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.

Rule 3: Don't get carbon monoxide poisoning.

LordDowlais wrote:But what any of it has to do with you and Gwlad I do not know.

aside from the fact you posted it on a public forum

LordDowlais wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

Italy are not equal partners.   If you read the press release issued when the PRO14 was announced during the summer, it says very clearly at the bottom that the three shareholders in Celtic Rugby which owns the PRO14 are IRFU, WRU and SRU.    

As I stated above, the Italian rugby federation (FIR) agreed to pay the costs of the teams travelling to Italy during each season in exchange for their participation in the competition.   Likewise, SARU paid their participation fee through the TV deal they brought to the table.   The FIR didn't pay back the teams/unions for their costs during the 2012/13 and built up a debt.  They were threatened with expulsion if they didn't pay what they owed.  The FIR  negotiated a settlement figure and said they would pay that.   They still haven't paid it.   Which is why they haven't become shareholders.  More than likely they owe money to Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams.  The point being made in the Times article is that Italy didn't support the IRFU even though they owed them a chunk of money.  Not that they didn't owe it to Scottish and Welsh teams as well.   But Wales or Scotland weren't bidding for hosting rights.

Well see therein lies your problem. How could Ireland call in a debt. and then not expect everybody else to call it in as well. The debt. is not only Ireland's, it's everyone's. So to use that as a stick to beat the Italians with is unfair.

What?? I didn’t suggest that IRFU call in a debt. The article pointed out that despite the FIR being in debt to the IRFU for its teams who have repeatedly NOT called it in, the FIR vote went elsewhere. This is not a difficult point to understand.

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

What are these rules?

Rule 1:  Don't get mugged
Rule 2:  Don't get killed.

3. Dont get kneecapped
4. dont get kidnapped
5. Dont get blown to pieces

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

What are these rules?

Rule 1:  Don't get mugged
Rule 2:  Don't get killed.

3. Dont get kneecapped
4. dont get kidnapped
5. Dont get blown to pieces

6. And whatever you do, don’t go to Ireland.

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

What are these rules?

Rule 1:  Don't get mugged
Rule 2:  Don't get killed.

3. Dont get kneecapped
4. dont get kidnapped
5. Dont get blown to pieces

7. Don't eat potatoes
8. Don't get sniped during peaceful Civil Rights Marches
9. Don't get hung, drawn and quartered for being a Priest.
10. Don't get a job in Harland and Woolf
11. Don't get ridiculed in Punch Magazine
12. Don't trust fellow 'Celts' to ever stand up for you - in any century ..................

This South Africa is a weird place.  So many rules you gotta follow to stay safe!

Isn't eating a potato regarded as cannibalism in Ireland?

Gwlad wrote:Isn't eating a potato regarded as cannibalism in Ireland?

???

You listened well in History class I see. We also eat grass to keep our teeth clean.

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Isn't eating a potato regarded as cannibalism in Ireland?

???  

You listened well in History class I see.  We also eat grass to keep our teeth clean.  

Don't you mean tooth?

Gwlad wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Isn't eating a potato regarded as cannibalism in Ireland?

???  

You listened well in History class I see.  We also eat grass to keep our teeth clean.  

Don't you mean tooth?

No, I mean teeth. Grass really works if you eat the right kind

So in the end Ireland would have got it if Scotland and Italy votes (6?)would have gone to them... honestly feel sad for them as they deserve to host it way more than us. wonder what will happen if France doesn’t deliver the extra money or is it underwritten by the government? Keep in mind that Laporte business activities are still being investigated and that in 2022 there might be some random lunatic in charge of the country ... many things can happen.

Does this mean Ireland will stop whining now, slinging trite cultural stereotypes about SA as the garlic eating surrender monkeys have won the day?

Allegedly

2023 Rugby World Cup vote breakdown on Round 1

Ireland

England 3
North America 2
Canada 1
USA 1
Oceania 1 (split vote)

Total: 8

South Africa

Wales 3
New Zealand 3
Australia 3
Argentina 3
Oceania 1 (split)

Total: 13

France

Scotland 3
Italy 3
Japan 2
Asia 2
South America 2
Europe 2
Africa 2
Georgia 1
Romania 1

Total: 18

England, USA, Canada, Oceania shifted to France in Round 2.

Scotland said they were going to vote for whoever would generate the most money so they backed France. Italy did the same. Wales said they were bound to follow the recommendation since Gerald Davies was on the Rugby World Cup board. Those 9 votes were pivotal to Ireland’s demise.

Unlike SANZAR who stuck together in backing SA, the myth of the Home Union unity got exposed as votes split three ways. Equally, the three original unions in the PRO14 didn’t back Ireland either.

