RFU a joke

sting60

The only way a host nation generate any monies for accomodating the World Cup is on ticket sales only.New Zealand will announce a 40m-50m loss.2015 hosts England/Wales will have to have 58,400 average attendance to break even.RFU have stated if Arsenals ground is used they cannot use the name Emirates .If Arsenal,Man Utd, Aston Villa,Newcastle grounds are used there cannot be soccer played in between rugby games.Lastly the RFU will make more than 100m profit on this World Cup.???

Podge_irl

sting60 wrote: »

New Zealand will announce a 40m-50m loss.

NZRU will announce a loss. NZ will have benefited to the order of hundreds of millions, if not billions. Hence why the govt are giving grants to the NZRU to host it.

sting60 wrote: »

England/Wales will have to have 58,400 average attendance to break even.

Seems a pretty solid goal in a country of 60m or so and with over 1m registered rugby player. I'll certainly be going to a few games.

sting60 wrote: »

RFU have stated if Arsenals ground is used they cannot use the name Emirates.

That's an IRB ruling. It's the same reason the jerseys don't have sponsors during the world cup.

sting60 wrote: »

If Arsenal,Man Utd, Aston Villa,Newcastle grounds are used there cannot be soccer played in between rugby games

I haven't heard that mentioned. I imagine there is a period around the games were they can't be used, as in most major tournaments, so that you have a "clean" stadium. Even if it's true, those stadiums are only being used for the group stages. The RFU will work with the FA so those teams play 4 away games in a row and they'll be nicely compensated. Job done.


Mind you, despite the fact that all your points are nonsense, the RFU are in fact a jokeshop. But that's mostly to do with the upper management's inept running of the national team.

ArmaniJeanss

sting60 wrote: »

.If Arsenal,Man Utd, Aston Villa,Newcastle grounds are used there cannot be soccer played in between rugby games.

If they follow the same structure as this World Cup used for grounds like Invercargill then it shouldn't be an issue.

A lot of the venues were used for games one after the other, so say Villa Park could be used for a Wednesday/Saturday/Tuesday combo, then StJamesPk for a Thursday/Sunday/Wednesday combo, and neither ground used again. So once the PL team is scheduled for an away game on the one weekend in question there is no disruption.

sting60

Podge_irl wrote: »

NZRU will announce a loss. NZ will have benefited to the order of hundreds of millions, if not billions. Hence why the govt are giving grants to the NZRU to host it.



Seems a pretty solid goal in a country of 60m or so and with over 1m registered rugby player. I'll certainly be going to a few games.



That's an IRB ruling. It's the same reason the jerseys don't have sponsors during the world cup.



I haven't heard that mentioned. I imagine there is a period around the games were they can't be used, as in most major tournaments, so that you have a "clean" stadium. Even if it's true, those stadiums are only being used for the group stages. The RFU will work with the FA so those teams play 4 away games in a row and they'll be nicely compensated. Job done.


Mind you, despite the fact that all your points are nonsense, the RFU are in fact a jokeshop. But that's mostly to do with the upper management's inept running of the national team.

Firstly these points were not made by me but by chief financial officer for the 2015 World Cup on BBC Talk Sport this afternoon.Nonsence indeed ,oops.Only a small number of grounds can hold anything like the figures quoted.It doesnt matter if you have 10million playing rugby a ground can only hold what it can hold,what if the competing nations dont turn up to fill these stadia[problem in past].I didnt think I would have to explain that.

Snickers Man

sting60 wrote: »

RFU have stated if Arsenals ground is used they cannot use the name Emirates

Nothing too strange in that. Westpac Stadium in Wellington became "Wellington Regional Stadium" or some such for the world cup.

And in a different sport entirely, the Aviva became the "Dublin Arena" for the Europa League final earlier this year.

Confused?

sting60

Snickers Man wrote: »

Nothing too strange in that. Westpac Stadium in Wellington became "Wellington Regional Stadium" or some such for the world cup.

And in a different sport entirely, the Aviva became the "Dublin Arena" for the Europa League final earlier this year.

Confused?

Man city are not allowed to play in Manchester the day of a game in Old Trafforrd by police.So,there will be International matches on that date,I think.

PhatPiggins

sting60 wrote: »

Firstly these points were not made by me but by chief financial officer for the 2015 World Cup on BBC Talk Sport this afternoon.Nonsence indeed ,oops.Only a small number of grounds can hold anything like the figures quoted.It doesnt matter if you have 10million playing rugby a ground can only hold what it can hold,what if the competing nations dont turn up to fill these stadia[problem in past].I didnt think I would have to explain that.

CFO for whom? The RFU or the IRB ?

JustinDee

sting60 wrote: »

The only way a host nation generate any monies for accomodating the World Cup is on ticket sales only

Wrong. For a start, ticket sales revenue goes to RWC. Not to a host nation. RWC are the distributor.

sting60 wrote: »

New Zealand will announce a 40m-50m loss.2015 hosts England/Wales will have to have 58,400 average attendance to break even

They will do very well. During the last four Steve Tew rants about losing out, TV rights and sponsorship have never been mentioned. Nor has govt assistance. The tourism revenue to NZ alone encourages govt assistance.

sting60 wrote: »

RFU have stated if Arsenals ground is used they cannot use the name Emirates

If Emirates are not a partner of said RWC then no, they would not be allowed to use that name.

sting60 wrote: »

If Arsenal,Man Utd, Aston Villa,Newcastle grounds are used there cannot be soccer played in between rugby games.Lastly the RFU will make more than 100m profit on this World Cup.???

Too much focus on certain soccer grounds. If a stadium is involved in the bid for hosting a RWC, then you can bet your keyster that it has been researched and arranged to be available.
I don't know where you're getting the 100m (euros?) figure from.

LeinsterDub

sting60 wrote: »

Man city are not allowed to play in Manchester the day of a game in Old Trafforrd by police.So,there will be International matches on that date,I think.

That must make playing the Man U V Man City game a nightmare

Cookiemunster

sting60 wrote: »

.If Arsenal,Man Utd, Aston Villa,Newcastle grounds are used there cannot be soccer played in between rugby games

Where did you get that from. Marseille played Ligue 1 and CL games in Stade Velodrome during RWC 2007. The venue was used 6 times including 2 quarter finals. Other football grounds in Lyon, St. Etienne, Lens, Nantes, Toulouse and Bordeaux all had 3 - 4 group games which were played between the local teams homes fixtures. Don't see how this would be an issue in England. The EPL will have 2 years to organise fixtures around the RWC.

Cookiemunster

sting60 wrote: »

Man city are not allowed to play in Manchester the day of a game in Old Trafforrd by police.So,there will be International matches on that date,I think.

No police force in the world that has 2 large football clubs in the same city allows them to play at home at the same time for purely logistical reasons. The way around this is the league organises for one to be away from home while the other is at home. It can happen that both clubs will be drawn at home in a cup comp, but then they play on different days. This is what will happen in the RWC when Man City are at home, the rugby will be the day before or after.

desertcircus

sting60 wrote: »

Only a small number of grounds can hold anything like the figures quoted.

58.4k average attendance: that's below capacity at Old Trafford (76), Twickenham (80), Wembley (90), Cardiff (75), and the Emirates (60). St James' Park isn't far off (52), and Anfield and Elland Road are both over 40k - presuming Anfield isn't expanded before then. That leaves four stadia, which will most likely be used to host the smaller games anyway. A Scotland game in Newcastle or Manchester will sell out; a Wales or Ireland game anywhere in the country will sell out. Same with the French, and the Italians will draw a decent enough crowd as well. In terms of knockout games, the capacities are nearly a hundred and fifty thousand seats over the breakeven point presuming sellouts - and that doesn't include pool games in each of the larger stadia. Assuming ten big group games (members of the big ten playing each other), and assuming the organisers have the basic intelligence to schedule Wales versus Scotland or Ireland versus France in Wembley or Old Trafford versus Kingsholm, that's another ten games that are, let's say, fifteen thousand over the average - that's three hundred thousand tickets, or enough to cancel out zero sales for five full games.

Trojan

Yes, the RFU is a joke, but not for the reasons posted above.