D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders
-
@kruse said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
@billy-webb said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
****> **Against:
potential ANC interference
The economy, and price of hosting. A 120m fee. Will ticket prices have to be high to recoup this and subsequently limit or block introduction to poor demographic?What's odd, is that SA scored maximum points, meaning they went above-and-beyond requirements, for the criteria of confirming "the minimum Tournament Fee of
£120 million will be met and provides robust, tangible and enforceable Government Guarantee(s) for the Tournament Fee"
Wasn't it not long ago that the ANC were going to ban the SARU from even hosting any tournaments?Indeed they had made the threat. Although that had nothing to do with the capability of SARU to host the tournament. It was a threat directly related to the number of non-white players in Springbok, Super Rugby and Currie Cup teams. The threat was made (in a large part) at a time when the ANC needed a racially polarizing issue in the public domain to distract from other serious government issues. Seems the parties have moved on from that particular issue.
-
@billy-webb said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
@kruse said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
@billy-webb said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
****> **Against:
potential ANC interference
The economy, and price of hosting. A 120m fee. Will ticket prices have to be high to recoup this and subsequently limit or block introduction to poor demographic?What's odd, is that SA scored maximum points, meaning they went above-and-beyond requirements, for the criteria of confirming "the minimum Tournament Fee of
£120 million will be met and provides robust, tangible and enforceable Government Guarantee(s) for the Tournament Fee"
Wasn't it not long ago that the ANC were going to ban the SARU from even hosting any tournaments?Indeed they had made the threat. Although that had nothing to do with the capability of SARU to host the tournament. It was a threat directly related to the number of non-white players in Springbok, Super Rugby and Currie Cup teams. The threat was made (in a large part) at a time when the ANC needed a racially polarizing issue in the public domain to distract from other serious government issues. Seems the parties have moved on from that particular issue.
Yeah - I realised that the threat was based on the "Transformation" requirements.
Just seems a bit odd that apparently they've gone from that, to the opposite extreme of apparently having guaranteed the tournament fee, plus some (only way I can imagine they got a "4" ranking was either guaranteeing the fee plus a bonus, or paying it up front).
But then your comments about the general nature of the ANC... yeah, it does make a weird kinda sense when you take into account the ham-fisted nature of SA politics. Threats for a polarizing topic when that's needed, then guaranteeing a RWC for a feel-good story. -
English media commentators now saying it would be a scandal if the vote didn’t go the way of SA. Other media outlets regard the vote as a rubber stamping exercise. And Tew has come out and said that NZRU will be voting the recommendation. I reckon those are as good signs as any. Ireland and France should throw in the towel. Decorously.
-
@pot-hale I think it would be a scandal if the vote went against the recommendation as it would indicate a huge waste of money and a complete lack of forethought by World Rugby. Though neither of those things alone would be a surprise. But yeah, I think you're right that Ireland and France should consider the next RWC maybe. Shame for Ireland, less so for France.
-
Voting for the recommendation is reasonable - I couldn't fault anyone for doing that.
On the other hand, the final results are pretty close, so I couldn't fault anyone for ignoring the recommendation when casting a vote on the grounds that everyone will host a good event, so individual boards might weight criteria differently.
-
-
Holy shit I'm agreeing with Mark Reason
-
@canefan said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
Holy shit I'm agreeing with Mark Reason
In 2011 New Zealand were last in the recommendations and people still voted for us. Our best chance will probably be with Australia as a joint bid.
-
@hydro11 said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
@canefan said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
Holy shit I'm agreeing with Mark Reason
In 2011 New Zealand were last in the recommendations and people still voted for us. Our best chance will probably be with Australia as a joint bid.
I don't know why the IRB need to pay millions to an external firm to be advised who should get the RWC. If we are a global game it is not just the gate takings that matter it will be TV revenues that are key. Ireland would be a great place to have the cup. They have sufficient infrastructure to put the cup on, and it is a country that loves rugby and has a rich history in the sport and have never hosted a cup on their own. They should be given 2027 if they are not to receive the 2023 nod
-
I haven't read article above, don't play Reason roulette.
My opinion , I think the independent auditor method will get removed or downgraded in importance within 1 or 2 WC cycles.
