English rugby opts to go it alone in bid to stage 2015 World Cup

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

"We are quite a way down the road in terms of preparing a potential bid and the management board will make a decision next month. If we do go ahead, England would be the sole hosts, but we have held talks with the Welsh Rugby Union about staging some matches. "A host union makes its money solely through the sale of tickets. A maximum of 10 different stadia are permitted to be used and we would want to stage the tournament all over the country, which is why we would need to use soccer grounds. Wembley has to come into contention because it holds 10,000 more spectators than any other ground in England, but the final would be held at Twickenham."

Any government support would be in kind rather than financial. Italy and South Africa are set to bid when the IRB starts the tendering process in May and their governments have pledged to underwrite any losses, but broadcasters and sponsors are believed to prefer England.[/b]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/feb/1...cup-england-bid

So the article says they're going it alone yet Wales might be involved. How does they work that out?!! If Italy's government is guaranteeing to underwrite any losses, surely that's a better option than another tournament in the British Isles which doesn't have any possible losses underwritten by the government.

 

[getofmeland]

As much as I would like to see the World Cup in this Country, I think it would be better for smaller rugby nation

 

[An Tarbh]

I love the go it alone bit, but then matches at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff's new ground, the Liberty Stadium. To give it to New Zealand is bad enough but then to follow that up by giving it to England or South Africa would be madness.

In terms of broadcasters I fail to see what difference it makes whether it's in England, South Africa or Italy.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 19 2009, 11:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

In terms of broadcasters I fail to see what difference it makes whether it's in England, South Africa or Italy.[/b]

The only difference I can see is that ITV or the BBC wouldn't have to ship their equipment abroad if it was held in England - I can't see how it would make any difference to non-UK broadcasters. A tournament held in Italy or South Africa could still see all key matches held during prime time hours for TV companies (in the larger markets) given the similar timezones. That's Japan's one major disadvantage with the 2015 bid - I doubt the iRB will award two consecutive tournaments to an area of the globe where it would be disadvantageous for TV in Europe.

 

[getofmeland]

Doesn't the IRB do the standard broadcasting and then sells it off to BBC/ITV... so there is only one feed like that of the Masters and Olympics?

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (getofmeland @ Feb 19 2009, 12:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Doesn't the IRB do the standard broadcasting and then sells it off to BBC/ITV... so there is only one feed like that of the Masters and Olympics?[/b]

Now that you say it, I think you're right. Perhaps the broadcaster in question is UK based (I'm merely speculating).

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (getofmeland @ Feb 19 2009, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Doesn't the IRB do the standard broadcasting and then sells it off to BBC/ITV... so there is only one feed like that of the Masters and Olympics?[/b]

the Olympics is a different kettle of fish altogether, there was one international feed but as far as I know the BBC did the sailing events, Yele did the athetics and so on but for the rugby I think it's just a host broadcaster that sells on the feed to the various broadcasters around the world.

 

[Gavin]

If the smaller rugby countries like Japan, Italy or the Pacific nations don't get the the 2015 World Cup it will be an awful loss to the world of rugby. IMO the English are just throwing a spanner in the works to make the IRB's choice even harder.

 

[An Tarbh]

In terms of tv audiences it should favour Italy over Japan as I doubt the European braodcasters would be too happy with another world cup on the other side of the planet. Whether that will influence the unions in how they vote remains to be seen.

 

[dundeesmiffy]

I'd like to be in Japan, so I have an excuse to go.

 

[Fa'atau82]

No way can it be held in the Pacific Islands.

I'd have it in Japan, the only issue is the timezones. Japan has it all, it has stadiums in abundance and it'd develop Rugby in Japan. I'd say Japan are the most improved team in world rugby in the last 10 years. They used to get hammered a lot by top tier nations, but are holding their own much more now.. i think that owes much to the TOP League and the players that are slowly bringing it up like Gregan.

 

[gingergenius]

I think it should go to Italy. It seems like SA is trying to host as many sporting events as it possibly can... but it's not their turn. It should go on a rota - European -> Non-European country like it always has done.

If it does go to Italy, then I'm quite happy for SA to get the next one. Because it will trivialise the World Cup if it is continually used as a marketing tool in developing nations.

However, if it does go to England, then the next one should definitely be Japan. But basing it on how successful 2007 was, then England will certainly match that. We've got the interest, we've got the stadiums (France used a lot of Football stadiums)...

Twickenham
Wembley
Madejski (once it's expanded)
Olympic (hopefully it won't be knocked down)
Welford Road (expanded)/ Filbert Street
Kingsholm/ Rec (expanded)
Then 4 footy stadiums, probs in Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle... and Leeds or Liverpool, or the Ricoh in Coventry where they put the **** HC knockout games.
and a couple more maybe Murrayfield or Millennium.

Incidentally, Ireland/ Scotland haven't ever hosted one... perhaps if they did a joint one with Wales, with the final either at Murrayfield or Landsdowne?

