2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554650" data-time="1453936238">
<div>
Why are you saying two cities and a bunch of towns when it's already been pointed out that that is not true?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ireland really only has one large city - Dublin. Belfast is a medium size city of just under half a million. Cork is the only other city with over 100,000, but it's a small city by anyone's standards - even New Zealand's. Beyond that, there are only 3 more municipalities with more than 75,000. Most countries would consider those 'towns.'
 
South Africa has four large cities of over a million (Jo'burg has more people than Ireland), and six more medium size cities of around 400,000 or over. It also has about a dozen additional small cities of over 100,000, and perhaps a dozen more large towns of between 75,000 and 100,000.

mariner4life

half of which live in poverty, with 20% living in extreme poverty.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="554666" data-time="1453937452">
<div>
The weather again? Is that it?
 
OK, we understand, you don't like it wet, I'm not surprised, but that's hardly a reason for this thread.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I was answering a question. I just answered another. If you want to see my wider views on the topic, go to the top of the thread and see my original post. In terms of my nationality and location, I'm a complete neutral on the topic. My preference is determined solely by what I regard as being in the best interests of rugby.

gt12

Checks avatar, leaves thread.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554669" data-time="1453938012">Ireland really only has one large city - Dublin. Belfast is a medium size city of just under half a million. Cork is the only other city with over 100,000, but it's a small city by anyone's standards - even New Zealand's. Beyond that, there are only 3 more municipalities with more than 75,000. Most countries would consider those 'towns.' 
 
South Africa has four large cities of over a million (Jo'burg has more people than Ireland), and six more medium size cities of around 400,000 or over. It also has about a dozen additional small cities of over 100,000, and perhaps a dozen more large towns of between 75,000 and 100,000. </blockquote>
 
So there are actually five cities in Ireland not two like you've been saying?

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554671" data-time="1453938266">
<div>
I was answering a question. I just answered another. If you want to see my wider views on the topic, go to the top of the thread and see my original post. In terms of my nationality and location, I'm a complete neutral on the topic. My preference is determined solely by what I regard as being in the best interests of rugby.
</div>
</blockquote>
I understand that but your points of 'debate' are weak and have been pointed out by most.
 
There isn't anything in this thread from your username to show in any way that the interests of rugby would be bettered by having the 2023 WC in SA with 24 teams. The worst part is your logic and sustinence to carry this on is only padded by 'the weather is better there' argument

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554670" data-time="1453938263">
<div>
half of which live in poverty, with 20% living in extreme poverty. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Sadly true. But the other half still dwarfs Ireland. & a World Cup might also help the cause. The 2015 tournament is thought to have injected 2 billion pounds into the British economy - exceeding the expense of staging it manifold. The comment has often been made that it's a shame major events like this are invariably held in wealthy countries, when they could do so much to help boost the economies of poorer countries,

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554673" data-time="1453938401">
<div>
So there are actually five cities in Ireland not two like you've been saying?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What is this - a police investigation?
 
It depends on your perspective, actually. Different countries have different standards. Pretty sure only Dublin and Belfast would be regarded as cities States side. In New Zealand I think anything over 20,000 is considered a city.

taniwharugby

I'd of thought Ireland would get more non-Irish people travel to watch games in Ireland than SA would get non-SA people travelling to SA.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554677" data-time="1453938754">Sadly true. But the other half still dwarfs Ireland. & a World Cup might also help the cause. The 2015 tournament is thought to have injected 2 billion pounds into the British economy - exceeding the expense of staging it manifold. The comment has often been made that it's a shame major events like this are invariably held in wealthy countries, when they could do so much to help boost the economies of poorer countries,</blockquote>
 
Two billion pounds? Can you give me a link to that? I had no idea the rwc was so lucrative.

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="554679" data-time="1453939195">
<div>
I'd of thought Ireland would get more non-Irish people travel to watch games than SA would get non-SA people travelling.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'd say it would too.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554678" data-time="1453939091">What is this - a police investigation? 
 
It depends on your perspective, actually. Different countries have different standards. Pretty sure only Dublin and Belfast would be regarded as cities States side. In New Zealand I think anything over 20,000 is considered a city.</blockquote>
 
Ignoring the silly comment about a police investigation your perspective is irrevelant . Ireland has five cities , claiming otherwise makes you look foolish and dishonest .

mikedogz

South Africa have Bidded for rights for 2011, 2015 and 2019 and have failed each time. There must be something they are doing wrong. 
 
