Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

2015 RWC Pool fixtures Confirmed

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Fireball07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,264 ✭✭✭✭Fireball07


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How much were you expecting to pay in total? 4 fewer pints after the game should cover it.

    £125 for the cheapest possible ticket is a bit OTT...there should be some around the £75-80 range.

    And as for the games against weaker teams.....can't see that many people paying £85 for a match against Canada tbh. Obviously some people will but they won't fill a ground.


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Riskymove wrote: »
    an interesting angle on it!!

    http://www.espn.co.uk/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/182058.html
    That article is bull****. How could 3 games not being played in Old Trafford cause there to be 350k fewer tickets to be available for sale?


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fireball07 wrote: »
    £125 for the cheapest possible ticket is a bit OTT...there should be some around the £75-80 range.

    And as for the games against weaker teams.....can't see that many people paying £85 for a match against Canada tbh. Obviously some people will but they won't fill a ground.

    What's up with the Cat D tickets?


  • #55
    Fireball07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,264 ✭✭✭✭Fireball07


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What's up with the Cat D tickets?

    Shít, I didn't actually see them. £50 is very reasonable...they can't be that bad?


  • #56
    former legend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭former legend


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    That article is bull****. How could 3 games not being played in Old Trafford cause there to be 350k fewer tickets to be available for sale?

    It's just phrased badly. I think the loss of
    Old Trafford meant 100,000 tickets gone, they had also hoped to play more games at Wembley but NFL got in the way and I think the projected capacity of the reworked Olympic Stadium was higher than what it actually is.


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    former legend wrote: »
    It's just phrased badly. I think the loss of
    Old Trafford meant 100,000 tickets gone, they had also hoped to play more games at Wembley but NFL got in the way and I think the projected capacity of the reworked Olympic Stadium was higher than what it actually is.

    It's not phrased badly, it's phrased wrongly. :pac:
    Losing Old Trafford means 10k tickets gone for the 1 match at the Etihad, to make up the other 90k would mean they're moving those games to a 25k stadium which seems odd.
    For the other 250k there's 4 matches in the Olympic Stadium which is having its capacity reduced by 26k, which is 104k. I didn't realise there was ever a suggestion that the Olympic Stadium would be kept at 80k capacity.
    So accepting the first 2 excuses still leave 150k to blame on Wembley which again I find hard to believe since all the knock-out stage matches are being held in Twickenham and the Millenium Stadium.


  • #58
    Swiwi.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    The prices are steep enough alright. NZ, as always, has a lame pool, Argentina are not the greatest team to watch play, so then I'd be looking at a 1/4 final in Cardiff v France or Ireland, and if we get that far, a semi v the winner of SA v Eng/Wales/Aust. But they are not cheap!

    I've been to 2 RWC games in my lifetime: NZ v Fiji in 1987, I imagine my parents paid a few dollars for that ticket; and I went to the '07 final, I think from memory that cost me somewhere between 90 to 120 euros, which is pretty cheap.


  • #59
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Still can't believe that one of Australia, England and Wales have to go out in the first round. There's going to be one very very disappointed nation. All three would fancy their chances of winning the tournament.


  • #60
    Swiwi.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    ScissorPaperRock wrote: »
    Still can't believe that one of Australia, England and Wales have to go out in the first round. There's going to be one very very disappointed nation. All three would fancy their chances of winning the tournament.

    + Scotland might well not make it out of pool play: I'd fancy Samoa at full strength to take them down.

    And then not only will one of Wales/Eng/Aus not make it out of the pool, but the "reward" for finishing 2nd is likely to be a 1/4 final with SA.

    Imagine if England & Wales were gone by the 1/4 final stage...


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    19543261
    Registered Users Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭19543261


    ScissorPaperRock wrote: »
    Still can't believe that one of Australia, England and Wales have to go out in the first round. There's going to be one very very disappointed nation. All three would fancy their chances of winning the tournament.

    Darn them Samoans! :D

    (...I assume that's what led to that draw?)


  • #62
    Fireball07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,264 ✭✭✭✭Fireball07


    Swiwi. wrote: »
    + Scotland might well not make it out of pool play: I'd fancy Samoa at full strength to take them down.

    And then not only will one of Wales/Eng/Aus not make it out of the pool, but the "reward" for finishing 2nd is likely to be a 1/4 final with SA.

    Imagine if England & Wales were gone by the 1/4 final stage...

    Scotland missed out last time too....


  • #63
    Swiwi.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    19543261 wrote: »
    Darn them Samoans! :D

    (...I assume that's what led to that draw?)

    Yeah, Wales dropped out of the top 8 after their poor AIs last year. Remember when we were all hoping Ireland would keep the 8th spot...otherwise it could have been Ireland rather than Wales in Pool A.


