RWC Bid 2023/2027

Hulk Hands

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise people actually live in the West and North west its not some remote parkland that people come down from Dublin to go on holidays in ?:rolleyes:

Castlebar is an hour from Sligo and Galway, just over an hour from Athlone and Longford. The Dublin train stops right beside the stadium.

Knock airport is 20 minutes away and had over 100K passengers in one month alone. With 22 international destinations.

Westport and Claremorris are only 10 minutes away with plenty of surplus hotel accommodation. Westport been one of the busiest tourist towns in the country and has no problem accommodating them.

Even now Mchale park will easily seat 30K + and was only recently upgraded, and would be considered one of the best GAA grounds outside of Dublin, Limerick & Cork.

So Korat, while you may find it remote from where you live, it is a lot better connected than you think. There is whole section of the country that it suits perfectly.;)

If Irish Rugby wants its sport to spread beyond Leinster and Munster then Castlebar/Derry will need to be included.

Very biased post there. Castlebar as a destination has very little going for it in comparison to the others. It's served poorly by roads, with no dual carriageways or motorways in Mayo as yet, and one train line. As a town, it offers little in the way of nightlife, social atmosphere or tourist attractions. The fact that you mentioned people staying in hotels in Claremorris says it all with regards the accommodation issues. We're showing ourselves off to the world, and the town you want to show off is Claremorris??

The stadium isnt a selling point either. I see you're saying it can "seat" 30k plus. Are you talking about the worn down concrete slabs around the pitch? They are an absolute safety hazard and would be the first thing that would have to be removed. The stand itself is a disaster also, built with 1970's style concrete poles blocking the view right across it. Inexplicable that they made such a disaster of that given it was built recently.

Castlebar is by far the weakest venue of the 12 chosen and will be the first for the chop id imagine. I suspect the reason so many Mayo people are pushing it is hope of a few quid of debt relief on the huge amount they owe on the ground.

Chivito550

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I've a sneaky feeling France will withdraw leaving it a straight Ireland v South Africa shootout for 2023.

France sports/tourism/government is very much focussed on their (currently favourite) Olympic 2024 bid for Paris the result of which is announced next Autumn also.
Having to concentrate resources for the first 6 months of next year on two big bids at once is a lot of hassle to take on. In a presidential election year.

Just a theory.

Japan is hosting RWC2019 follows by the 2020 Olympic Games.

NiallBoo

So who are the likely looking candidates for 2027?

Argentina? USA?

Awesomeness

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

South Africa will have little support. Their bid is out of sync with the normal NH-SH rotation and it's a country that puts huge travel demands on everybody. It's even farther from the SH than it is from Europe and it's a long way from Europe.

France have already held it. If they were up against England or even Wales, they might have a chance, but since we have never hosted it, we'd have a much stronger case. They still haven't put their formal bid in either. We're the first.

Is there a deadline to have your formal bid in? I cant seem to find one online

The Lost Sheep

Awesomeness wrote: »

Is there a deadline to have your formal bid in? I cant seem to find one online

The deadline has passed for some issues. We are in the candidate phase and then winner will be announced in 12 months time

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/0902/813806-ireland-lodge-bid-to-host-rugby-world-cup/

ArmaniJeanss

Chivito550 wrote: »

Japan is hosting RWC2019 follows by the 2020 Olympic Games.

Not the same thing at all.

The Tokyo Olympic bid was in 2012/2013 obviously as the Olympic is awarded 7Y in advance, whereas they were awarded the RWC back in 2009 so they weren't actually bidding for both events at the same time.

But next year France will be trying to organise cohesive bids for both events, quite difficult I'd guess.

CMOTDibbler

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Not the same thing at all.

The Tokyo Olympic bid was in 2012/2013 obviously as the Olympic is awarded 7Y in advance, whereas they were awarded the RWC back in 2009 so they weren't actually bidding for both events at the same time.

But next year France will be trying to organise cohesive bids for both events, quite difficult I'd guess.

I honestly don't think that would be a factor. Different sports, different organisations and people.

France's bid is too soon after hosting their last one. That would be the main issue that could lose them support.

swiwi_

homerjay2005 wrote: »

on paper, we have the weakest bid -

• worst transport infrastructure.
• not exactly a great selection of hotels in certain cities.
• smallest population for filling stadiums where the ties are no so glamorous.
• island country so more difficult to get to for alot of fans.
• and above all else, the stadium infrastructure is very poor - as already mentioned, the lack of corporate facilities in these stadiums is seriously going to be an issue compared to other countries.

but you know what, with our love of Brown envelopes and the liking of all things Irish by alot of people, we may have a chance. we dont deserve it at all, but it does appear we can get it - south Africa have failed 3 times in a row so its obvious the Rugby community just dont warm to them at all.

Because South Africa is a shining beacon of a corruption-free society with no political influence...