I think that it should go to a completeley new country of significant size. I say North America, USA/Canada combined or USA alone.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup_hosts'>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_World_Cup_hosts</a>
 
Current criteria
The International Rugby Board requires for a country to host a Rugby World Cup, it must possess the necessary facilities. Stadiums must have a capacity at least 15,000, with the stadium for the final having a capacity of at least 60,000.[1] The stadiums have other requirements, such as pitch size and floodlighting.[2]
 
World Rugby also looks for hosts that will either generate significant revenue or hosts that will spread the geographic reach of the sport. According to World Rugby Chairman Bernard Lapasset in 2008: "As the revenue generation is vital to our ongoing development plans, we recognise that the World Cup has to be held in one of our senior core markets on a regular basis . . . However, the commercial success of the tournament also means we can now consider placing the tournament in new developing markets to assist the game's strategic growth."[3]

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="554679" data-time="1453939195">I'd of thought Ireland would get more non-Irish people travel to watch games in Ireland than SA would get non-SA people travelling to SA.</blockquote>
 
I would agree with that, people from the uk and the rest of Europe not to mention expats from the sh. I doubt SA has large communities of expats to draw on for games not involving the boks.

Smudge

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554645" data-time="1453935817">
<div>
I've got it, the only logical choice is...
 
 
...Russia. First, it's a big country. And it has lots of people. And they have football stadiums. And it's ticks the "grow the game" box. And Russia would be one of the 4 new shit teams.
 
As an added benefit they would pay heaps of money to the IRB delegates, and their team would be alright thanks to state sanctioned doping.
 
 
Of course, not a great tournament for the gays. Or the darker skinned players. But the country is really big. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
And the ABs could be based in Vladivostok, thus reducing the impact of the timezones! And we'd get good viewing times.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554682" data-time="1453939356">
<div>
Ignoring the silly comment about a police investigation your perspective is irrevelant . Ireland has five cities , claiming otherwise makes you look foolish and dishonest .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's probably your silliest post yet. The criteria varies from country to country, and I've lived in many different countries. Where I am now, only Dublin and Belfast would meet the criteria. So that's my perspective, and my perspective is as relevant as anyone else's.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554677" data-time="1453938754">
<div>
Sadly true. But the other half still dwarfs Ireland. & a World Cup might also help the cause. The 2015 tournament is thought to have injected 2 billion pounds into the British economy - exceeding the expense of staging it manifold. The comment has often been made that it's a shame major events like this are invariably held in wealthy countries, when they could do so much to help boost the economies of poorer countries,
</div>
</blockquote>
and that comment is highly debatable, given the real economic impact on a developing economy is often very difficult to establish. The infrastructure required to hold these major events is often far in excess of the on-going requirements of a country, and may facilities go under-used in the future. Public money is diverted from other services to pay for required stadia and transport that may not have been required without the event ever being hosted. Unused stadia need to be maintained whether they are used or not, and that costs money. Public money, which developing economies do not usually have.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554680" data-time="1453939241">
<div>
Two billion pounds? Can you give me a link to that? I had no idea the rwc was so lucrative.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
<div> </div>
<div>
 
"There has been a Â£1â€‰billion direct cash injection into the UK economy, a boost of Â£2.5â€‰billion when taking into account knock-on effects and the retail sales rise of 1.9 per cent last month." <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11964535/Englands-Rugby-World-Cup-billion-pound-extravaganza-is-the-biggest-and-the-best-says-World-Rugby.html'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11964535/Englands-Rugby-World-Cup-billion-pound-extravaganza-is-the-biggest-and-the-best-says-World-Rugby.html</a>
</div>

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554688" data-time="1453939967">
<div>
and that comment is highly debatable, given the real economic impact on a developing economy is often very difficult to establish. The infrastructure required to hold these major events is often far in excess of the on-going requirements of a country, and may facilities go under-used in the future. Public money is diverted from other services to pay for required stadia and transport that may not have been required without the event ever being hosted. Unused stadia need to be maintained whether they are used or not, and that costs money. Public money, which developing economies do not usually have. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But it is Ireland which would have to do all the redeveloping, given they'd be relying on a bunch of creaky old Gaelic football and soccer stadiums. South Africa's vast array of stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, so the work has already been done. Very fortuitous, I'd say, provided rugby decides to take advantage.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554687" data-time="1453939962">That's probably your silliest post yet. The criteria varies from country to country, and I've lived in many different countries. Where I am now, only Dublin and Belfast would meet the criteria. So that's my perspective, and my perspective is as relevant as anyone else's.</blockquote>
 
You're wrong , your opinion is irrelevant . Under Ireland's rules they have five cities , it doesn't matter what qualifies as a city anywhere else in the world . If this is the best you can do to support your case for SA I think you need to go back to the drawing board, so far your argument has been underwhelming to say the least and you've had to resort to distorting the truth in an attempt to score a fairly meaningless point.

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa