RugbyRebels

Yes, but Italy's list of stadia included one in Marseille last time they revealed it, and there is no reason to think that has changed. As the tournament would likely coincide with the Serie A, there is a very real chance it could actually be overshadowed by the parent code in such a football-mad nation. Rugby remains a relatively minor sport in Italy, with only a few real strongholds. So I think it would be prudent to send it back to a rugby heartland after Japan, and give Italy another four years to work on things. Remember, Japan first bid for 2011 but was forced to wait another 8 years.

rowan wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:Italy would get my vote. Close enough for all northern hemisphere fans that travelling isn't an issue, a decent number of home based fans, and good stadia and plenty of hotels and other infrastructure for fans. Time to spread the love.

The first point is Eurocentric, of course. Europeans get to see a World Cup in their own back yard every 8 years at present, while fans in the world's second biggest rugby-playing nation have to wait decades. & there are many rapidly developing rugby nations on the African continent. Just for example, Madagascar actually gets some of the biggest crowds outside of tier 1 for its major home-games, Kenya has emerged as a 7-a-side heavyweight, and Swaziland has one of the largest rugby communities per capita in the world.

This is a good point, and I think we can kill two birds with one stone here. What we need to do is find a way to tie RWCs hosted by major nations to development in expansion markets. Perhaps bids by a major nation should only be permitted if they can point to, say, 2 or 3 minor nations in their region with a realistic chance of qualifying (i.e in the top 25). That would give the major nations an incentive to develop the game in their back yard.

Under this system, let's see:
Japan could point to Hong Kong (23rd) and Korea (25th).
NZ/Aust can look at Fiji (10th), Tonga (13th) and Samoa (15th and heavily reliant on NZ born players).
The 6N can show the progress of Georgia (14th), Romania (17th), Russia (18th) and Spain (22nd).
Argentina has USA (16th), Canada (19th) and Uruguay (23rd) in its orbit.
And when South Africa pays more than lip service to the sport north of its border, I'm sure it could add to Namibia (20th). Given the interest in "transformation," and the interest in rugby in Africa Rowan points out, I'm surprised that SARU doesn't put more effort into developing rugby in Black Africa and seems perfectly happy with just supporting the Namibian Boer XV.

rowan wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:Italy would get my vote. Close enough for all northern hemisphere fans that travelling isn't an issue, a decent number of home based fans, and good stadia and plenty of hotels and other infrastructure for fans. Time to spread the love.

The first point is Eurocentric, of course. Europeans get to see a World Cup in their own back yard every 8 years at present, while fans in the world's second biggest rugby-playing nation have to wait decades. & there are many rapidly developing rugby nations on the African continent. Just for example, Madagascar actually gets some of the biggest crowds outside of tier 1 for its major home-games, Kenya has emerged as a 7-a-side heavyweight, and Swaziland has one of the largest rugby communities per capita in the world.

Europe is not an expansion market.

Italy is. Europe hasn't actually bid for the event. But wouldn't that be interesting some day in the future - the EU hosting a World Cup

it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money. The simple fact of the matter, is if you host a World Cup in Europe in any of the 6 Nations countries you are guaranteed good attendances. Hell, you could host it in Spain (at the right time of year) and fill stadia. I'm also massively in favour of bringing the World Cup away to new hosts. And new hosts that have a high probability of good returns should be top of the list. Italy has a massive advantage of being an attractive holiday destination with appropriate infrastructure (hotels, campsites, restaurants, etc) as well being drivable for many fans from the south of France.

The likes of Madagascar can probably fill a stadium charging $1 US entry. Can they fill a stadium with tickets costing $100 US? Do they even have more than one suitable venue?

Owain Glyndwr wrote:it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money.

What a bizarre statement.

And when South Africa pays more than lip service to the sport north of its border, I'm sure it could add to Namibia (20th). Given the interest in "transformation," and the interest in rugby in Africa Rowan points out, I'm surprised that SARU doesn't put more effort into developing rugby in Black Africa and seems perfectly happy with just supporting the Namibian Boer XV.


