get thee thingy on my phone.

Nothing like a full stadium for atmosphere.

Sin é wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's digging their own grave. They acknowledge it's not game over yet. They should be shouting from the roof tops.over what they can do. Spreading the WC to a new country looking at positives and trying to reassure around their stadia. O just feel this is going to ensure it going to sa or france.

The point they are making is that a) Ireland is capable of holding a world cup   b) the report is flawed (in particular on issues such as security so people who don't support the recommendation shouldn't be concerned about it  c) Its a secret ballot and god only knows what is going on in the background!

Exactly. NZ won the 2011 bid on voting despite not receiving WR's recommendation. No one competent is going to take the recommendation of a report that is clearly flawed. Pointing out the obvious flaws adds credibility to those doubts.

I just doubt it very much. It comes across more as sour grapes. Say it's flawed and then push your own case strongly. I believe that anyone still on the fence will more likely be pulled than pushed. This could result in people just turning to France.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just doubt it very much. It comes across more as sour grapes. Say it's flawed and then push your own case strongly. I believe that anyone still on the fence will more likely be pulled than pushed. This could result in people just turning to France.

Lol. France have made their own case very strongly. Basically you are suggesting you should just sit back and do nothing?

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I just doubt it very much. It comes across more as sour grapes. Say it's flawed and then push your own case strongly. I believe that anyone still on the fence will more likely be pulled than pushed. This could result in people just turning to France.

Lol. France have made their own case very strongly. Basically you are suggesting you should just sit back and do nothing?

Or focus more on Ireland's strengths. They didn't only lose to SA.

No. I'm saying ireland should be shouting from the rooftops about themselves not moaning about sa. Doing the latter doesn't really help them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:As I said I don't really see the importance of that as it's quite different.

It's not quite different, the focus of the IRFUs letter was on the pool games with lower seeded sides which are going to be harder to get bums in seats for.

The fans have a vested interest in their local Super Rugby sides yet the rugby base the SARU hype up don't come out for it. So how will the base come out for the games they don't have a vested interest in? That's a fair question to be asked and one that should be asked of all bidders

It's quite different as I said that you could have easily pointed to England and said the same thing. Whereas there a lot of people didn't get the chance to attend a game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. I'm saying ireland should be shouting from the rooftops about themselves not moaning about sa. Doing the latter doesn't really help them.

Of course it does, a large part of the incompetence of the report revolves around the glossing over of some of SAs most obvious weaknesses.

So does that help ireland in 3rd place or the rock solid proven bid of France? My point again that ireland should be shouting about what makes them great not trying to talk down sa which is going to be seen as a strong bid no matter what.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So does that help ireland in 3rd place or the rock solid proven bid of France? My point again that ireland should be shouting about what makes them great not trying to talk down sa which is going to be seen as a strong bid no matter what.

France's bid isn't rock solid at all. Read the letter, it questions the security evaluation of all three nations. France only recently came out of a national state of emergency. They are obviously a high risk for a terrorist attack. Their moderate security assessment is very generous to say the least.

World rugby staff themselves did the security assessment. Come on 7.5. The IRFU are absolutely justified in addressing every aspect of the report that was weak. They also employed Deloitte to review World Rugby's report.

As someone who is outside of the 3 bids but wanted ireland to get it I think you're looking on this with a bit of a bias. Yes France's bid is rock solid as they have recently.proved they can host these events. Sa have proven it with the football wc.etc. rather than trying to suggest either couldn't ireland should be saying.look at what makes us great. They're not doing that for me. But if you support the approach of moaning that it's not fair it doesn't appear I can change your mind on it.

"Their moderate security assessment is very generous to say the least."

Compared to what? Moderate is just a word. If Somalia is high risk, then yes France may be moderate risk.

Scottrf wrote:"Their moderate security assessment is very generous to say the least."

Compared to what? Moderate is just a word. If Somalia is high risk, then yes France may be moderate risk.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:"Their moderate security assessment is very generous to say the least."

Compared to what? Moderate is just a word. If Somalia is high risk, then yes France may be moderate risk.

I suppose a facepalm is easier than answering. France is a moderate risk country on the world stage. Pretty fair to say.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's quite different as I said that you could have easily pointed to England and said the same thing. Whereas there a lot of people didn't get the chance to attend a game.

No you couldn't say the same thing about England, Super Rugby derby games in SA are getting crowds of a few thousand. The average attendances in the AP were nearly 14k when they bid for the RWC and used stadiums with capacities as small as 12k and 15k. The smallest SA are using is 40k

So england did and do get 100.per cent club attendance and only English fans attended the wc?

SARU have said SAs rugby base will be a big factor in filling stadiums, the IRFU have asked how much scrutiny that claim got since the rugby base isn't turning out for Super Rugby games.

England used smaller stadia for lesser pool games so as to minimise the number of empty seats, the SARU haven't done this because they claim they don't need to.

England is on the doorstep of Western Europe and fans from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France and Italy are a few hours on a plane at most away and more accessible. SA is more isolated from the major rugby nations so rely more on their own base to.

If and when they get it it went be a problem. Hell if there s more opportunity of a ticket great. Rather have more than enough than not enough obviously. Given the lions games do you think it'll be in anyway an issue? Links to my point re they've held this sort of thing before.

So Super Rugby isn't comparable but the Lions are?

It's not the big games that the IRFU have asked about, it's the smaller pool games but Im glad you mentioned 95 as SA and Aus only drew 44k to Newlands which held 50k and also included stadia with capacities of 22k and 16k with games there drawing less than 10k

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11940559

Gregor Paul from the NZ herald weighs in with his two cents.

"Gregor Paul: World Cup in S Africa is criminal"

"South Africa has won heads when it was only ever supposed to win hearts, and legitimate questions now need to be asked about the evaluation process."

Dear me marty.

Its almost as if world rugby did eenie meenie miney moe or rock paper scissors to decide who the preferred bit was.

Which part of the bid did you feel ireland let themselves down on collapse?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which part of the bid did you feel ireland let themselves down on collapse?

You mean for which parts did World Rugby misjudge Ireland's bid?

This thread is now starting to become embarrassing. Time for the padlock to come out methinks....

No its not - well maybe your contributions.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the veracity of the assessment process.
A number of the outcomes stink and suggest it has been twisted to a desired outcome rather than
a genuine and open look at the three bids.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Which part of the bid did you feel ireland let themselves down on collapse?

Ireland were marked down on stadia. That's fair enough, but WR's report included stadia that have already been completed in their list of stadia that need upgrading.

The Irish bid was also marked down on prior hosting experience. The bid detailed all the major global sporting events Ireland has hosted but that wasn't enough for WR. I don't think it is reasonable to mark this down as much as it simply means that the bids will go to the richest and same nations every time.

World Rugby also marked Ireland down on fan zones. I think this is ridiculous as the Irish bid explained that all our stadia are inner city locations and as such the whole town/city will generate a unique atmosphere for fans. SA were awarded more marks for their fan zone ideas but their stadia such as soccer city are out of town beside townships so they have a greater need for them to generate faux atmosphere and keep fans safe. The Irish bid was criticised for not having any unique ideas whereas the SA bid simply replicated their fan zone ideas for the 2010 football world cup and they were considered by the report as innovative.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dear me marty.

I'm aware of what they said collapse wondered if you felt the same or differently. Which stadium you on aboit being completed? The one you mentioned earlier still needs plans for temporary seating don't it or is that too complete?