RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:The whole Super Rugby competition has been turned into a mess by the inclusion of Japan. I suspect that had more to do with NZ & Australia than it did with SA.

Btw, 2022 Commonwealth Games going South Africa's way - just a year before the 10th Rugby World Cup. Seems they're not too concerned about the crime situation over there.

Any source for your claim that Aus and NZ were responsible for the Sunwolves? Given that the entire competition has been bastardized just so the SA can have (another) sub-par franchise, I suspect it is SA pulling the strings here.

And can you remind me who Durban was competing with to get the 2022 Commonwealth irrelevancy?

Any source for your claim that Aus and NZ were responsible for the Sunwolves? Given that the entire competition has been bastardized just so the SA can have (another) sub-par franchise, I suspect it is SA pulling the strings here.

No, as stated, it's just a guess based on the obvious economic and geographical factors. I think Australia have been the prime movers behind expansion all along, while SA's only concern has been to get its 6th franchise. Not sure where NZ stands, but they are limited by their small economy and may have been the first to welcome Japanese involvement for that reason.

Re the C/Wealth Games, I believe the competition dropped out at various stages in the bidding process, thereby gifting the event to Durban. My point wasn't that this somehow made South Africa a superior host nation for major events to anyone else; only that if the rhythmic gymnasts, badminton players, lawn bowlers & volleyballers are preared to go there (among thousands of athletes representin 50 nations), I don't see why the rugby fraternity should stay at home quaking in its boots...

rowan wrote:We're just a bunch of guys discussing rugby on a forum and sometimes we will adjust our views.

Would seem you're new to t'interweb.

And I'd be taking a WC to the Americas, North and South, before looking for a return to Africa. Broadly I'd take the new two events after Japan to Italy and Argentina.

Why a Kieth Quinn avatar? I mean, why not Grant Nisbett.

And I'd be taking a WC to the Americas, North and South, before looking for a return to Africa. Broadly I'd take the new two events after Japan to Italy and Argentina.


Why?

rowan wrote:And I'd be taking a WC to the Americas, North and South, before looking for a return to Africa. Broadly I'd take the new two events after Japan to Italy and Argentina.


Why?

Seems a decent balance of raising finance, developing the game, facilities, and quality holiday destinations. Also I'm still in a bad mood with Ireland over sending the 2011 event to NZ, and I'm not interested in anyone getting to host again when some decent options haven't done it a first time.

I agree with you to some extent, but given Ireland has co-hosted twice before, Italy is actually the only hosting virgin among the 2023 candidates. I'm all for new hosts, and I'm all for Italy, but I think 2027 would be much more appropriate. Two expansion markets in succession seems a tad risky (Japan already had problems with its Olympic Stadium and SA was put on standby). Italy could also use the extra 4 years to get up to speed, while Western Europe shouldn't be hosting every 2nd edition of what is supposedly a 'world game.' South Africa is a rugby heartland with the biggest rugby playing community in the world behind England. It has bid 4 times since hosting a magnificent tournament in 1995, and it will not receive yet another rejection too warmly when the other former champions have all been involved in hosting the event at least twice. Plus the African continent is one of the fastest developing regions in inernational rugby. So let them have their long overdue second turn in 2023, I say, and give Italy another 4 years to be fully ready for 2027. It's not so far away, after all.

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.

rowan wrote:I agree with you to some extent, but given Ireland has co-hosted twice before, Italy is actually the only hosting virgin among the 2023 candidates. I'm all for new hosts, and I'm all for Italy, but I think 2027 would be much more appropriate. Two expansion markets in succession seems a tad risky (Japan already had problems with its Olympic Stadium and SA was put on standby). Italy could also use the extra 4 years to get up to speed, while Western Europe shouldn't be hosting every 2nd edition of what is supposedly a 'world game.' South Africa is a rugby heartland with the biggest rugby playing community in the world behind England. It has bid 4 times since hosting a magnificent tournament in 1995, and it will not receive yet another rejection too warmly when the other former champions have all been involved in hosting the event at least twice. Plus the African continent is one of the fastest developing regions in inernational rugby. So let them have their long overdue second turn in 2023, I say, and give Italy another 4 years to be fully ready for 2027. It's not so far away, after all.

As you keep saying, Europe is not an expansion market.

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

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.

So Italy is both an expansion market AND a profit-making host. What's not to like?

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.

I'd be in favour of that - a RWC in Italy would take it away from a traditional nation again and would do wonders for the development of the game in the country. I think whether it stands a chance will depend on the success of the Sunwolves - if fans flock to them and they get a couple of results, then I think the IRB will feel happier about Japan 2019 to be willing to take another risk for 2023. If they play in front of a man and his dog, I think they'll run for a safe otion.

I think the one thing that we can all agree on is that no-one thinks France should host it.

Puja

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.

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.