Pumas to table bid for World Cup

[lucky number 7]

Except for Croke Park almost all GAA stadiums are pretty poor. No seats, no floodlights (some of them) and most of them look tiresome.

You've obviously never hurled for your parish have you...

 

[welshglory]

Don't forget USA and/or Canada as future hosts!

Interesting to read the comments about Ireland and Scotland hosting a world cup. Funnily enough if they use Croke Park, the Aviva and Murrayfield they'll already have bigger stadiums than the NZ one!

I wouldn't like to see it go to Ireland/Scotland but i think they could pull it off, just. I don't Ireland could go it alone though.

 

[Eagles85]

Don't forget USA and/or Canada as future hosts!

Interesting to read the comments about Ireland and Scotland hosting a world cup. Funnily enough if they use Croke Park, the Aviva and Murrayfield they'll already have bigger stadiums than the NZ one!

I wouldn't like to see it go to Ireland/Scotland but i think they could pull it off, just. I don't Ireland could go it alone though.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/01/united-states-bid-2023-rugby-world-cup

They've been asked by the IRB to bid for 2023. Unlikely that they'll get it, but they could be in the running for future ones. Under this plan, the USA would be the primary host, with some matches being held in Canada. (I imagine some pool games plus one quarterfinal would be held in Canada). Also for it to truly work, they'd have to do it away from the traditional September/October window, as the North American sports window is incredibly crowded during that period of time, with NFL, NBA, and NHL season starting, baseball season winding down, and the CFL and MLS are in the homestretch. Maybe an April/May/June window could work. Could.

 

[Erich]

Isn't it SA's turn? England, Wales, France, New Zealand and Australia have all hosted or co-hosted two, and SA has only had one. Ireland and Scotland have only co-hosted one, but England is right next door. I understand the importance of emerging markets, but Japan and Argentina back-to back seems like overkill. SA in 2023, Argentina in 2027

 

[jb12780]

Would love to see the US bid. How's England making their stadiaus available with the EPL season running in 2015? If they can do it, we can too. We have a lot more as well.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[BZHopenside]

Any given weekend, half of the NFL and MLS stadiums are empty. I could see games at places like Rio Tinto Stadium in Salt Lake, Mile High or Dick's Sporting Goods in Denver, Red Bull Arena (NYC), BMO Field (Canada already plays there), BBVA Compass in Houston (USA played there) or Sam Boyd in Las Vegas (USA Sevens). I could even imagine games at places like the Rose Bowl or Candlestick for the final, or Jeld-Wen in Portland for smaller group games. Infinity Park is just too small for World Cup level matches.
The only problem is that football stadiums might not accommodate the increased size of a rugby pitch.

 

[Nielsch]

Don't forget the Home Depot Center near LA, PPL Park in Philadelphia and Toyota Park in Chicago. The biggest matches (New Zealand, England, etc...) could be played at NFL stadiums like MetLife Stadium near New York and Cowboys Stadium near Dallas. Maybe put up the Irish at the Gillette Stadium in Boston.

 

[Nielsch]

And if by then the IRB still has a problem with the artificial turf in the new stadiums, they could still go for the old bowls used by the colleges.

 

[BZHopenside]

Turf technology better get a lot better. Even on the modern Fieldturf, playing rugby is not fun. However, there are a bunch of big grass surface stadiums, more than you might think.

 

[Rhyer]

I see no point in Ireland hosting. To fly from England to Ireland is about 45 minutes and about 20 Euro each way with Ryan Air. So why not host it in England? Which is what is happening in 2015. If anything just let Ireland host a game or two if in a big European country. The only reason the New Zealanders were given the world cup is because they have consistently been the best team in world rugby for over a hundred years. Ireland have consistently been spanked by a few teams. They have money and all the resources yet can't improve. So it's time to give a chance to other countries where rugby is on the rise.

Argentina is an absolutely fantastic decision. I'd also love it to be hosted in the states but Argentina is more important for me, they came third in the 2007 world cup when they national team was and I believe still is completely amateur. I believe that they definitely would have beaten England in that world cup who were second place.

Italy I'm less concerned about. They've been given a few chances to improve yet haven't really done much. Treviso and Aironi in the Magners League shows this.