Namibia participates in South African provincial competition. Along with Zimbabwe, they also participate in South African schools competition at the annual Danie Craven Cup event. Ivory Coast and Kenya have also participated in South African provincial competition since the end of Apartheid. I believe Kenya were invited again this year but declined the offer. Meanwhile South African teams at all levels (including 7s) do go and play in these nations and many others. I believe the Bulls played a pre-season match in Zimbabwe just recently, in fact. So I don't think it is fair to say South Africa is neglected those nations north of its border at all. They surely do more for them than the Home Unions do for Europe or NZ & Australia do for their Pacific neighbors. They just don't play tests against them because the gulf is too great. I'd personally like to see the Boks play an annual test against neighbors Namibia, but I believe that idea was abandoned after they once put a century on them. South Africa's Juniors did play in the African Cup, but have since been withdrawn at the bequest of the organizers.

The likes of Madagascar can probably fill a stadium charging $1 US entry. Can they fill a stadium with tickets costing $100 US? Do they even have more than one suitable venue?

That wasn't the point. I wasn't suggesting the tournament be staged in Madagascar. I was pointing out that there is a good deal of interest in rugby on the continent outside of South Africa.

zer0 wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money.

What a bizarre statement.

It's a bit harsh, but the WC going to NZ was more than a bit of an issue when it came to raising funds. Had we not gone to NZ (now a two time host) the IRB wouldn't have been so keen perhaps to see the event return to England (now a two time host), so we'd have already been to Japan and we'd be looking at Italy or Argentina next up.

Digby wrote:

zer0 wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money.

What a bizarre statement.

It's a bit harsh, but the WC going to NZ was more than a bit of an issue when it came to raising funds. Had we not gone to NZ (now a two time host) the IRB wouldn't have been so keen perhaps to see the event return to England (now a two time host), so we'd have already been to Japan and we'd be looking at Italy or Argentina next up.

Can we put some figures on this? What was the NZ bond, as opposed to the French one?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

zer0 wrote:
What a bizarre statement.

It's a bit harsh, but the WC going to NZ was more than a bit of an issue when it came to raising funds. Had we not gone to NZ (now a two time host) the IRB wouldn't have been so keen perhaps to see the event return to England (now a two time host), so we'd have already been to Japan and we'd be looking at Italy or Argentina next up.

Can we put some figures on this? What was the NZ bond, as opposed to the French one?

I think they paid a similar amount, circa £50 million for each. But the IRB had been expecting to see the event go to Japan, and as they take everything bar the gate receipts they'd been expecting rather more in broadcast and sponsorship, in the event broadcasting and sponsorship like the tournament fee stayed pretty much the same . Because they didn't take nearly as much as hopeed from the 2011 cup they hiked the fee to host by 60% or so.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
It's a bit harsh, but the WC going to NZ was more than a bit of an issue when it came to raising funds. Had we not gone to NZ (now a two time host) the IRB wouldn't have been so keen perhaps to see the event return to England (now a two time host), so we'd have already been to Japan and we'd be looking at Italy or Argentina next up.

Can we put some figures on this? What was the NZ bond, as opposed to the French one?

I think they paid a similar amount, circa £50 million for each. But the IRB had been expecting to see the event go to Japan, and as they take everything bar the gate receipts they'd been expecting rather more in broadcast and sponsorship, in the event broadcasting and sponsorship like the tournament fee stayed pretty much the same . Because they didn't take nearly as much as hopeed from the 2011 cup they hiked the fee to host by 60% or so.

It's not a fee, and they can't really have expected an increase from France. I was entirely comfortable with NZ getting the opportunity to be sole hosts for the first time and it seems to me that before we worry too much about expansion, giving those major rugby powers who are able the opportunity to act as sole (or main) hosts is sensible and some reward to those who are largely responsible for getting the game to the position where other countries might like to host.

I entirely agree that any Italian or Argentinian bid will be very strong indeed and were Ireland to lose to them I don' think anyone could possibly grumble.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's not a fee, and they can't really have expected an increase from France. I was entirely comfortable with NZ getting the opportunity to be sole hosts for the first time and it seems to me that before we worry too much about expansion, giving those major rugby powers who are able the opportunity to act as sole (or main) hosts is sensible and some reward to those who are largely responsible for getting the game to the position where other countries might like to host.