NB: this thread reminds me of the Dan Carter "doping" thread. A few posters who never darken the doors of the rugby forum suddenly metamorphosing from the nooks and crannies of boards

Bar_Prop

I'm an arch pessimist but I'm starting to come around to the notion that we'll get it. As much by the failure of the other bids as the success of our own.
We have to win it. There were well over two million spectators in England last year, the talk is of expanding the pools to more than 20 teams and Union, for better or worse, is finally cottoning on to its professional status. It's all getting very chequebook-y. If we don't get '23 or '27 at the outside, it could simply become too big a deal for us to handle, infrastructure improvements or not.
At this point the only things I can see stopping the Ireland bid are France going nuclear on spending, it's possible (although equally possible they'll shrug in Gallic fashion and not bother much at all) or the whole Brexit malarkey looking like daggers-drawn at the point the decision has to be made.

CMOTDibbler

Bar_Prop wrote: »

I'm an arch pessimist but I'm starting to come around to the notion that we'll get it. As much by the failure of the other bids as the success of our own.
We have to win it. There were well over two million spectators in England last year, the talk is of expanding the pools to more than 20 teams and Union, for better or worse, is finally cottoning on to its professional status. It's all getting very chequebook-y. If we don't get '23 or '27 at the outside, it could simply become too big a deal for us to handle, infrastructure improvements or not.
At this point the only things I can see stopping the Ireland bid are France going nuclear on spending, it's possible (although equally possible they'll shrug in Gallic fashion and not bother much at all) or the whole Brexit malarkey looking like daggers-drawn at the point the decision has to be made.

As far as I know the final decision comes down to a vote by the world council of World Rugby. I assume those on the council who's countries have bids in will not be voting, so the decision will be made by the likes of Argentina, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, Scotland, Wales and England. There are also continental reps for South America, Oceania, North America, Europe and Africa.

We would need a majority obviously.

Bar_Prop

It's not a simple majority, some of those with a vote have more clout than others.

But don't ask me what the breakdown of that is.

The Lost Sheep

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

As far as I know the final decision comes down to a vote by the world council of World Rugby. I assume those on the council who's countries have bids in will not be voting, so the decision will be made by the likes of Argentina, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Italy, Georgia, Romania, Scotland, Wales and England. There are also continental reps for South America, Oceania, North America, Europe and Africa.

We would need a majority obviously.

Australia England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, Wales, Argentina, Canada, and Italy have 2 votes each.
Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA all have one each.
The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes and the Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote and these two will virtually always come from the big 8.

CMOTDibbler

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Australia England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa, Wales, Argentina, Canada, and Italy have 2 votes each.
Georgia, Japan, Romania, and the USA all have one each.
The six regional associations representing Europe, Americas North, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have two votes and the Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote and these two will virtually always come from the big 8.

So that adds up to 40 votes. If I'm right, six are excluded as having a vested interest and I'm not sure what the position of the continental votes are regarding exclusion from the process. But including all of them, that would be 34 votes of which we would need a minimum of 18.

I suspect that we would have the support of the home nations and we would seem to be well in with the USA and Canada at the moment. That would give us 11 if you include the North America votes.

Which would leave us needing another 7. Not impossible. Italy, Australia and New Zealand (if we let them win on Saturday) would give us 6 and one of the other continents would take us over the line.

Bar_Prop

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I suspect that we would have the support of the home nations

I wouldn't wager any big sums on that.

Bar_Prop

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I suspect that we would have the support of the home nations

I wouldn't wager any big sums on that.

NiallBoo

Bar_Prop wrote: »

I wouldn't wager any big sums on that.

Ah yeah, sure they love the French.

CMOTDibbler

NiallBoo wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure they love the French.

Yeah, and the Brits always voted for us in the Eurovision.

Felix Jones is God

Bar_Prop wrote: »

I wouldn't wager any big sums on that.

England Scotland and Wales can remain at home until the last possible minute, no time difference or weather acclimatization to be done and their fans can come across the Irish sea quote easily, it's a huge positive in our favour

Bar_Prop

If we were talking popular vote in the home countries, I'd agree. We're not.

CMOTDibbler

Bar_Prop wrote: »

If we were talking popular vote in the home countries, I'd agree. We're not.

If you have some insight, please share. Non sequiturs aren't very enlightening.

blackcard

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So that adds up to 40 votes. If I'm right, six are excluded as having a vested interest and I'm not sure what the position of the continental votes are regarding exclusion from the process. But including all of them, that would be 34 votes of which we would need a minimum of 18.

I suspect that we would have the support of the home nations and we would seem to be well in with the USA and Canada at the moment. That would give us 11 if you include the North America votes.

Which would leave us needing another 7. Not impossible. Italy, Australia and New Zealand (if we let them win on Saturday) would give us 6 and one of the other continents would take us over the line.

Time to get Pat Hickey on the job

Bar_Prop

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Bar_Prop wrote: »

If we were talking popular vote in the home countries, I'd agree. We're not.

If you have some insight, please share. Non sequiturs aren't very enlightening.

