RWC Bid 2023/2027

CMOTDibbler

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.

The reasons for supporting an Irish bid over a French one are that the French one sets a precedent of giving the tournament to the bigger nations regardless of whether they had it before or not. The dangers there are obvious. For a start, fans would lose interest if they see the tournament being held in the same countries over and over again. Also France have ongoing security problems that may well impact visitor numbers.

As for whether the RFU would support us or not, it would seem to me that having pulled out of the 2015 and 2019 bid process in favour of England and Japan (we had looked for a joint approach for 2015), they would return the favour for us.

It's not our first time around this barbecue. We would expect a quid pro quo.

Bar_Prop

Don't seem to be able to quote on this..

In the case of the English I'm not sure there's much of a distinction anymore between the players organisation and the Union, one appears to be pretty much in the others pocket. Which is really where my thinking lies, the Welsh I feel, would like to say the same, but cant, yet.

Bar_Prop

Again, sorry, can't quote.

I wouldn't expect quid pro quo to count for as much as just plain quids.

Podge_irl

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Don't seem to be able to quote on this..

In the case of the English I'm not sure there's much of a distinction anymore between the players organisation and the Union, one appears to be pretty much in the others pocket. Which is really where my thinking lies, the Welsh I feel, would like to say the same, but cant, yet.

I more get the impression that the RFU is trying to engage with the PRL in order to not be as sidelined and neutered as the FFR who seem to have lost all semblance of control.

The RFU may well support the French but there is no natural reason for them to do so. I don't really follow why you think they would.

MJohnston

Perhaps I'm overly naive, but I think people are overstating how much politics will come into this decision. It's very much in World Rugby's interests to be non-political about the choices and to try and pick the best bid for the expansion of the game. Sure

Bazzo

Dick Spring said in an interview in 2015 that he reckoned he had 40% of the votes tied up at that stage. Take from that what you will.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2015/0519/702215-dick-spring-ireland-have-40-of-rwc-2023-vote/

Fr Tod Umptious

former total wrote: »

Source:
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/163399?lang=en

Adbrowne wrote: »

Infrastructure wont be the deciding factor. It will be one. Rugby is different to football world cup/euro's and olympics. Something you seem incapable of grasping.

I read the report


You said "the RWC in England was a commercial success on Tourists alone"

What's that supposed to mean ?

The report says that 406,000 people visited for the RWC, and 774,000 tickets were purchased by international visitors

In 2014 overseas residents made 34.4 million visits to the UK.

The 406,000 represents just over 1.1% of total visitors to the UK
It's a tiny number overall.

There were 8 million overseas visits to Ireland in 2015

You would be doing well to up that by 5% (400,000) for a RWC

England is far more accessible than Ireland, with huge airports, direct flights to the SH, a train to France etc

Podge_irl wrote: »

"£1.1 billion directly added to the UK GDP"

Unless you're expecting us to spend a billion on upgrading 3 stadiums...

And even though England added £1.1bn in GDP, and fair play to them, I don't think you can naturally extrapolate that Ireland would in it's case

Here are some differences

England already had fully fitted out stadiums, with the exception of Sandy Park which got a £10m redevelopment in 2014
As a result there was relatively little infrastructure cost.

This meant that once the fee was paid to World Rugby the money could be easily recouped

I can't find any site showing how much tickets cost but from the IRFU page it seems that the lowest adult Ireland ticket was £50
But I recall there was posts on this thread way back talking about the high price of tickets.

According to this the average price was £104

And England went on to sell 2.47m of them.

There is no way in hell Ireland will sell anything like that in tickets
And the prices will have to be slashed here for low profile games to get bums on seats

So just because England made a big profit on it doesn't mean that we will.
We will have to spend more on infrastructure and have less coming in in revenue.

MJohnston

Bazzo wrote: »

Dick Spring said in an interview in 2015 that he reckoned he had 40% of the votes tied up at that stage. Take from that what you will.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2015/0519/702215-dick-spring-ireland-have-40-of-rwc-2023-vote/

Presumably he had chatted to union representatives about how they'd be voting. I've no doubt there's a certain amount of political movement involved, but I genuinely do believe a lot of it will come down to proper criteria in the end. In fact, most of what Spring is talking about there is the positives of our bid.

MJohnston

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The report says that 406,000 people visited for the RWC.

....

England is far more accessible than Ireland, with huge airports, direct flights to the SH, a train to France etc

...

We will have to spend more on infrastructure and have less coming in in revenue.