 

[Nielsch]

Turf technology better get a lot better. Even on the modern Fieldturf, playing rugby is not fun. However, there are a bunch of big grass surface stadiums, more than you might think.

I checked out the NFL stadiums on Wikipedia and you're right; a lot of teams still play on grass (or hybrid, like they've got in Wembley Stadium). However, there seems to be a trend of switching to Astro/Field Turf. The Gillette Stadium in Boston made the transition a couple of years ago. Between now and an eventual World Cup in the USA, a lot more may have changed playing surface.

 

[Nielsch]

I see no point in Ireland hosting. To fly from England to Ireland is about 45 minutes and about 20 Euro each way with Ryan Air. So why not host it in England? Which is what is happening in 2015. If anything just let Ireland host a game or two if in a big European country. The only reason the New Zealanders were given the world cup is because they have consistently been the best team in world rugby for over a hundred years. Ireland have consistently been spanked by a few teams. They have money and all the resources yet can't improve. So it's time to give a chance to other countries where rugby is on the rise.

Argentina is an absolutely fantastic decision. I'd also love it to be hosted in the states but Argentina is more important for me, they came third in the 2007 world cup when they national team was and I believe still is completely amateur. I believe that they definitely would have beaten England in that world cup who were second place.

Italy I'm less concerned about. They've been given a few chances to improve yet haven't really done much. Treviso and Aironi in the Magners League shows this.

You don't want to give the WC to Ireland and Italy cause they've been underperforming yet you would love to see a WC hosted in the USA?

Personally I don't really care how club teams are performing; as long as a country can put on a great rugby show, has the right facilities and can put a lot of bums on the seat it's fine with me. I'm sure Italy can do this.

 

[Feicarsinn]

I see no point in Ireland hosting. To fly from England to Ireland is about 45 minutes and about 20 Euro each way with Ryan Air. So why not host it in England? Which is what is happening in 2015. If anything just let Ireland host a game or two if in a big European country. The only reason the New Zealanders were given the world cup is because they have consistently been the best team in world rugby for over a hundred years. Ireland have consistently been spanked by a few teams. They have money and all the resources yet can't improve. So it's time to give a chance to other countries where rugby is on the rise.

Argentina is an absolutely fantastic decision. I'd also love it to be hosted in the states but Argentina is more important for me, they came third in the 2007 world cup when they national team was and I believe still is completely amateur. I believe that they definitely would have beaten England in that world cup who were second place.

Italy I'm less concerned about. They've been given a few chances to improve yet haven't really done much. Treviso and Aironi in the Magners League shows this.

One team at most.

By your reasoning France never should have been given 2007, so I'm inclined to ignore your opinion.

 

[big ginger 8]

I see no point in Ireland hosting. To fly from England to Ireland is about 45 minutes and about 20 Euro each way with Ryan Air. So why not host it in England? Which is what is happening in 2015. If anything just let Ireland host a game or two if in a big European country. The only reason the New Zealanders were given the world cup is because they have consistently been the best team in world rugby for over a hundred years. Ireland have consistently been spanked by a few teams. They have money and all the resources yet can't improve. So it's time to give a chance to other countries where rugby is on the rise.

Argentina is an absolutely fantastic decision. I'd also love it to be hosted in the states but Argentina is more important for me, they came third in the 2007 world cup when they national team was and I believe still is completely amateur. I believe that they definitely would have beaten England in that world cup who were second place.

Italy I'm less concerned about. They've been given a few chances to improve yet haven't really done much. Treviso and Aironi in the Magners League shows this.

There are a number of good arguments against Ireland hosting the world cup. Yours is by far the worst.

 

[Rinzler]

I got the impression from previous biding processes that the IRB generally like to have at least 1 out of 2 world cups making a substantial profit, one of the reasons why England hosts the world cup after New Zealand. Although I have no doubt Japan 2019 will be a success, I wouldn't be surprised is South Africa got the 2023 tournament to ensure a successful world cup in an established rugby nation, before once again reaching to another expanding market such as Argentina, or returning to Europe with Italy. As always, I think its more down to money and politics than anything else.