I entirely agree that any Italian or Argentinian bid will be very strong indeed and were Ireland to lose to them I don' think anyone could possibly grumble.

The fee/bond payable has typically increased at each event in turn, bar from France to NZ. And I could sort of live happily enough with NZ still getting to host, but when NZ then turned around and demanded a much bigger payment from RWC proceeds having being so responsible for the shortfall I lost any sympathy I may have had for them hosting the event and delaying its arrival somewhere more interesting.

I'm not interested in rewarding anyone, but just looking for some combination of spreading the game whilst raising money, and not letting the same nation host on repeat basis.

zer0 wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money.

What a bizarre statement.

Empty as fuck.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's not a fee, and they can't really have expected an increase from France. I was entirely comfortable with NZ getting the opportunity to be sole hosts for the first time and it seems to me that before we worry too much about expansion, giving those major rugby powers who are able the opportunity to act as sole (or main) hosts is sensible and some reward to those who are largely responsible for getting the game to the position where other countries might like to host.

I entirely agree that any Italian or Argentinian bid will be very strong indeed and were Ireland to lose to them I don' think anyone could possibly grumble.

The fee/bond payable has typically increased at each event in turn, bar from France to NZ. And I could sort of live happily enough with NZ still getting to host, but when NZ then turned around and demanded a much bigger payment from RWC proceeds having being so responsible for the shortfall I lost any sympathy I may have had for them hosting the event and delaying its arrival somewhere more interesting.

I'm not interested in rewarding anyone, but just looking for some combination of spreading the game whilst raising money, and not letting the same nation host on repeat basis.

I'd agree with that last sentence and say that what i'm looking also looking for is the best RWC possible within that framework. I don't consider Ireland with its mere 12 previous games to truly have hosted a RWC before.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:I'd agree with that last sentence and say that what i'm looking also looking for is the best RWC possible within that framework. I don't consider Ireland with its mere 12 previous games to truly have hosted a RWC before.

I don't consider Ireland to have hosted the event before either. But rugby is pretty well established there, and there'd seem to be much easier gains in countries such as Italy and Argentina. The not allowing people to host twice was more about the event shouldn't have returned so quickly to England (even when it was so well run, with some great rugby, generating a lot of money), and shouldn't go back to SA, France, Australia until we have looked at some new countries, even eventually Ireland who I may be less cross with at some point about foisting the NZ event on the world.

zer0 wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:it's not Eurocentric. It's Fan-centric. If you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia or make money.

What a bizarre statement.

RWC 2011 average attendance a tad over 30,000.

RWC 2015 average attendance a tad over 51,000.

Cool. Now explain how those figures relate to the statement "if you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia". I'm curious to see the rationale.

zer0 wrote:Cool. Now explain how those figures relate to the statement "if you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia". I'm curious to see the rationale.

The rationale is that NZ, however rugby crazy they are, aren't going draw crowds large enough to turn a decent profit. There simply isn't the population and it's too far for large numbers of fans to travel. Ok maybe 30k would fill a small stadium but they'd rattle around in Twickenham. Even Eden Park is only 60k cappa. Every first tier nation in Europe has access to a 70+k stadium and the crowds to fill them for more than just the headline matches.

I agree that the home nations shouldn't host again for a few turns and its high time new hosts were given a chance. Italy ticks all the boxes for me. And after Italy, mabe the Americas.

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

zer0 wrote:Cool. Now explain how those figures relate to the statement "if you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia". I'm curious to see the rationale.

The rationale is that NZ, however rugby crazy they are, aren't going draw crowds large enough to turn a decent profit. There simply isn't the population and it's too far for large numbers of fans to travel. Ok maybe 30k would fill a small stadium but they'd rattle around in Twickenham. Even Eden Park is only 60k cappa. Every first tier nation in Europe has access to a 70+k stadium and the crowds to fill them for more than just the headline matches.

I agree that the home nations shouldn't host again for a few turns and its high time new hosts were given a chance. Italy ticks all the boxes for me. And after Italy, mabe the Americas.

