Question

Capajoma

Hey, I'm not the biggest rugby follower, just a casual fan but maybe someone who follows a bit more closely can explain this to me, why has the Millennium Stadium gotten to host the Heineken Cup final in 06, 08 and now 11. Shouldn't the final stadium be given out a bit more evenly?

LeeroyJones

A question I have often asked myself.

The politics that go on with the governing bodies perhaps is a cynical answer but it's the only answer I can come up with!

However the Millennium Stadium, Stade de France, Twickenham and Murrayfield are the only European stadiums big enough which were built with rugby in mind so there is a limit.

Personally I would like to see the final brought to other parts of Europe, particularly Italy who do contribute to the European game. I'm sure they could get use the San Siro as they have done for the All Blacks.

Risteard

As said above Murrayfield, Stade de France, Twickenham and Cardiff are the biggest Stadia and as such most money would be made out of them.

Stade de France isn't used as much because alcohol advertising isn't permitted in France so Heineken loses out on some advertising in that particular country (has to be called the 'H Cup').

I was at the Millenium stadium in '06 when Munster first won it and it really is a fantastic stadium. right in the middle of Cardiff, great views and atmosphere. Not much more you would want in a stadium hosting a final of a major competition. Though I wouldn't mind see it being held in the San Siro if it's possible. Can't see it being held in Lansdowne regularly either with the capacity.

thomond2006

The Millenium is close to everyone (if you take out the Italians) so it's the obvious choice.

As Risteard says, the Aviva is never likely to get a final given its meagre capacity compared to Murrayfield, Twickenham, Millienium Stadium and Stade de France.

It would be cool if a final was held at a non-rugby ground like San Siro or Camp Nou alright. Would make for a change.

PhatPiggins

The Aviva will definitely get a final in the next few seasons thomond. As a rule they have to share them among all the participating countries. How many did Landsdowne get? I think 2 but am open to correction.

outwest

i would love it to be in, madrid or barcalona or even munich, erc could sell tickets to locals and promote the sport at the same time

LeeroyJones

PhatPiggins wrote: »

The Aviva will definitely get a final in the next few seasons thomond. As a rule they have to share them among all the participating countries. How many did Landsdowne get? I think 2 but am open to correction.

Yeah Lansdowne had it twice. But that was when the Heineken Cup was developing. Now it is a huge competition which attracts a huge audience. It would make little sense, other than a great atmosphere in Dublin, to host the final here.

Is there actually a rule though, first I have ever heard that. If that was the case why has Italy not had even one go at hosting the final?

Morf

Italy's rugby ground is in Roma and quite small. The logistics of getting the San Siro or similar during the football season could be a reason.

tolosenc

Morf wrote: »

Italy's rugby ground is in Roma and quite small. The logistics of getting the San Siro or similar during the football season could be a reason.

Football season is over by the time of the HEC final. Shouldn't really be an issue. Or the Stadio Olimpico in Rome. Or the Bernebéu, or the Camp Nou, or various places in Munich, Berlin, Brussels, Valencia, Amsterdam, Portugal... Most following support wouldn't object to a weekend in one of those destinations!

Aviva will never get it. 50k is too small for a top tier rugby venue.

[Jackass]

I would imagine that Croke Park & the GAA would love to host an 80,000 sell out event and show case the stadium.

Aviva is too small, and will only host it once in a blue moon if Croke Park isn't used.

San Siro will definitley host one imo, but can't see it moving outside the 6 nations in the forseeable future.

Snickers Man

Cardiff is a great venue and a great location but a major problem is lack of accommodation. Unless you fly in and out on the same day you are probably talking about staying somewhere else like Newport or Bristol or even further afield.

I think 50,000 is the minimum capacity to host a final so Aviva should be due to host another one soon after hosting Ulster's win in 1999 and Toulouse's in 2003.

JustinDee

[Jackass] wrote: »

I would imagine that Croke Park & the GAA would love to host an 80,000 sell out event and show case the stadium

All very well if they do.
Whatever it is, it won't be a rugby event though.

lologram

JustinDee wrote: »

All very well if they do.
Whatever it is, it won't be a rugby event though.

Snide comment. Surely you can see that removing all possibility of playing in Croke Park in the forseeable future was a bad thing? It took long enough for the GAA to agree to let rugby be played there. Then they decide to keep it available, and the IRFU chooses to ensure they couldn't avail of that. Madness.

d'Oracle

lologram wrote: »

Snide comment.

I thought it was fair.
And very much direct and unmocking.

Not snide at all.

lologram

d'Oracle wrote: »

I thought it was fair.
And very much direct and unmocking.

Not snide at all.

