• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

New Zealand 2011: Its all going wrong!

Prestwick is melhor he argue's the same point in every forum, his arguments are totally identical. Anti NZ
 
Final point for Preswick.

You said that hosting World Cups has nothing to do with the performance of the teams on the pitch.

Doesn't world cup qualification depend of performance?

If the IRB cut the tournament to 16 teams, and 12 teams automatically qualify (which I don't think would include Japan), that means that Japan will be in the hunt for the last 4 spots against the USA, Canada, either Tonga or Samoa, Georgia, Romania, Namibia, Portugal, Uraguay and the rest.

If you based it on the current world rankings (Japan is at number 18) then '2011 World Cup Japan' would likely have seen the host nation not qualify for the cup...

Good luck selling that tournament to the locals.

Japan in 2015 is a better option than 2011.
NZ was the best choice for 2011.
 
<div class='quotemain'> Prestwick is melhor he argue's the same point in every forum, his arguments are totally identical. Anti NZ [/b]

Pot. Kettle. Black.


Nuff said. :lol:
[/b][/quote]



ALL DAY...EVERY DAY! :cheers:
 
Prestwick is melhor he argue's the same point in every forum, his arguments are totally identical. Anti NZ
[/b]

But ... isn't Melhor already registered in this forum?
 
I agree with most of what is said on this board. We should not have a competition like this in such a small country. Heck, we have **** house stadiums which are being cheaply renovated to hold the "bare minimum'' capacity requirements. Look at the state of Eden Park.... joke. So what do we do? Chuck in a "east stand" and throw in some temporary seats. AMI stadium... build a new west stand to hold 45,000, the bare minimum for a semi final. Not only this, these stadiums are dog ugly and will look ridiculous holding the 3rd biggest event in sports in such locations.
F**king embarrassing for me. The 2011 RWC will be worse than 1995, that'll be a 21 year backward step.
 
Japan should have the 2011 world cup. No douby about it. Where's the rule that the tournament has to be split up between Europe and the Southern Hemisphere???

We saw from the 2002 soccer world cup just how well Japan can host a tournament. Yes it was joint staged with South Korea, but there's no doubt that Japan has the stadia, infrastructure, and the growing fanbase to deal with a rugby world cup on it's own.

With regards to the 2015 WC I'm in two minds about England possibly getting the tournament. I admit that the fact the tournament would be on my own doorstep does appeal as I could make it to random games here and there. However, just look at the disaster of the 2012 Olympic bid for London. The spiraling costs and poor mismanagement show that the UK is a bit of a joke when it comes to organising something on this scale.

If the IRB were in any way serious about encouraging those developing nations (which it appears they aren't) then it would only be fair that Japan be given the WC and the game of rugby be allowed to be a showcase tournament in such a passionate country.
 
I know its not going to happen, but It would be great to have the RWC come to the US one year. Though rugby is dead here(and who knows why, Americans love violent sports?) The country goes crazy for "world sporting events" such as the Football World Cup or the Olympics. If the media coverage was good, I think it could spark a huge uprising of rugby here in the states, which would be great!
 
*insert random drunken ramble here*[/b]

Oooookay, right, lets try and address this one at a time:

1. We're lambasting New Zealand because they won it in the same dirty way that everyone else uses which in turn has infuriated me so much. I have no beef with New Zealand, I just completely disagree that the best bid won. To actually develop a game in a country, you've got to actually hold a World Cup there, not mess them around with patronising words before keeping the golden cup to yourself and your buddies. We're all to blame for this, not just New Zealand.
2. Hosting World Cups has nothing to do with the performance of the teams on the pitch.
3. The Head of State of New Zealand is Queen Elizabeth II, also the head of state of the United Kingdom, which uses nuclear power I believe. Actually, if the Queen does agree to preside over a nation which cuts its emissions by using nuclear power and a nation which doesn't then that is pretty open minded. I apologise. :lol: (you know, she's also Head of State of a country which does illeigal logging and seal cub clubbling in the Arctic! Yow!)
[/b]

Crikey.. I was a bit sozzelled last night wasnt I ??? :wacko: Think I needed to let a little steam off!!
 
I'm sorry I-B-B, I shouldn't have put the *insert drunken ramble here*, if it wasn't 7:30am with no morning coffee it would have been much more different :(

Anyway...

As for the world cup, what do you mean outdated statistics?

Do you expect the world cup to continuously grow and grow like the nom nom fact monster?