I've just highlighted some small bits here because they point out how poor some of your logic appears to be.

This September, Dublin Airport alone was able to handle 2.6 million passengers. But we have plenty more airports around the country.

So. Somehow you're claiming that Ireland's infrastructure will need lots of money spent on it to accommodate those 400k extra visitors?

It won't. Our infrastructure, for the purposes of a Rugby World Cup, is perfectly good.

kuang1

This is my first time ever using the "ignore" function.

And it feels gooooooood.

Fr Tod Umptious

MJohnston wrote: »

I've just highlighted some small bits here because they point out how poor some of your logic appears to be.

This September, Dublin Airport alone was able to handle 2.6 million passengers. But we have plenty more airports around the country.

So. Somehow you're claiming that Ireland's infrastructure will need lots of money spent on it to accommodate those 400k extra visitors?

It won't. Our infrastructure, for the purposes of a Rugby World Cup, is perfectly good.

Of course it will need more infrastructure

You are talking about adding 5% of the total visitor numbers for a year in the space on a month, that's not a trivial exercise

Fr Tod Umptious

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 assumption that the home nations will vote for Ireland is just like the theme of this whole thread, assumptions based on nothing really

connemara man

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The assumption that the home nations will vote for Ireland is just like the theme of this whole thread, assumptions based on nothing really

Well seeing as the Leinster council have voted against championship games being played in Galway I can see how you would have this perspective.

But rugby union aren't as short-sighted as that. England Wales and Scotland would want there fans have a shorter trip to make so they could make as many games feel like home matches. And given the short distance they can go to more matches at a lesser cost than say France. So that's why people are assuming they'll vote Ireland over France

The IRFU have come out with a partnership with Notre dame in terms of rugby development which is good with the new pro league over there, also playing a test vs the all blacks increasing the profile of the game in the USA and Canada to a degree might gain favour and votes.

New Zealand and Ireland historically in Rugby have a good relationship also said test match that out money in their coffers and broadened their worldwide appeal may be a reason theyd vote for us.

Fr Tod Umptious

MJohnston wrote: »

I've just highlighted some small bits here because they point out how poor some of your logic appears to be.

This September, Dublin Airport alone was able to handle 2.6 million passengers. But we have plenty more airports around the country.

So. Somehow you're claiming that Ireland's infrastructure will need lots of money spent on it to accommodate those 400k extra visitors?

It won't. Our infrastructure, for the purposes of a Rugby World Cup, is perfectly good.

By the way, and I'm not aiming this at you, but no one in favour of this bid has come up with a proper narrative about how of will be a success.

Now obviously we don't know the cost of ground redevelopment etc yet , but could someone spell out to me in something other than aspirations how the numbers are going to add up.

Bazzo

He says after 20 pages of links to various articles & reports on the economic viability of a rugby world cup.

Fr Tod Umptious

Bazzo wrote: »

He says after 20 pages of links to various articles & reports on the economic viability of a rugby world cup.

Ill take that as a no then.

I've seen one report that detailed how it was a success in England and nothing more.

And I have outlined how tat English success does not automatically translate to an Irish success.

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ill take that as a no then.

I've seen one report that detailed how it was a success in England and nothing more.

And I have outlined how tat English success does not automatically translate to an Irish success.

It doesn't 'automatically'. It provides a blueprint for success. It's not rocket science to use their model to create our own. If it had been a failure, then you might have a point.

You even misread the report you read. The England report said that 406,000 visitors stayed for 14 days or more. The rest for shorter durations.

You suggested that the airports couldn't handle these numbers: 1. They won't all be arriving at the same time or the same airports and 2. In September/October Dublin Airport is running at about one million passenger transits a month below peak levels.

You clearly either can't understand what you're reading or are wilfully misinterpreting it.

Fr Tod Umptious

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It doesn't 'automatically'. It provides a blueprint for success. It's not rocket science to use their model to create our own. If it had been a failure, then you might have a point.

You even misread the report you read. The England report said that 406,000 visitors stayed for 14 days or more. The rest for shorter durations.

You suggested that the airports couldn't handle these numbers: 1. They won't all be arriving at the same time or the same airports and 2. In September/October Dublin Airport is running at about one million passenger transits a month below peak levels.

You clearly either can't understand what you're reading or are wilfully misinterpreting it.

So use the model to create one for Ireland

Show me how it will work.

As for the 406,000 I'll look back on it later and reply.