  • #64
    former legend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭former legend


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It's not phrased badly, it's phrased wrongly. :pac:
    Well, yes...
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Losing Old Trafford means 10k tickets gone for the 1 match at the Etihad, to make up the other 90k would mean they're moving those games to a 25k stadium which seems odd.
    For the other 250k there's 4 matches in the Olympic Stadium which is having its capacity reduced by 26k, which is 104k. I didn't realise there was ever a suggestion that the Olympic Stadium would be kept at 80k capacity.
    So accepting the first 2 excuses still leave 150k to blame on Wembley which again I find hard to believe since all the knock-out stage matches are being held in Twickenham and the Millenium Stadium.

    Was on the phone earlier, but the full explanation is that Wembley and Old Trafford were initially supposed to hold eight games between them with a total capacity of 790,000 tickets; that fell to two games at Wembley and one at Ethiad when the actual matches were announced.

    I might be wrong on the Olympic Stadium bit alright; but see this for more info:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/rugby-world-cup-2015-despite-inclusion-of-olympic-stadium-wembley-and-twickenham--fans-may-face-high-ticket-prices-8600452.html
    So the high prices aren't exactly a bolt from the blue.


  • #65
    Grimebox
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,997 ✭✭✭Grimebox


    ScissorPaperRock wrote: »
    Still can't believe that one of Australia, England and Wales have to go out in the first round. There's going to be one very very disappointed nation. All three would fancy their chances of winning the tournament.

    The bigot in me wants England to go out first especially since they are hosting :pac:


  • #66
    Pudsy33
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,795 ✭✭✭✭Pudsy33


    If we top the group, its Argentina or Tonga in the next round. Huge insentive there!


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    Grimebox wrote: »
    The bigot in me wants England to go out first especially since they are hosting :pac:

    Ohhh that would be cruel!

    It'll be interesting between England and Australia, because at the moment Australia have a stellar group of backs while England is more powerful up front. Wales is somewhere in the middle in both respects, but just don't seem to have a knack for beating SH teams.

    There's obviously a lot of time for change between now and then though.


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,611 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    former legend wrote: »
    Well, yes...



    Was on the phone earlier, but the full explanation is that Wembley and Old Trafford were initially supposed to hold eight games between them with a total capacity of 790,000 tickets; that fell to two games at Wembley and one at Ethiad when the actual matches were announced.
    That 790k is off as well. 3 at OT (225k) and 5 at Wembley (450k) gives a total of of 675k. Take the ones at the Etihad and that leaves 610k spread over 7 games. For a total 350k shortfall that would mean those 7 matches will have a total capacity of 260k, so around 37k per match which I find odd. Even if two of those matches were moved to the Millennium Stadium stadium the remaining 5 would have to go into stadiums averaging about 22k capacity.
    I might be wrong on the Olympic Stadium bit alright; but see this for more info:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/news-comment/rugby-world-cup-2015-despite-inclusion-of-olympic-stadium-wembley-and-twickenham--fans-may-face-high-ticket-prices-8600452.html
    So the high prices aren't exactly a bolt from the blue.
    Maybe they were that stupid. Or maybe they were telling porkies somewhere along the way.


  • #69
    Swiwi.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,415 ✭✭✭Swiwi.


    Grimebox wrote: »
    The bigot in me wants England to go out first especially since they are hosting :pac:

    The scaredy pants in me wants England out because they are well capable of beating the ABs...

    But it would also be fun reading the English press if England didn't get out of the pool stage...


  • #70
    penybont exile
    Registered Users Posts: 732 ✭✭✭penybont exile


    ScissorPaperRock wrote: »
    Ohhh that would be cruel!

    It'll be interesting between England and Australia, because at the moment Australia have a stellar group of backs while England is more powerful up front. Wales is somewhere in the middle in both respects, but just don't seem to have a knack for beating SH teams.

    There's obviously a lot of time for change between now and then though.
    Funny how that "middling" Welsh eight beat up, chewed and spat out their more "powerful" opponents the last time they met .........

    Food for thought ... eh!


  • #71
    ScissorPaperRock
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭ScissorPaperRock


    penybont exile wrote: »
    Funny how that "middling" Welsh eight beat up, chewed and spat out their more "powerful" opponents the last time they met .........

    Food for thought ... eh!

    Maybe you're right. I can't remember who was in the front row for Wales and England in the Six Nations last year. But my impression over the last year or so was that some of the Welsh props were in decline. Though obviously it has been a strong point in recent years.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Riskymove
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,899 ✭✭✭✭Riskymove


    Swiwi. wrote: »
    Yeah, Wales dropped out of the top 8 after their poor AIs last year. Remember when we were all hoping Ireland would keep the 8th spot...otherwise it could have been Ireland rather than Wales in Pool A.

    this should be quoted everytime someone calls the AIs meaningless friendlies or whatever


  • #73
    thomond2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    The organisers are bleating about how cheap the child prices are to make an affordable family experience.

    The 18-30ish demographic completely ignored then.


  • #74
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,298 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    The organisers are bleating about how cheap the child prices are to make an affordable family experience.

    Only if you send the kids in while you wait outside in the car!


  • #75
    19543261
    Registered Users Posts: 1,973 ✭✭✭19543261


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Only if you send the kids in while you wait outside in the car!

    I dont know, Podge, I reckon I could still fit into a nappy...


Advertisement