D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders
-
Money talks and bullshit walks. Fourth time now that WorldRugby has kicked SARU in the balls. Wonder if they have the stamina to go for it in 2027? Or should they?
Question though is does any Southern Hemisphere nation have the capacity to increase on the so called £350 mil promised to WorldRugby by the frogs? I suspect WorldRugby is going to have to take a knock if they want to see the RWC in the Southern Hemisphere. So 3 RWC in the Nothern Hemisphere.
What irked me the most was that the CAR vote went to the Frogs, fucking useless pricks. Getting free boarding at SARU offices. Hope you get a fucking eviction notice, godam pricks.
-
Quick query:
@pot-hale said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
North America 2
Canada 1
USA 1Que?
-
-
-
@g-man said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
My opinion on the next RWC;
2027 it will be Australia...2031 it will be Ireland, Wales or England...in that order.
Best SA can hope for is for 2035...and then we'll have to compete with NZ.
Based on this result it's never going outside of France and England. Money. Money. Money.
NZ will never host another RWC. We can't compete $ wise.
I can't help feel that the world of rugby (as opposed to World Rugby) have missed a trick here.
I would love to see RWCs in places like Ireland, Italy, Argentina, Canada, and back to South Africa before they forget how to play the game.
But the money has won out.
Very disappointed.
-
-
@nepia said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
How is it that Canada, Romania, Georgia and the USA get their own votes but the PIs have to share a vote between three? That's just bollocks.
They have two votes between them - but they split them in the vote. Doesn't seem consistent though that some tier 2 unions have their own votes and others do not.
-
@nepia said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
How is it that Canada, Romania, Georgia and the USA get their own votes but the PIs have to share a vote between three? That's just bollocks.
Because those countries met the IRB's governance standards and could account for the millions of IRB grants that had headed their way.
Imagine giving more voting power to the heads of organisations that the IRB already know use rugby money to feather individual nests.
We'd be heading for 'Salt Lake City - Lord of the Rings' territory.
The first step to the PI's increasing their voting influence is to administer themselves better. With the SRU currently in a dispute with IRB, nothing much has changed in at least one of the 3 PI unions in the 3 years since the IRB shook up their voting structure and granted more votes to Tier 2 unions.
-
Latest News | World Rugby
The latest World Rugby news, including about the World Rankings, Tournaments, Player Welfare and the Laws of the Game
Subject to meeting dedicated governance criteria (outlined in the notes to editors below), Council voting rights expanded to include unions who have qualified for the previous two Rugby World Cups and additionally unions who have made a major contribution to the growth and development of the game.World Rugby Council composition and voting rights
The number and spread of nations and their voting rights will increase for unions which conform to dedicated requirements.
Member union voting rights on Council will operate as follows, with unions receiving one vote for each criteria that is met up to a maximum of three votes:
One vote and one representative: to member unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period.
One vote and one representative: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and who participate in the Six Nations or The Rugby Championship.
One vote: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and:
- have an annual audited average investment in rugby of £20 million over the last four years
- have bid to host major World Rugby events over last eight years or who are bidding for a World Rugby event in next four years
- have a sustainable women's programme with participation in the Women's Rugby World Cup or qualifiers in the past eight years
- have men's and women's sevens programmes – reflected by a minimum participation in regional competitions and or the World Rugby Sevens Series (men's and women's)
-
On the actual selection.
I'm not that surprised. A week or so ago, I tried to do an analysis of where I thought we could assume the votes would go.
While I could come up with some definites (which had France way out in Front), there were also so many unknowns that I didn't bother posting on here what I came up with.France has a lot of friends in the continental federations, and fair enough for the work that FIRA used to do when the IRB was just an 8 country club.
-
As for the process.
I expressed my reservations earlier before the report was produced about a consulting firm coming up with a recommendation that the council was then ‘expected’ to vote for. There is more to a world cup selection than bureaucratic box-ticking. I thought the report would recommend France.When the actual report came out, it seemed a bit weird how some of the criteria were rated anyway. So, I’m not fussed it wasn’t binding.
Moving forward: The report process should remain included. But is should change:
- Stay confidential until after the vote. Way too much press fuss was made of the ranking of the 3 bids. These were probably 3 of the best bids in IRB history. Who care if one has 78 points and another 73 according to some bureaucratic consulting criteria. They’re both still good.
- The report should not produce a recommendation. It should just rate bids in certain criteria for the representatives to read and consider. Probably shouldn’t even sum up the points.
- The report should weed out the spectacularly inappropriate (E.g. Qatar). Maybe have a weather and a % of un-built stadium criteria that is a no-go line.
The value of using independent consultants - as it should be just 1 or 2 consultants visiting and assessing the host bids. We don’t want 30 odd administrators, some of them obscure, visiting all 3 bidding nations over a 2-year period to admire the new bus stop outside a stadium before returning to their presidential hotel suite and being plied with hookers and cocaine. Reduce costs by having only to tempt the consultant …..
I don’t mind the horse trading between unions. I don’t mind that NZRU offered IRU an extra (revenue sharing) test in Dublin. I don’t mind that the 1999 RWC in Wales was farmed out over 5 countries with expected returned future favours. They are rugby decisions, not personal corruption. I don’t mind that the continental federations etc. want to vote for France if it means bugger future IRB dividends heading their way, these guys deserve a voice.
I think moving forward we should probably do this only every 8 years with 2 hosts decided at a time (like the 2015 & 2019 venue being decided at the same time). This will allow bidding unions to direct their efforts more realistically and probably see a ‘fairer’ geographic distribution of future tournaments.
-
NZ Rugby's $37m World Cup windfall as details of French deal emerge
The 10 tier-one countries are expected to share a record £192.5m (NZ$369.2m) payout from World Rugby because of the decision to stage the 2023 World Cup in France.