Edit: It clearly states on P 13 of the report that there were 406,000 international visitors.
Not that 406,000 stayed 14 days or more.

So who is misinterpreting what now ?

corny

Is allowing the other home nations maybe a pool game at home for a vote off the table?

Podge_irl

corny wrote: »

Is allowing the other home nations maybe a pool game at home for a vote off the table?

Almost certainly.

Adbrowne

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I read the report


You said "the RWC in England was a commercial success on Tourists alone"

What's that supposed to mean ?

The report says that 406,000 people visited for the RWC, and 774,000 tickets were purchased by international visitors

In 2014 overseas residents made 34.4 million visits to the UK.

The 406,000 represents just over 1.1% of total visitors to the UK
It's a tiny number overall.

There were 8 million overseas visits to Ireland in 2015

You would be doing well to up that by 5% (400,000) for a RWC

England is far more accessible than Ireland, with huge airports, direct flights to the SH, a train to France etc



And even though England added £1.1bn in GDP, and fair play to them, I don't think you can naturally extrapolate that Ireland would in it's case

Here are some differences

England already had fully fitted out stadiums, with the exception of Sandy Park which got a £10m redevelopment in 2014
As a result there was relatively little infrastructure cost.

This meant that once the fee was paid to World Rugby the money could be easily recouped

I can't find any site showing how much tickets cost but from the IRFU page it seems that the lowest adult Ireland ticket was £50
But I recall there was posts on this thread way back talking about the high price of tickets.

According to this the average price was £104

And England went on to sell 2.47m of them.

There is no way in hell Ireland will sell anything like that in tickets
And the prices will have to be slashed here for low profile games to get bums on seats

So just because England made a big profit on it doesn't mean that we will.
We will have to spend more on infrastructure and have less coming in in revenue.

Tickets varied from game to game depending on the teams involved. The ireland games ranged from £50 to £250. Ireland fans filled wembley (90000) for a game with Romania. Also had the majority for other games with crowds of 68000, 72000, 55000, 72000. UK fans will travel. If that many Ireland fans can get to London and Cardiff then surely fans from 10 other cities in UK can get here.

The biggest supported teams were England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland. That will be the exact same in 2023 if the rwc is held here.

Nobody has said we will replicate what England made, but that we can achieve a commercially sucessful tournament with similar benefits to our economy

Surely infrastructure improving and stadiums getting upgrades is a positive even without a RWC so if the money is recouped with a RWC (directly or indirectly) why do you whinge and moan about it. There will be huge media entourages alone filling hotel rooms all over the country. The GAA gets free work plus about 25m in rental fees alone. The country gets an out of season tourism spike.

Anyway your just the typical irish begrudger who likes to see problems were none exist just to have a moan.

Podge_irl

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And even though England added £1.1bn in GDP, and fair play to them, I don't think you can naturally extrapolate that Ireland would in it's case

Here are some differences

England already had fully fitted out stadiums, with the exception of Sandy Park which got a £10m redevelopment in 2014
As a result there was relatively little infrastructure cost.

This meant that once the fee was paid to World Rugby the money could be easily recouped

I can't find any site showing how much tickets cost but from the IRFU page it seems that the lowest adult Ireland ticket was £50
But I recall there was posts on this thread way back talking about the high price of tickets.

According to this the average price was £104

And England went on to sell 2.47m of them.

There is no way in hell Ireland will sell anything like that in tickets
And the prices will have to be slashed here for low profile games to get bums on seats

So just because England made a big profit on it doesn't mean that we will.
We will have to spend more on infrastructure and have less coming in in revenue.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the ticket sales have much to do with the GDP figure quoted. It will be mostly due to the ancillary benefits of extra tourism and spending.

Anyway, you are correct that Ireland will certainly have less coming in via ticket sales than England yes but an extra billion pounds does leave quite a lot of leeway. Ireland are aiming for close to 2M tickets, while that may not be achieved NZ sold only 1.5M so again there is quite a buffer between the aim and what another successful world cup achieved.

Exactly how much do you think is going to be spent on redevelopment of stadia that is purely related to the world cup?

molloyjh

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The assumption that the home nations will vote for Ireland is just like the theme of this whole thread, assumptions based on nothing really

Well I mean other than the fact that it would be cheaper for them, easier for them, cheaper for their fans, easier for their fans, would therefore ensure more of their fans in stadiums on match days etc.

Seriously now, stop. You're just embarrassing yourself.