There's nothing upsetting about SA getting the bid. But the tournament will never get to Argentina, Ireland, USA, Italy or even NZ if they stick strictly to this method. It won't last.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ireland win it next time, if they learn from mistakes and their politicians and GAA stay the course.
-
WR should work in 8-yr cycles where one of the "big" countries hosts the RWC to generate revenue, thereby allowing another country to host the tournament where commercial success is not the most important KPI. I would put NZ into the latter category now.
-
-
1st round: France 18, Ireland 8, South Africa 13 2nd round: France 24, South Africa 15 -
France suits me...but that is a savage blow for SA...not saying they deserved the RWC, because they probably didn't...but still.
Ireland would have been fun.
-
Congrats to France. Their diplomacy skills are still to the fore.
NZ, Aus, SA and the Pacific Islands should now stand braced for an influx of their players returning home as France restores their game to domestic players and turf all the foreigners out.
Well that’s what they said they would do.....
-
From the London Times:
France won the right to host the World Cup in 2023 today because they were the country with the biggest cheque book. France promised to share riches with the game’s leading nations that Ireland and South Africa simply could not match.
World Rugby was left humiliated here because it had fully endorsed South Africa as the best bid. Even when questioned over certain elements in its technical report, which graded South Africa top, followed by France and then Ireland, World Rugby insisted that South Africa had the best bid.
Nevertheless, at lunchtime today, the game was treated to the spectacle of Bernard Laporte, who led the French bid, being publicly congratulated by Bill Beaumont, the World Rugby chairman, whose technical review Laporte had publicly slated as “nonsense”, with “errors” and “incompetence”.
Ireland and South Africa were both distraught at their fate. However, today was a day when it was the money that spoke. The surplus the French had guaranteed World Rugby was £350 million. Compare that to the £162 million that England handed over after the 2015 World Cup, or the £270 million that Ireland and South Africa were offering for 2023 and the reasons behind this decision become clear.
The surplus is distributed between the nations, 55 per cent of it going to the 10 tier-one nations. Ireland were disappointed that Scotland didn’t stick with them in the voting room today, but Scotland were honest: they were following the money. They will be around £4 million better off now that France won the vote.
The vote required two rounds to go all the way through. Of the 39 votes, France won 18 in the first round, South Africa 13 and Ireland eight. Ireland were therefore knocked out of the race and in the second round, France won 24 votes to South Africa’s 15.
Money told so much in this game that even the two continental votes of the African confederation went against South Africa and towards France. It may have helped that Abdelaziz Bougia, who cast those African votes, lives in Paris.
The discord and disappointment from France’s rivals quickly erupted. As Brian O’Driscoll, an ambassador for the Ireland bid, said, the romance of taking the game to new territories does not look healthy.
He said: “You have got to spread the load and develop the game and you have got to look beyond the nations that have already hosted it.Jurie Roux, the chief executive of SA Rugby, gave a withering assessment of the last two weeks’ lobbying. He said: “World Rugby ran an exhaustive and transparent process for 15 months to identify the best host nation, only for the process to go entirely opaque for the past two weeks.”
Mark Alexander, the chair of the SA bid, said: “There were a set of rules, we abided by those rules up until today. The set of rules were broken during that process which we are upset about.”
The straight forward truth that we learned about rugby today was that money rules the game. If you want your World Cup to be a huge money-maker, then vote France, and that is what the delegates of the World Rugby council did.
If you want the bid that was decided to be the best technical bid, then vote South Africa - and not enough people did.
If you want the romance of taking the game to a new host nation, then vote Ireland – and not even Ireland’s Celtic cousins would do that. Wales voted for South Africa and Scotland followed the money and went straight to France.
World Rugby could have brought the World Cup to Ireland for a romantic story - instead they went for the money
This is a decision that is humiliating for the leadership of World Rugby – whose directive was to take the World Cup to South Africa. The decision, however, says more about the future of the game. The romance of taking the World Cup around the world? No thanks. We want the dollar.
Expand the game in new territories? Not this time. Rugby World Cup is going to Japan in 2019 and it may never go to another such an outpost again – not under these voting conditions.
Nations such as Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Argentina – they may now well wonder if they will ever get their opportunity. Ireland suggested after the vote today that maybe they shouldn’t have bid, and maybe they won’t bid again – not if it is big and profitable that is the prime factor dictates where the game is played.
Rugby today voted with its pockets. Not for the greater good of the future of the sport.
