RugbyRebels

Adder wrote:

rowan wrote:How small is Ireland?

It is smaller than Cuba
It is smaller than Iceland
It is smaller than New Zealand's North Island and barely half the size of the South Island
It is less than half the size of Orange Free State and less than a third the size of Transvaal
It is less than a tenth the size of Namibia
Texas is nine times bigger than Ireland
You could fit 202 Irelands in Russia.

Comparing Ireland's 4.5 M population to Iceland's 300 000?

No, it's geography. Combined Ireland has a little over 6 million - way up there with El Salvador, Nicaragua and Lebanon, and a little ahead of Singapore.

Adder wrote:

rowan wrote:How small is Ireland?

It is smaller than Cuba
It is smaller than Iceland
It is smaller than New Zealand's North Island and barely half the size of the South Island
It is less than half the size of Orange Free State and less than a third the size of Transvaal
It is less than a tenth the size of Namibia
Texas is nine times bigger than Ireland
You could fit 202 Irelands in Russia.

Comparing Ireland's 4.5 M population to Iceland's 300 000?

He's (even more bizarrely) talking land mass. maybe he thinks we couldn't physically fit the extra people onto the island.

As for Ireland's infrastructure, I'd say it'sthe equal of NZ who had a perfectly successful and immensely enjoyable RWC, despite Christchurch being an earthquake hit shell.

Latest from World Rugby - the 3 remaining candidates have all met the key criteria, which includes government support. http://www.worldrugby.org/news/195278

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Adder wrote:

rowan wrote:How small is Ireland?

It is smaller than Cuba
It is smaller than Iceland
It is smaller than New Zealand's North Island and barely half the size of the South Island
It is less than half the size of Orange Free State and less than a third the size of Transvaal
It is less than a tenth the size of Namibia
Texas is nine times bigger than Ireland
You could fit 202 Irelands in Russia.

Comparing Ireland's 4.5 M population to Iceland's 300 000?

He's (even more bizarrely) talking land mass. maybe he thinks we couldn't physically fit the extra people onto the island.

As for Ireland's infrastructure, I'd say it'sthe equal of NZ who had a perfectly successful and immensely enjoyable RWC, despite Christchurch being an earthquake hit shell.

I would just point out that NZ is not just next to 5 other strong Rugby Federations and will be getting quite a bit more visitors. I do understand that there will see a lot more weekend trips, but there will still be quite a lot of touring. Maybe time will prove me wrong but it will most certainly be a challenge.

Adder wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Adder wrote:

Comparing Ireland's 4.5 M population to Iceland's 300 000?

He's (even more bizarrely) talking land mass. maybe he thinks we couldn't physically fit the extra people onto the island.

As for Ireland's infrastructure, I'd say it'sthe equal of NZ who had a perfectly successful and immensely enjoyable RWC, despite Christchurch being an earthquake hit shell.

I would just point out that NZ is not just next to 5 other strong Rugby Federations and will be getting quite a bit more visitors. I do understand that there will see a lot more weekend trips, but there will still be quite a lot of touring. Maybe time will prove me wrong but it will most certainly be a challenge.

There will be a lot of touring but also a lot of touring to take in Wales, Scotland and possibly even England! Unlike NZ everyone won't need to be in country at once. In the unlikely event that Ireland couldn't cope there is the pressure valve of people being able to book a trip to London and fly in and out with no real issues. As I said in the other thread, I suspect that the slack will be taken up (as it was in NZ) with camper vans, camping and a lot of B&Bs. The Irish as a nation will certainly be happy to open their doors and their barns and their fields to (fee-paying) strangers.

Oh and 12 Michelin starred restaurants to zip in South Africa.

There will be a lot of touring but also a lot of touring to take in Wales, Scotland and possibly even England

& the Brits will have waited all of eight years, once again, for what has basically become the octennial staging of the event in the north-west corner of Europe, while Africa will have been forced to wait more than 3 decades, an entire generation, if it fails for a 4th time in succession and is not awarded RWCX. In other words, British fans in their mid-30s or older might conceivably be able to attend a World Cup in their own back yard for a 5th time, while South Africans, the second biggest rugby-playing community in the world, will have only had the opportunity to see one - and that way back in the amateur era already more than 20 years ago. So much for rotating the tournament and spreading the gospel

So Argentina's interest in 2027 is official then. That will only happen if 2023 goes to Europe, I suspect. World Rugby will not send the tournament to the SH twice in a row. http://sobserver.ws/en/05_10_2016/rugby ... n-2027.htm

I think you're all missing the point. As usual, Rowan has a preset, fixed bias against certain countries and will come up with any spurious argument he can think of why they should not host a RWC.

I'm all for Ireland hosting it. I don't want to end up in an ice bath with my kidneys for sale in the international human organ market.