France has 64million people and is on the doorstep to Europe?

Australia has 21million.

Does the fact monster expect 3 times the match attendance based on a nation 3 times the size?

Of course I do, I also expect that because of the 2012 Olympics you'll have a fraction of the North American and European fans travelling to New Zealand who would have gone to a World Cup, I also expect allot of fans to be put off by the price and time it'll take to fly out there.

The statistics you're putting out are out of date because the World Cup has moved on, it has grown considerably and this is reflected in how the World Cup in France has been phenominally successful so far. For Rugby to grow, the World Cup needs to grow and put more money back into developing the game.

Regarding the comments you added to your earlier post, the NZ government copping some expenses for the world cup isn't any different to Australia of France.

The Queensland government just shelled out another $160,000,000 to build a new stadium for the Gold Coast ***ans RL team!

Does the humble state of Queensland hope to host a Rugby World Cup final in 2015?

The French government has dumped $56millions into this tournament, on top of money spent for the FIFA98 cup.

FIFA02 saw 21 stadiums built in Japan and South Korea!

And ask any Aussie about the many millions of dollars shelled out to sporting teams and bodies and you'll realise that the NZ government is well overdue in giving a bit back to the sporting community, especially when it comes to new stadia and international events hosting.

So contributing a bit to Eden park and the deficit from hosting could hardly be described as a 'bail out'. They knew exactly what the tournament cost before they tried for, and won, the hosting bid. And they also know that the indirect funds brought into the country will far outweigh the $30M cost.

Adding some temporary seating and an east stand to Eden Park and pushing the other stadia to barely fit the requirements does not count as "giving something back". If you are barely struggling to meet the requirements then something is seriously wrong in the planning department.


I just can't understand why trying to cristicise NZ is going to do anything? Saying they bribed other countries, don't have big enough stadia etc and need monetary help from the government are all just petty arguements.

I have an issue with the entire process. I have an issue with horse trading to get the votes to win when there are quite blatantly far better bids out there. I especially have an issue with England wanting to host the World Cup in 2015 when the Cup should go to a nation not in the top ten who have the means to host it and not barely scrape by.

The French ProD2 has 5 times the crowds that the Japanese Top League musters. Japanese people just don't support rugby. And you may say its difficult to get tickets there. But if Fiji can get twice as many people to play the Junior AB's as Japan can from a country 150 times smaller (and surely with poorer ticket distribution) just makes me wonder whether than can get enough people to all those 50,000+ capacity stadiums?

Excellent generalisation there! I'm sorry but the facts on the ground in Japan simply doesn't support that statement. Right now Rugby does come a distant third behind Baseball and the J-League but thanks to the financial security that the Japanese system and its Corporate Teams guarantees as well as a gradual increase in exposure you are seeing a vast increase in crowd attendances at Top League games than you saw in its predecessor in 1999. Of course you can't change things overnight but something that can benefit Rugby in Japan is holding a huge showpeice competition in the country.

One thing you underestimate about Japan and thats their ability to rally around a show peice event. Before the Football World Cup, you could hardly say that Japan were a fanatical Soccer nation and previous attempts at starting leagues had failed miserably. But come the actual competition and tickets did sell and most games were packed out. You really need to market it and make it appeal to the Japanese psyche and Rugby is starting to grow on the Japanese. Your assumption that people in Japan just don't care about Rugby just does not ring true.


You say people won't travel to NZ and tickets will be expensive, I would have thought Japan would alot more expensive to travel to?

Actually around the time of the Football World Cup, it was surprisingly cheap to get to. You can get return tickets for around £450 and another £210 guarantees you free high speed travel around the country plus further discounts for accommodation and other things. At the end of the day, its still cheaper than flying to New Zealand.

Japan will one day host the world cup, but to mock NZ and accuse them of bribery etc, just because Japan didn't get the 2011 cup really annoys me.

You know what really annoys me? The fact that the best bid did not win and it lost due to backroom politics and sheer selfishness of the top ten Rugby nations. That is what really annoys me.

I believe NZRU CEO Chris Moller summed up my feelings on the accusations pretty well. "I find that insulting," he said. "Our bid was about honesty, trustworthiness and integrity. We have not offered any games for votes."

Then again, you do have the RFU's Francais Baron saying that "we don't bully anyone" before setting loose the legal dogs of war upon the Clubs of England. I'll tell you what, if you believe what your Union supremo says all the time and I'll keep on reading the newspapers.