If just Wales had backed Ireland, it would have knocked SA out and removed the obligation to vote for the recommended union. Scotland or Italy had eyes only for the promised surplus from France – 55% of which would be split amongst the Tier 1 unions – about £4m each.

Money talks. Reports take a back seat.

And the merry-go-round continues to whirl.

What's all the fuss about ?
If WR are going to use a voting system why is anyone surprised that some (most) Unions voted on the basis of geographical loyalty or money or both - to fund/support their control.

The evaluation process was a genuine attempt to bring transparency to the factors considered but was never a mandatory consideration.
The senior nations three votes should be dropped. One Union, one vote.

The whinging on Twitter is palpable.

munkian wrote:The whinging on Twitter is palpable.

Honestly I didn't know what whingers the Irish were until this forum. I thought they were a good laugh, happy go lucky chaps.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

So, in round 1 there were 2 Africa votes for the French bid. That's bucking the trend a bit too.

The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

Some upgrades to stadiums (think it was going to cost about 60m, one stadium has been redeveloped since they saw it and which was not acknowledged in the report) would have been done.

Scotland were only after the money - and the Welsh vote for SA because they had a representative on the evaluation board that produced a very flawed report and who got a right kicking for it.

Fairplay to the RFU for recognising that the process was flawed and making their own minds up. We know who has our back now.

propdavid_london wrote:So, in round 1 there were 2 Africa votes for the French bid.  That's bucking the trend a bit too.

I don't think it is. SA has done nothing for rugby outside of SA, whereas some of those African countries would have been former French colonies.

Sin é wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

Some upgrades to stadiums (think it was going to cost about 60m, one stadium has been redeveloped since they saw it and which was not acknowledged in the report) would have been done.

Scotland were only after the money - and the Welsh vote for SA because they had a representative  on the evaluation board that produced a very flawed report and who got a right kicking for it.

Fairplay to the RFU for recognising that the process was flawed and making their own minds up. We know who has our back now.

Yes scotland said they would vote for who would bring in the most revenue all along and what is wrong with that. Makes perfect sense.
Infrastructure in ireland isn't up to scratch though. France makes far more sense, good roads, transport, hotels, stadiums, weather.

Sin é wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So, in round 1 there were 2 Africa votes for the French bid.  That's bucking the trend a bit too.

I don't think it is. SA has done nothing for rugby outside of SA, whereas some of those African countries would have been former French colonies.

Jebus Christ...

Remove all SA born players from the Pro14 and 6 Nations teams and revisit that statement you helmet.

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

As far as I recall the numbers, the Irish and South Africans offered something like 270million and the French offered 350 million.

Now do that maths, and we all now know the Scots can  - but the commission (that 'Independent' commission with the WRU chairman on-board?) - the commission chose South Africa.  So obviously for them, 270million was enough.

But in the interests of being a nice friendly Irish person, the stereotype that everyone seems to love... let me here thank you and your SRU most jovially for voting against our bid.  Sure isn't it all grand and I'm planning to have a great auld laugh about it and get pleasantly drunk at the weekend to celebrate  

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

Irish ? Well, you have, um.. Guinness ? And your main beer is Heineken ?

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

How do non Host countries get more revenue from a WC?
I would have thought the overall expenses for say, Scotland would have been lower if the matches were hosted in Ireland. Their training base could have remained in-house.
Do all the participating nations get a rev-share in TV rights etc?

Scottrf wrote:

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

There are some fantastic Dutch and Danish beers out there if you avoid the mass produced rubbish.

Or are they just voting for additional rev for 'World Rugby' and therefore a bigger pot for re-investment.

Scottrf wrote:
You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

Budweiser?  Stale cat's piss, even when cold?

Scott, Scott, Scott....

munkian wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

There are some fantastic Dutch and Danish beers out there if you avoid the mass produced rubbish.

Some, but they definitely don't have the depth of Belgium or the US.

SecretFly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:
You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

Budweiser?  Stale cat's piss, even when cold?

Scott, Scott, Scott....

Budweiser is one out of the thousands they produce...

Yes, their mass market beers are terrible.

SecretFly wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

As far as I recall the numbers, the Irish and South Africans offered something like 270million and the French offered 350 million.

Now do that maths, and we all now know the Scots can  - but the commission (that 'Independent' commission with the WRU chairman on-board?) - the commission chose South Africa.  So obviously for them, 270million was enough.