Stones of granite wrote:I think you're all missing the point. As usual, Rowan has a preset, fixed bias against certain countries and will come up with any spurious argument he can think of why they should not host a RWC.

I'm all for Ireland hosting it. I don't want to end up in an ice bath with my kidneys for sale in the international human organ market.

I know that the French are big into their offal, but I don't thinkthey'd go that far.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:I think you're all missing the point. As usual, Rowan has a preset, fixed bias against certain countries and will come up with any spurious argument he can think of why they should not host a RWC.

I'm all for Ireland hosting it. I don't want to end up in an ice bath with my kidneys for sale in the international human organ market.

I know that the French are big into their offal, but I don't thinkthey'd go that far.

Never had a night out in Marseille?

So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

Wonder "out loud", Rowan.

Nobody here, perhaps other than you, is showing blind opposition to any of the countries left wishing to stage the event.

OptimisticJock wrote:

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

Wonder "out loud", Rowan.

Nobody here, perhaps other than you, is showing blind opposition to any of the countries left wishing to stage the event.

So quote me one comment from anyone here other than myself in support of the African bid.

rowan wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

Wonder "out loud", Rowan.

Nobody here, perhaps other than you, is showing blind opposition to any of the countries left wishing to stage the event.

So quote me one comment from anyone here other than myself in support of the African bid.

get tae fuck. Do you want a minute to think about that?

Well, there's an old saying about glass houses, so let's just keep the blows above the belt in future, shall we, gentlemen...

What's below the belt?

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

I don't think anyone on here has shown any evidence of despising Africans. Its more a case of arguing for a country which hasn't hosted it yet, and a major country at that. There have been a number of RWCs in Europe, but frankly there are a lot of rugby supporters in Europe including the 2 richest unions. Thus European RWCs are a cash cow for the game. Reaching out to new areas are a great incentive, but not for every tournament. Equally, South Africa has had a RWC. Why should they get a second before others have had a chance?

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

I don't think anyone on here has shown any evidence of despising Africans. Its more a case of arguing for a country which hasn't hosted it yet, and a major country at that. There have been a number of RWCs in Europe, but frankly there are a lot of rugby supporters in Europe including the 2 richest unions. Thus European RWCs are a cash cow for the game. Reaching out to new areas are a great incentive, but not for every tournament. Equally, South Africa has had a RWC. Why should they get a second before others have had a chance?

I don't think anyone on here has shown any evidence of despising the Irish. Its more a case of arguing for a continent which hasn't hosted it since the amateur era, and a major country at that. There has been one RWC in Africa, but frankly there are a lot of rugby supporters in Afrca including the second biggest playing community in the world (and second most successful). Maximum profitability is a great incentive, but not for every tournament. Equally, Ireland has co-hosted two RWCs and Europe has already hosted four. Why should Ireland get a third and Europe a fifth while the entire continent of Africa won't have had one for more than a generation?

JUSTICE 4 AFRICA.

All the other major unions have been involved in hosting or co-hosting at least twice. This is South Africa's fourth successive bid, and their lack of success is beginning to look a bit suspect given they did such a fantastic job in 95. New Zealand got 2011 in spite of screwing up in 2003 and being axed as co-host. So as a complete neutral on this, I'm going for the Africans.

At the end of the day I know perfectly well it doesn't always come down to what's right and fair, however. It has a lot more to do with the gentlemen's agreements and mutual back-scratching that goes on behind the scenes among the central committee members. I'm particularly concerned about the Argentina vote now, given they'll realise their only chance for 2027 is if the 2023 event is stage in Europe...

rowan wrote:So here we go, applying the shoot-the-messenger approach again. The only "fixed bias" I'm seeing is your guys' blind opposition to the possibility of Africa hosting the World Cup again. What is it that you despise so much about Africa and Africans, I wonder. In your view, is it only Europe and Europeans which are 'capable' of staging this event?

You don't have a "message" other than your bigotry against the anglophone world. You can't even put out a coherent argument, it always comes down to things like "country x has so much less of a population than country y" as if that made a difference to their ability to host a competition. Why just fucking hold it in China every 4 years - massive land mass, massive population, and political views slightly to the right of your own.

You don't have a "message" other than your bigotry against the African world. What exactly is this phobia based upon, I wonder? Why the mistrust and seething contempt? Perhaps you are merely a product of your culture.

This was an entertaining read.

I voted for Ireland. This is because it is easy for me to get......sorry, because I hate all Africans.

I think South Africa could really use a World Cup in the near future, to revitalize the unification process that appeared so strong in 1995 but which has since shown signs of considerable strain. World Rugby would be foolish to neglect it in this critial period of its development.

rowan wrote:You don't have a "message" other than your bigotry against the African world. What exactly is this phobia based upon, I wonder? Why the mistrust and seething contempt? Perhaps you are merely a product of your culture.

what a belter.