Final point for Preswick.

You said that hosting World Cups has nothing to do with the performance of the teams on the pitch.

Doesn't world cup qualification depend of performance?

No, I could say that it depends on who can offer the most money in order to garner support and votes, but that apparently is not what goes on AT ALL (damn my cynical self) so I'll just go for the politically correct answer and say that it depends on who can hold the best, trouble free and enjoyable Rugby Tournament.

On that basis, Japan blatantly had the better bid. It had a complete infrastructure of stadia, transport and accomodation in order to host the World Cup. It had it by a country mile.

If you based it on the current world rankings (Japan is at number 18) then '2011 World Cup Japan' would likely have seen the host nation not qualify for the cup...

Good luck selling that tournament to the locals.

Ooooh, so now you're trying to say that New Zealand only won the rights to host it on a mere legal technicality and not on any other basis then?




Prestwick is melhor he argue's the same point in every forum, his arguments are totally identical. Anti NZ

NAY_THEE.JPG
 
True Legnd, you do remember what happened last time you insisted on going off topic and starting arguments which you had neither the fainted chance nor even the intention of winning...right?

Next one that goes off topic gets nuked.
 
Prestwick, I have to admit, if anything you're a master of twisting words.

Personally, South Africa would have been the best bid.

Japan was the romantics bid.
NZ was the safe bid.

If anything, the IRB has proven that its not a big risk taker.

The only point I have tried to make, from all this witty banter, is NZ2011 won't fail.
 
Prestwick, I fully understand your qualms about the system, and you're quite right for having them. There shouldn't be wink wink nudge nudge type of backroom deals. However, it is what it is so please, stop whinging. We don't get anywhere if we continually come back to this point. All we can do is hope that in the future the leaders of the Unions start using their brains and commit to developing rugby world wide.

For those who have brought forward the suggestion that America could host the rugby world cup, please stop. The idea is naive and idiotic. Certainly they have the stadia and the infrastructure, but the American public will not turn out. Perhaps you'll get the stadiums filling with ex-pats and vacationers, but it would not develop rugby at all. There are far too many problems in American rugby to even start to believe that they would gain a single ounce of benefit.

As for the 2011 Rugby World Cup I'm not seeing what the fuss is about outside of how the bid was gained (which I already outlined). Who cares if the NZRU loses $30million? That money will just be supplemented by the NZ government and they won't have a single problem doing it. The World Cup will bring in billions of dollars into the economy, what is mere $30mil. Even when the costs go over $60 and $70mil, the costs will still be negligible.

Another issue that was brought up was the cost of traveling to New Zealand. Now, assuming there isn't a huge shift in the NZ dollar the difference between going to NZ and going to Japan will also be negligible. Sure the cost of the ticket will be more, but the cost of living expenses will be cheaper. Spending two months in NZ will be far cheaper than in Japan.

At the end of the day though, the iRB will still pocket over $200million from TV contracts, and the game will continue to progress, so it will automatically be a success regardless where it is.
 
<div class='quotemain'>
lol, the USA, what an event that would be, we could play it in their MLS Stadiums and get 12,000 people to the Final.[/b]

Or they could just host it in the many many NFL stadia that they have across America like they did with, let me think, the Diveball World Cup in 1994! How about 90,000 for the RWC Final? How does that one grab ya?! [/b][/quote]



Depends, will the IRB have to pay for the 90,000 to be flown in from overseas? or will we just fill the Rose Bowl with blow up dolls and put giant fans around the place to simulate crowd movement? And what a success the soccer world cup was for getting the American game kickstarted, 15 years on and Major League Soccer can almost match NPC Attendances!



And what about the Pool Games? That's alot of blow up dolls or plane tickets that will have to be purchased to get those American Stadiums to at least look like someone showed up.

Nope. He got fired from Burger King and was promptly hired on the spot to run the preparations for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Either that or they hired someone from the UK or Multiplex in Australia. Preferably someone with either no experience of organsing anything bigger than their two year old daughter's birthday or someone so incompetent yet so well connected that they end up organising big projects anyway.[/b]



Probably got hired by the Welsh Rugby Union, that's what happened to the fool who was in before Rutherford's Monkey's took over the asylum and screwed up in 2003. And it's much worse, than Multiplex or the UK, Trevor Mallard is the "Minister for the Rugby World Cup" or some **** like that..
 

Latest posts

Top