RugbyRebels

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.

SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux has already responded to the Sports Minister's saction, stating his organization were confident the suspension would be lifted at the next reporting of the EPG. I think you will find that this was nothing more than a kick in the pants at a crucial time; just like last year's threat to prevent the Sprinbgoks travelling to England.

Remember this:

"South Africa, one of the favourites for the World Cup, will be prevented from taking part in the tournament if a court action this week succeeds. The Agency for New Agenda (ANA) party is taking the South African Rugby Union to court in Pretoria seeking an order that would force players and officials to surrender their passports, preventing them from flying to London on the grounds that the government’s policy on transformation has not been met with the Springboks’ squad, which was announced last Friday, being mainly white."

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/a ... ugby-union

Standard practice, just like the strikes which have preceded major sporting events in SA, England, Greece and so on, and just like the political protests which preceded others in Spain, Russia, Brazil and so on. But none of them ever stopped the tournament going ahead in its intended destination. So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the current situation in South Africa either. They've got some issues to resolve, and likely this is a well-timed move and nothing more.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

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.

Be fair, Zuma's mansion has transformed beyond recognition.

rowan wrote: So I wouldn't be making any assumptions about the current situation in South Africa either. They've got some issues to resolve, and likely this is a well-timed move and nothing more.

Any sporting governing body will want support from the government or likely government of a (possible) hosting country to be manifest. So this is almost certainly more and represents a serious blow to any possible bid, it's most certainly not a well-timed move unless one were of a mind to think Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' speech well-timed

Well-timed in terms of giving the SARFU a kick up the backside just when they'll need to respond smartly - as they did before last year's World Cup (threatening to pull the Boks out)

You'll see. Next month they'll all kiss & make up and by June everyone will have forgotten.

South Africa will host the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

rowan wrote:You'll see. Next month they'll all kiss & make up and by June everyone will have forgotten.

South Africa will host the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

Perhaps, it would be one of those just when you think the artists formerly known as the IRB couldn't do anything to lower one's view of them moments.

Anyone with an even slightly functional memory should be able to recall that the South African government pulls these kinds of stunts before about every major event and development - last year's World Cup included.

Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

rowan wrote:Might be a problem for Ireland:

The threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain has gone up from moderate to substantial.
It means an attack in England, Scotland or Wales is "a strong possibility".
Home Secretary Theresa May said the level, set by security service MI5, "reflects the continuing threat from dissident republican activity".
The level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains severe, meaning an attack is "highly likely".
Despite the increase in the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Great Britain, it remains lower than the threat to the entire UK from international terrorism.
This is set at severe - the second-highest of the five ratings used.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36267052

What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

rowan wrote:What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

Given you clearly don't understand what has happened, I'm not remotely surprised you don't understand the comment.

rowan wrote:What that the risk of terrorism in somewhere other than Ireland is mainly not from Irish terrorism? I don't see how, unless they are terminally thick.

Does anybody understand this comment?

Here's the Klingon translation if that helps but I'm still none the wiser.

nuq 'e' 'oHbe' bISuDqu' 'e' terrorism pa' vogh latlh puS ireland rewbe'mey'e' vo' irish terrorism? Qo' vIlegh, ghaH'e' SoHbe'chugh chaH terminally jeD.

I don't think anything has happened, has it? & these terrorist threats are not usually too reliable. But if things do kick off betwen Ireland and Britain again, that could be a problem.

Isn't the problem between part of Britain and the other part of Britain?