D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders
-
I'm surprised.
My choice would have been:
Ireland
South Africa
FranceI thought the technocrats would recommend:
France
Ireland
South AfricaFor me Saffa is an ok choice on an emotional/ hunch level.
- Will be 28 year gap.
- Unsuccessfully bidded for the last 3.
- Potential boost to SARU, get some focus and positivity back in SA rugby.
- Potential to unite SA and spread game to black population.
- Incentive for ANZ to want Boks to actually be good.
On a practical level:
- Stadiums are already good, even able to leave out 3 to 4 FIFA 2010 stadiums.
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?
- No small venue included at all. Need 40k minimum even for minnow v minnow. (again, is the hosting fee too high, forcing costs to be limited and therefore number of venues reduced)
- No East London venue (where there is good following by coloured population? I think).
-
As others have said, having an independent process is a bit kak when you also plan to have a vote after. I don't know the ins and outs of the recent olympic hosting process but giving one to LA and announcing Paris as the next host seemed pretty orderly. The differences in scores weren't that high anyway...
-
-
@rapido said in D-Day looms for RWC 2023 bidders:
I'm surprised.
My choice would have been:
Ireland
South Africa
FranceI thought the technocrats would recommend:
France
Ireland
South AfricaFor me Saffa is an ok choice on an emotional/ hunch level.
- Will be 28 year gap.
- Unsuccessfully bidded for the last 3.
- Potential boost to SARU, get some focus and positivity back in SA rugby.
- Potential to unite SA and spread game to black population.
- Incentive for ANZ to want Boks to actually be good.
On a practical level:
- Stadiums are already good, even able to leave out 3 to 4 FIFA 2010 stadiums.
****> **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?
- No small venue included at all. Need 40k minimum even for minnow v minnow. (again, is the hosting fee too high, forcing costs to be limited and therefore number of venues reduced)
- No East London venue (where there is good following by coloured population? I think).******
If the FIFA WC in 2010 is anything to go by, I think even the minnow games would be well attended by the Saffer fans. The fans here tend to revel in the tournament as a whole so I don't expect a 40K seater to be a problem even for the so-called minnow games.
I also expect ticket prices would be on a par with what we saw in 2010, so pretty steep... and yet people made a plan.
As for political interference... if it is going to happen, it will happen to SA rugby irrespective of where the tournament is being held. But given that the infrastructure is already in place, it is likely to be limited to SA rugby only. Not the tournament. So no effect on other teams. -
@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? -
@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.