Snide may be a bit harsh. Not having a go at JustinDee, I just don't think that comment was a sincere/non-sarcastic attempt to engage with thread. Question asked was about sharing out the HC Final, naturally enough that moved on to having the HC Final in Ireland. Saying that (paraphrasing here) the GAA can feel free to host any 80,000 capacity event they want, but that it wouldn't be rugby, struck me as insincere.

As an aside, I don't know why the IRFU or anyone involved with Irish rugby would be proud of the fact that they have ruled themselves out of a chance to use Croke Park. Surely it's more logical to have multiple options, whether you use them or not? Signing an exclusivity deal to use the Aviva Stadium is limiting the chance for more exposure for Irish rugby, as per the above discussion of whether that stadium will be big enough to host a HC final. And discussion elsewhere about whether certain Autumn Tests or 6N games would be better suited to Croke Park

JustinDee

lologram wrote: »

Snide comment. Surely you can see that removing all possibility of playing in Croke Park in the forseeable future was a bad thing? It took long enough for the GAA to agree to let rugby be played there. Then they decide to keep it available, and the IRFU chooses to ensure they couldn't avail of that. Madness.

It is NOT snide!

And to just keep on the sidetrack in relation to the rest of your post, the GAA opened up Croke Park temporarily and on the condition that when the Aviva Stadium was finished, the two sports (rugby union and soccer) were to pack up and go back again.

It was agreed to keep Croke Park available to the likes of rugby and soccer when the Aviva stadium was already nearing completion and after all naming rights, sponsorships/endorsements, debentures, corporate boxes, services contracts were all finalised etc.
In other words, when it was too late.

Not madness at all.

d'Oracle

lologram wrote: »

Snide may be a bit harsh. Not having a go at JustinDee, I just don't think that comment was a sincere/non-sarcastic attempt to engage with thread. Question asked was about sharing out the HC Final, naturally enough that moved on to having the HC Final in Ireland. Saying that (paraphrasing here) the GAA can feel free to host any 80,000 capacity event they want, but that it wouldn't be rugby, struck me as insincere.

As an aside, I don't know why the IRFU or anyone involved with Irish rugby would be proud of the fact that they have ruled themselves out of a chance to use Croke Park. Surely it's more logical to have multiple options, whether you use them or not? Signing an exclusivity deal to use the Aviva Stadium is limiting the chance for more exposure for Irish rugby, as per the above discussion of whether that stadium will be big enough to host a HC final. And discussion elsewhere about whether certain Autumn Tests or 6N games would be better suited to Croke Park

No offence here, but its not remotely insincere either.
Infact its very, very accurate and honest.

Goodluck2me

d'Oracle wrote: »

No offence here, but its not remotely insincere either.
Infact its very, very accurate and honest.

weirdly I agree with d'oracle, obviously the semantics of it weren't great but the point remains. There is no way the IFRU could allow croke park to be used for the HC final, i know everyone will say its the ERC's decision, but let's be honest they aren't going to do it without consultation.

Podge_irl

I don't really see why they don't spread the final around Europe like UEFA do. Most tickets are sold before the match and there is no guarantee the match will be held anywhere near the two competing teams so travel isn't a larger issue if the match is held elsewhere. It would be a great advertisement for rugby.

It should definitely be held in Italy soon though.

[Jackass]

My suggestion was made from the standpoint that the GAA should be bidding for these events.

They make an absolute mint, and hosting an event such as the Heineken Cup final (which is guarenteed a trip to Dublin every now and then) and have an 80,000 sell out should entice them. It's not like it's the first time Rugby will b played there, and it's worth a fortune to them, and to an extent, is absolutely nothing to do with the IRFU or ANY agreement between the IRFU and GAA, simply GAA offering it's venue to ERC who would surely prefer the final to be played in a real stadium rather than someones back garden in D4, making the event a complete write off and waste of time in terms of any revenue for anyone involved....

Although it would damage rugy in the country, if GAA and some other parties were a little more cut throat, the IRFU would be put to the sword for their stupidity and for going into business with the used car sales men, and would be left with a worthless stadium.

I'm not wishing that to be the case, and from a Leinster standpoint, I'm delighted we have the stadium, but from an internationl stad point it's an embarresment. (only a matter of time before our brand new, state of the art, 50 year investment will be the smallest stadium in 6 nations, and if and when Italy start using San Sero or some other venue permanently, it'll be the smallest by about 30,000 to anyone else...)

It's a club stadium. It'll suit Leinster, but the amount of money IRFU will lose over the medium and even short term by not doing it right in the first place is staggerring, and will run into loss of hundreds of billions over the life of the stadium.