But in the interests of being a nice friendly Irish person, the stereotype that everyone seems to love... let me here thank you and your SRU most jovially for voting against our bid.  Sure isn't it all grand and I'm planning to have a great auld laugh about it and get pleasantly drunk at the weekend to celebrate  

Clearly though most countries that voted realise 350m is more than 270m which is more money!

Just because scotland and ireland are "Celtic" nations why should we have voted for you. Does ireland have fantastic infrastructure, great public transport? No it doesn't! Does it have stadiums that are ready and will allow for large audiences? No
Does France have these things? Yes. Is it as easy for supporters from Scotland to get to France as it is to get to Ireland? Yes.

When it comes to beer Belgium, England, Germany in that order and by some distance......and I'm Irish !

You can always fine some little gem, in many countries, somewhere but it is what is readily available that countries should be judged

Scottrf wrote:

munkian wrote:The whinging on Twitter is palpable.

Honestly I didn't know what whingers the Irish were until this forum. I thought they were a good laugh, happy go lucky chaps.

Ah we are really. Sure we never wanted the thing really, can you imagine the madness trying to get to the bar if all those feckers had come over and speaking in funny accents and asking what’s the Angelus anyway, and how far is London from here, and mentioning Guinness 120,000 tines in every second sentence and us nodding inanely along as we sip our pints of Craggy Beer and wonder if yer wan over there with the vuvuzela would go for a bag of chips later but probably not cos those Germanic blokes with their shiny teeth and creased jeans look like they have the edge, and there’s some bloke who you met half an hour ago asking loudly how many points Ireland got over the bar, and you’re panicking slightly cos with this amount of fellas in town, Mushy Jacks is going to be crammed later and you probably won’t get in, and in anyway, they’ve probably jacked the prices up again, and the Luas will be packed as thousands of these feckers make their way all the way out to Bray or The Costa Fortuna as the locals call it after the recent price hikes as you notice that it’s started raining again and you curse silently as you wonder what you were thinking that an Ireland jersey and a pair of shorts would be a good thing to wear to the match at what seems like an age ago as you got blearily out of bed to catch the 7am rugby bus from your one roomed flat in Mickey Marbh that the locals call Kilcock and this seventh pint has certainly done that as you see that Vuvuzela Woman has now been surrounded by three blokes wearing berets who think they’re French....

geoff999rugby wrote:When it comes to beer Belgium, England, Germany in that order and by some distance......and I'm Irish !

You can always fine some little gem, in many countries, somewhere but it is what is readily available that countries should be judged

Belgium undisputed #1 for sure.

Any restaurant/cafe there has an extensive beer list of amazing beers.

Scottrf wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:
You started well, but Belgium and the USA kill the Dutch, Danes and Irish in beer.

Budweiser?  Stale cat's piss, even when cold?

Scott, Scott, Scott....

Budweiser is one out of the thousands they produce...

Yes, their mass market beers are terrible.

So Belgium should have gotten the World Cup obviously. The Commission don't know their beer from their blazer emblems.

Majestic83 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

Some upgrades to stadiums (think it was going to cost about 60m, one stadium has been redeveloped since they saw it and which was not acknowledged in the report) would have been done.

Scotland were only after the money - and the Welsh vote for SA because they had a representative  on the evaluation board that produced a very flawed report and who got a right kicking for it.

Fairplay to the RFU for recognising that the process was flawed and making their own minds up. We know who has our back now.

Yes scotland said they would vote for who would bring in the most revenue all along and what is wrong with that. Makes perfect sense.
Infrastructure in ireland isn't up to scratch though. France makes far more sense, good roads, transport, hotels, stadiums, weather.

Nothing wrong with it Maj - just the Scots living up to their sterotype! In the UK, its every man for themselves it seems.

Infrastructure is just fine in Ireland. As for France - its a big country so you need the infrastructure and roads to get around. Everything is close together in Ireland and it has some of the best hotels in the world and stadia in the world. Only one bad road in Ireland (between Cork & Limerick which should be fixed by 2023 - its not as if that many would have had to travel between it either).

munkian wrote:

Sin é wrote:

propdavid_london wrote:So, in round 1 there were 2 Africa votes for the French bid.  That's bucking the trend a bit too.

I don't think it is. SA has done nothing for rugby outside of SA, whereas some of those African countries would have been former French colonies.

Jebus Christ...

Remove all SA born players from the Pro14 and 6 Nations teams and revisit that statement you helmet.

The point was about developing rugby in other African countries. France does (like fighting their corner with World Rugby and sending coaches, money etc), South Africa doesn't and that is why African countries would vote for France, not South Africa.