There's no non sequitur involved, you assumed that we could "probably" rely upon Home Nation unions to support our bid. There followed comments about the French relationship with the UK. At a Union level I'd argue England at least have much closer ties to France than they do to us. It's pretty much a business decision for them and I wouldn't count on Ireland being favoured in that regard.

CMOTDibbler

Bar_Prop wrote: »

There's no non sequitur involved, you assumed that we could "probably" rely upon Home Nation unions to support our bid. There followed comments about the French relationship with the UK. At a Union level I'd argue England at least have much closer ties to France than they do to us. It's pretty much a business decision for them and I wouldn't count on Ireland being favoured in that regard.

The reasons that the other poster gave would be as important to the union reps on the world council as they would the general population. They would have other considerations apart from them, but it certainly doesn't follow that they would be diametrically opposed to the rugby following population of their nations.

Edit: We assisted Wales with their bid in 1999, we undoubtedly supported England with their bid. If we don't get support for our bid, that would be very poor form by them.

Bar_Prop

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The reasons that the other poster gave would be as important to the union reps on the world council as they would the general population. They would have other considerations apart from them, but it certainly doesn't follow that they would be diametrically opposed to the rugby following population of their nations.

The fact remains that we can by no means rely unequivocally upon the support of the other home nations. My view is that in at least one case we should probably anticipate not getting the nod (unless alone France withdraw their bid).

With regard to popular vote amongst supporters globally, with Italy out of the picture we'd be a shoo in. But that's not where the decision will be made, and while I don't anticipate any Union ignoring supporters, I'm very well aware of how little their opinions/wants/needs count in the grand scheme of things. Unions will vote upon what they feel best serves their needs, not just in the RWC competition but at every level.

Felix Jones is God

Bar_Prop wrote: »

The fact remains that we can by no means rely unequivocally upon the support of the other home nations. My view is that in at least one case we should probably anticipate not getting the nod (unless alone France withdraw their bid).

With regard to popular vote amongst supporters globally, with Italy out of the picture we'd be a shoo in. But that's not where the decision will be made, and while I don't anticipate any Union ignoring supporters, I'm very well aware of how little their opinions/wants/needs count in the grand scheme of things. Unions will vote upon what they feel best serves their needs, not just in the RWC competition but at every level.

Do it makes sense for the IRFU to bite for the Irish proposal

CMOTDibbler

Bar_Prop wrote: »

With regard to popular vote amongst supporters globally, with Italy out of the picture we'd be a shoo in. But that's not where the decision will be made, and while I don't anticipate any Union ignoring supporters, I'm very well aware of how little their opinions/wants/needs count in the grand scheme of things. Unions will vote upon what they feel best serves their needs, not just in the RWC competition but at every level.

There's no popular vote. The logistical reasons for general support of an Irish RWC would be universal.

The most important factor would be alliances and quid pro quos amongst the members of the world council. I don't doubt that there's been horse trading going on since we decided we'd have some skin in the game. Recent developments involving Canada and the USA would indicate that this is heating up.

Bar_Prop

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's no popular vote. The logistical reasons for general support of an Irish RWC would be universal.

The most important factor would be alliances and quid pro quos amongst the members of the world council. I don't doubt that there's been horse trading going on since we decided we'd have some skin in the game. Recent developments involving Canada and the USA would indicate that this is heating up.

Okay, I must admit that you've completely lost me.

Once again, my sole assertion is that I see no compelling reason to presuppose that the "Home Nations" can be relied upon to support the Irish bid, indeed in the case of the RFU I am inclined to the belief that they'll favour the French.

Podge_irl

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Okay, I must admit that you've completely lost me.

Once again, my sole assertion is that I see no compelling reason to presuppose that the "Home Nations" can be relied upon to support the Irish bid, indeed in the case of the RFU I am inclined to the belief that they'll favour the French.

Why?

I don't really trust the Welsh, but I doubt the French would be inclined to offer them anything in the Millennium considering the farce of them playing their QF there in 2007.

Bar_Prop

Podge_irl wrote: »

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Okay, I must admit that you've completely lost me.

Once again, my sole assertion is that I see no compelling reason to presuppose that the "Home Nations" can be relied upon to support the Irish bid, indeed in the case of the RFU I am inclined to the belief that they'll favour the French.

Why?

I don't really trust the Welsh, but I doubt the French would be inclined to offer them anything in the Millennium considering the farce of them playing their QF there in 2007.

Being "onside" with the FRU is more equitable for England at the International & Club levels than being friends with us.

With the Welsh it'll depend on who they want to be mates with that week, or who last p***ed them off.

The Scots? As it stands now I'd imagine they'd be happy to see it go to us. A year probably won't change that, I might worry a bit if they show up in the next two 6N. But not much.

Podge_irl

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Being "onside" with the FRU is more equitable for England at the International & Club levels than being friends with us.

The FFR are actually an increasingly weak union with the clubs pushing back against them massively. Being "onside" with the French isn't of any particular use to the RFU. The English and French club associations are fairly pally alright, but the national unions less so.