JustinDee

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't really see why they don't spread the final around Europe like UEFA do. Most tickets are sold before the match and there is no guarantee the match will be held anywhere near the two competing teams so travel isn't a larger issue if the match is held elsewhere. It would be a great advertisement for rugby

Soccer is massive. There isn't a country that has staged a final where soccer is not the nr.1 sport.
Nearest sport to soccer in Europe with participation/attendance in mind is actually Basketball.

JustinDee

[Jackass] wrote: »

My suggestion was made from the standpoint that the GAA should be bidding for these events

Technically a fair point but not very realistic.
Why would the ERC (which is made up of the Six home unions) offer their final event to a non-rugby stadium as if there was no alternative?
They simply wouldn't.

[Jackass] wrote: »

Although it would damage rugy in the country, if GAA and some other parties were a little more cut throat, the IRFU would be put to the sword for their stupidity and for going into business with the used car sales men, and would be left with a worthless stadium

Classy.
The Aviva Stadium is far from worthless both in value and in terms of revenue.

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm not wishing that to be the case, and from a Leinster standpoint, I'm delighted we have the stadium, but from an internationl stad point it's an embarresment. (only a matter of time before our brand new, state of the art, 50 year investment will be the smallest stadium in 6 nations, and if and when Italy start using San Sero or some other venue permanently, it'll be the smallest by about 30,000 to anyone else...)

Its hardly embarrassing. If that stadium fills for every event it holds, it is not an embarrassment. As well as hosting prime event it will make money while its sponsorships earn the IRFU and FAI welcome revenue. It will also be far more active than say Murrayfield, Twickenham and just as active as Millenium Stadium on a busy year.

[Jackass] wrote: »

It's a club stadium. It'll suit Leinster, but the amount of money IRFU will lose over the medium and even short term by not doing it right in the first place is staggerring, and will run into loss of hundreds of billions over the life of the stadium.

Here we go again . . .
What was the "right" way exactly?
I posted the following on Leinsterfans.com the other week.

For your information, to increase capacity to even 60,000 means that the North Stand would require a minimum of 30m more land behind it.
This is not possible for a number reasons of which the main are:-

1) Privately owned houses are already within this distance (no, the IRFU doesn't own the neighbourhood as some might have you believe)
2) To build from a sunken height below ground level is impossible because of type of soil and 9protected) river system below
3) To build higher would have ensured planning permission was rejected following objections from residents

Some say that the site should have been sold and stadium built on the likes of the Glass Bottle site. Two problems in hindsight there. Firstly, whoever would have 'bought' the land would without doubt have problems paying for it now. The union would have problems paying an inflated price for the Glass Bottle site.

Others say the new rugby & soccer stadium should have been built out in Newland's Cross or such like. The moaning and 'outrage' would have dwarfed any dissent that may be witnessed now over the Aviva by a country mile. "Spending money on another site when a perfectly good site already there", "oh its miles away" etc etc. Not to mention, "how dare they flog off 'our' stadium to the highest bidder" . . .

And finally others say the games should have stayed at Croke Pk. Apart from the costs of running games for the forseeable future on a rented platform being a non-starter (revenue from a game is much more than Attendance minus ground hire fee of 1.3million. There are also sub-contracts, fixtures rental, sponsorships etc to be taken into account), Croke Park was temporarily opened until the new stadium on Lansdowne road was finished. That was the condition: Leave when your place is finished.

Podge_irl

JustinDee wrote: »

Soccer is massive. There isn't a country that has staged a final where soccer is not the nr.1 sport.
Nearest sport to soccer in Europe with participation/attendance in mind is actually Basketball.

I understand that, but I still feel it could work with rugby. Going to Russia or something might be a non-starter due to distance, but somewhere else in western Europe would be interesting. I would wager most fans at HEC finals are travelling fans anyway, so I don't think it would make a massive difference.

JustinDee

Podge_irl wrote: »

I understand that, but I still feel it could work with rugby. Going to Russia or something might be a non-starter due to distance, but somewhere else in western Europe would be interesting. I would wager most fans at HEC finals are travelling fans anyway, so I don't think it would make a massive difference.

The ERC would appear to think differently and I agree with them.
Your idea would depend on an Irish province, an English club like Leicester making the final. If that was a certainty, then a new venue in a country where pro rugby does not feature on the radar would be possible.
The game hasn't reached the levels needed to be able to waltz into a new region and host a full final.

Capajoma

JustinDee wrote: »

Soccer is massive. There isn't a country that has staged a final where soccer is not the nr.1 sport.
Nearest sport to soccer in Europe with participation/attendance in mind is actually Basketball.

USA got the WC in '94, soccer certainly isn't the no.1 sport over there.

JustinDee

Capajoma wrote: »

USA got the WC in '94, soccer certainly isn't the no.1 sport over there.