 

[MunsterMan]

The Aviva Stadium is way too small for a World Cup Final :wall:

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Feb 21 2009, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

The Aviva Stadium is way too small for a World Cup Final :wall:[/b]

what! I just researched it and it says Lansdowne will be 50,000!!!!

Why the f*** would they demolish a 49,000 and spend millions on a new 50,000 one?

This strikes me as very stupid. Surely if they sell out 82000 at Croke Park each time, then they can get that many into the new stadium? They're missing out on a few million squid every game!

 

[monkeypigeon]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 21 2009, 12:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Feb 21 2009, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Aviva Stadium is way too small for a World Cup Final :wall:[/b]

what! I just researched it and it says Lansdowne will be 50,000!!!!

Why the f*** would they demolish a 49,000 and spend millions on a new 50,000 one?

This strikes me as very stupid. Surely if they sell out 82000 at Croke Park each time, then they can get that many into the new stadium? They're missing out on a few million squid every game!
[/b][/quote]

I really really really don't know. They're absolute f***tards it's the only answer I can give to that. The plan sounded stupid from day one.

 

[St. Jamez]

I thought they also wanted to keep the history of Lansdowne Road but then they changed the stadium name to 'The Aviva Stadium'.

 

[dundeesmiffy]

To be honest, I think I'll need a new passport by then if it is in England the way things are looking anyway.

 

[Flyin Ryan]

Well by the time all the final bids are put together, how much money will the English legitimately have to invest in staging a World Cup? The government's putting their money in the 2012 London Olympics currently, 2015 is only three years later, the British economy compared to other similar economies is heavily dependent on its financial services sector which is the one getting hammered the most in this current ongoing recession. And English rugby isn't exactly swimming in money now as some of their players are flying across the Channel. Sure, when all the bids are put together and presented, none of this stuff could matter and the recession could be over. I'm just pointing it out.

Can someone enlighten me on who the other bids are right now?

Here's an outside the box notion: why not Argentina or a joint U.S./Canada bid? In both instances it would up the game's global profile.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 21 2009, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Feb 21 2009, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Aviva Stadium is way too small for a World Cup Final :wall:[/b]

what! I just researched it and it says Lansdowne will be 50,000!!!!

Why the f*** would they demolish a 49,000 and spend millions on a new 50,000 one?

This strikes me as very stupid. Surely if they sell out 82000 at Croke Park each time, then they can get that many into the new stadium? They're missing out on a few million squid every game!
[/b][/quote]

people seem to be forgetting the cost involved, Ireland is not exactly the cheapest country to build anything in so to contemplate building an 80000 seater stadium in Dublin 4 would probably have cost upwards of €1 billion, look how much Wembley cost for **** sake. Now you can be damn sure that neither the FAI or the IRFU would have had the money to build a stadium of that size, they can't even afford to build Landowne Rd together without a government bailout and I doubt the government would have been willing to put in an extra €600 million on top of what they're already putting into Lansdowne. Besides an 80000 seater stadium is not an option for the FAI, 46000 at a world cup qualifier when the team is doing reasonably well in the group says it all, there isn't the support there. Yeah it would be nice to have a bigger stadium but the means aren't there to finance it.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 25 2009, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Feb 21 2009, 01:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Feb 21 2009, 12:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Aviva Stadium is way too small for a World Cup Final :wall:[/b]

what! I just researched it and it says Lansdowne will be 50,000!!!!

Why the f*** would they demolish a 49,000 and spend millions on a new 50,000 one?

This strikes me as very stupid. Surely if they sell out 82000 at Croke Park each time, then they can get that many into the new stadium? They're missing out on a few million squid every game!
[/b][/quote]

people seem to be forgetting the cost involved, Ireland is not exactly the cheapest country to build anything in so to contemplate building an 80000 seater stadium in Dublin 4 would probably have cost upwards of â'¬1 billion, look how much Wembley cost for **** sake. Now you can be damn sure that neither the FAI or the IRFU would have had the money to build a stadium of that size, they can't even afford to build Landowne Rd together without a government bailout and I doubt the government would have been willing to put in an extra â'¬600 million on top of what they're already putting into Lansdowne. Besides an 80000 seater stadium is not an option for the FAI, 46000 at a world cup qualifier when the team is doing reasonably well in the group says it all, there isn't the support there. Yeah it would be nice to have a bigger stadium but the means aren't there to finance it.
[/b][/quote]

I doubt England would get much more than 46000 for a qualifier either! Even the Pacific Islands game, I was at but Twickenham certainly wasn't a packed house, but it was an Autumn international against a much higher profile team than Russia or Holland or whoever Ireland play in qualifiers...

AI or 6N tickets at Croke Park are like gold dust. Surely the IRFU and FAI combined can invest in something larger... because the way I see it they've just wasted millions on a brand new stadium.

And surely Irish builders are cheap, who do you think built our motorways?