Yeah. You didn't go did you? It wasn't short of large numbers of people travelling to NZ. And as for not turning a decent profi, you clearly don't understand how it works or any of the figures.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Owain Glyndwr wrote:

zer0 wrote:Cool. Now explain how those figures relate to the statement "if you play a World Cup in an isolated backwater like New Zealand, you're never going to fill stadia". I'm curious to see the rationale.

The rationale is that NZ, however rugby crazy they are, aren't going draw crowds large enough to turn a decent profit. There simply isn't the population and it's too far for large numbers of fans to travel. Ok maybe 30k would fill a small stadium but they'd rattle around in Twickenham. Even Eden Park is only 60k cappa. Every first tier nation in Europe has access to a 70+k stadium and the crowds to fill them for more than just the headline matches.

I agree that the home nations shouldn't host again for a few turns and its high time new hosts were given a chance. Italy ticks all the boxes for me. And after Italy, mabe the Americas.

Yeah. You didn't go did you? It wasn't short of large numbers of people travelling to NZ. And as for not turning a decent profi, you clearly don't understand how it works or any of the figures.

I don't think Owain likes to leave his village.

I think I could become just as passionate about a 2027 World Cup in Italy or Italy/France as I am about a 2023 World Cup in SA. I've just been reading about plans to build a Lyon-Turin high-speed railway, which will really help tie southern France and northern Italy together.

Good to see Toetie get the Springboks job. Should've had it after Jake White retired, but better late than never.

cashead wrote:Yes, because the RWC has been held only in the UK and France, every 4 years since 1987. Who can forget The Iceman Michael Jones scoring the first ever Rugby World Cup try against Italy at the Parc des Princes, or John Kirwan's epic run at the same ground? Or France pulling off the first of their almost customary RWC upsets by dumping out pre-tournament favourites Australa in their semifinal fixture played at Cardiff Arms Park? Or Nelson Mandela walking out on to the Twickenham pitch to congratulate winning captain Francois Pienaar? Or Jannie de Beer spamming the English with drop goals at the Stade Ernest-Wallon, and Stephen Larkham's epic droppie in the semi-final between the Wallabies and Springboks at a packed Stade Velodrome? Or Wilkinson's extra-time drop goal a Twickenham to win it for England in 2003? Or Richie McCaw battling through the 2011 tournament one-legged, hiding out in his London hotel room and refusing to limp in public?

Wasn't the first try a penalty try?

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

cashead wrote:Yes, because the RWC has been held only in the UK and France, every 4 years since 1987. Who can forget The Iceman Michael Jones scoring the first ever Rugby World Cup try against Italy at the Parc des Princes, or John Kirwan's epic run at the same ground? Or France pulling off the first of their almost customary RWC upsets by dumping out pre-tournament favourites Australa in their semifinal fixture played at Cardiff Arms Park? Or Nelson Mandela walking out on to the Twickenham pitch to congratulate winning captain Francois Pienaar? Or Jannie de Beer spamming the English with drop goals at the Stade Ernest-Wallon, and Stephen Larkham's epic droppie in the semi-final between the Wallabies and Springboks at a packed Stade Velodrome? Or Wilkinson's extra-time drop goal a Twickenham to win it for England in 2003? Or Richie McCaw battling through the 2011 tournament one-legged, hiding out in his London hotel room and refusing to limp in public?

Wasn't the first try a penalty try?

True. Jones scored the first ever try by an actual human being in the tournament.

SA government has suspended a number of sports from bidding for international tournaments including rugby. Not sure how long that position will hold, it's apparently over a lack of transformation so it may depend when elections are. In any event it's going to make it much harder for SA to win support for their bid if they're even allowed to make a bid.

Digby wrote:SA government has suspended a number of sports from bidding for international tournaments including rugby. Not sure how long that position will hold, it's apparently over a lack of transformation so it may depend when elections are. In any event it's going to make it much harder for SA to win support for their bid if they're even allowed to make a bid.

They might like to focus on transforming the country rather than lining their own pockets, and then perhaps there will be transformation in sport.

Sadly i don't think elections will help. Having ramped up the rhetoric, I don't think there's much in the way of votes for saying that it might actually be an idea not to keep beating the sports over the head when you claim to want their help.

Hahahahahaha, rationalise and defend this shit, rowan.