It had and still has a professional league, money from ESPN and huge participation. That world cup broke records in sponsor revenue.
Doesn't need to be no.1. Just a minimum and a large foothold.
Given the scale of the sport, its incomparable.

[Jackass]

JustinDee wrote: »

Technically a fair point but not very realistic.
Why would the ERC (which is made up of the Six home unions) offer their final event to a non-rugby stadium as if there was no alternative?
They simply wouldn't.


Classy.
The Aviva Stadium is far from worthless both in value and in terms of revenue.


Its hardly embarrassing. If that stadium fills for every event it holds, it is not an embarrassment. As well as hosting prime event it will make money while its sponsorships earn the IRFU and FAI welcome revenue. It will also be far more active than say Murrayfield, Twickenham and just as active as Millenium Stadium on a busy year.


Here we go again . . .
What was the "right" way exactly?
I posted the following on Leinsterfans.com the other week.

In summary to answer your question, the alternative should have been a smart and fiscal rashioning from the IRFU and hold on to the old Lansdowne Road as a 50,000 stadium to be developed over time (i.e. Twickenham & Croke Park to name but two, which were done in phases), and to have agreed to a stadium outside the usual city centre location. Which was very much on the cards...most rugby stadiums are outside the city, and infrastructure would develop around the stadium, such as bars etc, which could make it a great sporting hub no matter where it is, in fact, the less developed the better, to have maximum accomidation etc. within the vacinity also, and abondon the snobbery of keeping it in D4 (where I'm from by the way!! So not having a go at D4 or anything)

As I said, in the lifetime of the stadium, the capacity of a 50,000 stadium vs a 80,000 stadium will result in billions in lost revenue when you factor in all sporting events, hosting of international events, concerts...it's a stupid decision, and yes, it's capacity is an embarresment as it is THE smallest of the "big nations" and will be half the size of some international stadiums in 10 - 15 years time imo...

But it's an old argument, so i'll leave it at that...

JustinDee

[Jackass] wrote: »

In summary to answer your question, the alternative should have been a smart and fiscal rashioning from the IRFU and hold on to the old Lansdowne Road as a 50,000 stadium to be developed over time (i.e. Twickenham & Croke Park to name but two, which were done in phases), and to have agreed to a stadium outside the usual city centre location. Which was very much on the cards...

[QUOTE='[Jackass]most rugby stadiums are outside the city, and infrastructure would develop around the stadium, such as bars etc, which could make it a great sporting hub no matter where it is, in fact, the less developed the better, to have maximum accomidation etc. within the vacinity also, and abondon the snobbery of keeping it in D4 (where I'm from by the way!! So not having a go at D4 or anything)

Ok, ignore what I said so.
Lets compare "most" rugby stadia.
Murrayfield - Easy to get to
Twickenham - Islolated and not very easy to get to at all.
Millenium - City centre and on a huge plot of land.
Flaminio - Easy to get to
Stade de France - Easy to get to.
and the outside Dublin option . . .
Newland's Cross - Not quite. Near end of the line on the Luas then a good walk. Other option for anyone not from the area is car.

It had nothing to do with "snobbery" by the way. :rolleyes:
The bitching and wailing that would have prevailed following an abandonment of the Lansdowne road site (its one or the other) and move to the outskirts of Dublin on the N7, would dwarf anything evident now.

[QUOTE='[Jackass];As I said, in the lifetime of the stadium, the capacity of a 50,000 stadium vs a 80,000 stadium will result in billions in lost revenue when you factor in all sporting events, hosting of international events, concerts...[/quote]
No it won't. Compared to other major non-league soccer stadia that you obviously have in mind, it will be a solid earner and doing so throughout the year.

[QUOTE='[Jackass]t's a stupid decision, and yes, it's capacity is an embarresment as it is THE smallest of the "big nations" and will be half the size of some international stadiums in 10 - 15 years time imo...[/quote]
It would be "embarrassing" if it were empty for most of the year or made a loss.

d'Oracle

Capajoma wrote: »

USA got the WC in '94, soccer certainly isn't the no.1 sport over there.

<Generic we are not talking about soccer response>

d'Oracle

JustinDee wrote: »

It had nothing to do with "snobbery" by the way. :rolleyes:
The bitching and wailing that would have prevailed following an abandonment of the Lansdowne road site (its one or the other) and move to the outskirts of Dublin on the N7, would dwarf anything evident now.

I totally agree with this.

Also I am sick to death of this Rugby is Snobbish crap that people keep belching out. Lansdowne road is the home of Rugby in Ireland, this has nothing to do with D4 or snobbishness.

What is snobbish is the stance the GAA had, has and does take to Rugby and Soccer.

This is in no way alleviated by the fact that they offered the stadium when they stuck their greasy paws in their wallets and realised how much money they had made from having the 6N in Croker.