Majestic83 wrote:

Just because scotland and ireland are "Celtic" nations why should we have voted for you. Does ireland have fantastic infrastructure, great public transport? No it doesn't! Does it have stadiums that are ready and will allow for large audiences? No
Does France have these things? Yes. Is it as easy for supporters from Scotland to get to France as it is to get to Ireland? Yes.

I couldn't give a damn about Scotland or how they drive, walk or snorkel to France, Majestic. To me, I feel more in tune with Americans, Australians and New Zealanders than I'd ever feel any 'family bond' with Scots. It was me who started the act of dropping inverted commas around the 'Celt' angle years ago when it often got the treatment in here that seemed to regard us all as the one thing. We're not. You are you and we are we - thus I'd be against any 'JOINT' bid in the future and I'd hope that the IRFU would have a long enough Irish happy memory to kill any such proposal in the future too.

Wales and Scotland can vote as they want to. But we have a right to clock it into our mainframes under the heading: "To be continued".

We shall see if you have as long a memory about the way England voted...

Scottrf wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:When it comes to beer Belgium, England, Germany in that order and by some distance......and I'm Irish !

You can always fine some little gem, in many countries, somewhere but it is what is readily available that countries should be judged

Belgium undisputed #1 for sure.

Any restaurant/cafe there has an extensive beer list of amazing beers.

By England you mean Britain right ? A Welsh brewery from Newport (Tiny Rebel) has won multiple national awards of the past couple of years.

Anyway, Amsterdam is your one for European and American beers with Bristol a close second. I’m sure I’ll change my opinion after spending Christmas in Brussels though..

munkian wrote:

Sin é wrote:

munkian wrote:The most ironic post I saw was an Irish lad saying French beer is Poopie and expensive ...

I don't think 'self aware' is a thing for some people.

France has a lot of things going for it (food and wine for example). I don't think its particularly highly regarded for its beer though. That would be more the forte of the Germans, Dutch, Danes & Irish.

Irish ? Well, you have, um.. Guinness ? And your main beer is Heineken ?

Guinness is one of the most successful and top brands in the world. Other top brands are Carlsberg & Heineken. My point remains that France does not have any tradition of brewing beer (good or bad). Its better known for its wines.

Sin é wrote:

Scotland were only after the money - and the Welsh vote for SA because they had a representative  on the evaluation board that produced a very flawed report and who got a right kicking for it.

Fairplay to the RFU for recognising that the process was flawed and making their own minds up. We know who has our back now.

This was a democratic vote for hosting of the world cup. Not a talent contest where people are voting for their offspring.

"We know who has our back?"

What a completely puerile, base level of thinking. Some of the Irish fans response to this has been utterly embarrassing, including the chief exec for putting out that press release about the scots and welsh. You didn't have the strongest bid. You're not the best at everything. You won't be hosting the world cup. Learn to live with these facts for goodness sake.

munkian wrote:I’m sure I’ll change my opinion after spending Christmas in Brussels though..

100%. Watch the strength though.

Majestic83 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Should have got your stadiums sorted, better infrastructure & planned to generate more revenue then you might have got scotlands vote instead of ireland trying to get the sentimental vote.
Correct decision made in giving it to France!

So Ireland have one stadium to redevelop in 6 years and that's a problem, France have put forward a list of stadiums they don't have permission to use but that's the correct decision?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Scotland were only after the money - and the Welsh vote for SA because they had a representative  on the evaluation board that produced a very flawed report and who got a right kicking for it.

Fairplay to the RFU for recognising that the process was flawed and making their own minds up. We know who has our back now.

This was a democratic vote for hosting of the world cup. Not a talent contest where people are voting for their offspring.

"We know who has our back?"

What a completely puerile, base level of thinking. Some of the Irish fans response to this has been utterly embarrassing, including the chief exec for putting out that press release about the scots and welsh. You didn't have the strongest bid. You're not the best at everything. You won't be hosting the world cup. Learn to live with these facts for goodness sake.

The only measure for the Scots was money and standing by the Welsh involvement in the flawed report - thats some level of base level thinking.

edit: and by the way, one man one vote would be democratic (or each Union have just one vote). Its not democratic at the moment.

Scottrf wrote:We shall see if you have as long a memory about the way England voted...

I have a long memory about everything Scott.... and it's a quality I like.

It's all just a power jostle in the end....someone does something for you one day, they expect you to remember it down the line. If someone does something against you another day, they hope that you quickly forgive and forget. That's the way the world turns.

Sin é wrote:

The only measure for the Scots was money and standing by the Welsh involvement in the flawed report - thats some level of base level thinking.

.

Can you explain why these motives are misplaced. And instead the 2 Unions mentioned should have voted for an inferior bid ?