CMOTDibbler

Just to clarify some of the points you seem to think people haven't put across to your satisfaction:

1. The IRFU have said they will sell 2,000,000 tickets, some starting as low as €15. They know that they have to make up the hosting fee from this plus a profit to make it worthwhile. The NZRU took in £131,000,000 in ticket sales in 2011 from 1,500,000 tickets sold and had 15% spare capacity. So clearly that's acheivable.
2. Airports can handle the extra numbers. Dublin Airport operates at peaks of up to 3,000,000 passenger transits a month and Sept/Oct norms are almost a million lower than that. The RWC runs over six weeks, so arrivals will be spread out. In addition, UK and French visitors (and probably more) will most likely arrive by ferry as it makes more sense to bring your own transport if you can.
3. Travelling distances are much shorter in Ireland than in (say) France. In 2007, Ireland played their first matches in Bordeaux followed by Paris, a travel time of over eight hours. In 2011 we played in New Plymouth, then Auckland, then Rotorua and then Dunedin. Travelling times varied but it necessitated a flight from Rotorua to Dunedin.
4. We have over 60,000 hotel rooms in Ireland. The main cities that hosted the RWC in 2011 totalled just over 20,000. That's not counting B&Bs here. We certainly have enough accommodation. Even if that were considered inadequate, there are more hotels being built and in the pipeline. Thirteen are in the planning/construction stage in Dublin alone at the moment, one of which will have 400 rooms. Add in guesthouses, B&Bs and campsites and there's more than enough capacity; certainly in comparison to New Zealand.
5. Costs of stadium upgrades will be restricted to some GAA stadia and in most cases will be minor and/or are in the pipeline already. FitzGerald Stadium's plans are intended to be paid for by the sale of 5 year tickets to GAA fixtures for example. Seven of the twelve propsed venues are already at or in the process of getting to, the required levels. Casement Park is in the process of getting planning permission for a complete revamp. This has been in process for a couple of years already and has nothing to do with the RWC. I've yet to see anyone explain what major revamps are needed to the rest of the GAA stadia propsed.
6. It's clear that the IRFU have spent a good deal of time in assessing their bid and coming up with their proposals. Clearly a great deal of thought was put into assessing the viabilty of the various venues. The IRFU had put preliminary bids in for 2015 and 2019, but withdrew due to the economic circumstances at the time. That alone should give some inidication that they have taken this seriously and have prepared for it properly.
7. We have seven years to prepare for this. In the interim, there are plans to add a new runway to Dublin Airport and a possibility of a third terminal. The Luas line will extend to Dublin Airport. A substantial increase in hotel rooms. There are new motorway and dual carriageway projects under constrcution including many in the West of Ireland. And that's just what's currently in progress.

I'm not sure what else would be required to explain how this would be a success. As a tourist destinationm, we already figure highly and have a very good reputation. Visitor numbers are going up all the time and a RWC here would be an attractive proposition for people who would like to experience the country and enjoy some matches at the same time. For Southern Hemisphere visitors, there's little difference in travelling to Paris or Dublin timewise. Likewise, North American visitors would have a shorter (and in many cases) one-stop route to Ireland. Continental and British travellers have multiple methods and routes to get here, including by car.

molloyjh

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So use the model to create one for Ireland

Show me how it will work.

As for the 406,000 I'll look back on it later and reply.

Edit: It clearly states on P 13 of the report that there were 406,000 international visitors.
Not that 406,000 stayed 14 days or more.

So who is misinterpreting what now ?

This is getting just totally and utterly ridiculous. Nobody can prove that this will be a success because nobody can see into the future. There is an incredibly strong case that it will be based off previous RWCs. There is feck all backing up a case to say it will fail. And yet somehow you want the burden of proof to lie solely on those backing the bid. It's farce. You have nothing backing up anything that you are saying that cannot be, and hasn't already been, pretty firmly debunked/disproven/challenged.

You obviously have an issue with rugby. You obviously have an issue with the possibility that this might actually work. But you also have a massive issue in terms of debating the actual situation. Evidence from others is being met by baseless opinions and guess work by you. Nobody can win against someone who requires absolutely no evidence to support their position. Nobody.

I'd really suggest people just stop engaging now. This individual clearly has no interest in debating the actual merits of this bid and is really just looking to poke holes in anything and everything, even if those holes don't actually exist. It's an exercise in futility and it's utterly derailing this thread.

Interested Observer

That's a great post CMO but you're giving this person way more attention than they deserve.

Fr Tod Umptious

molloyjh wrote: »

Well I mean other than the fact that it would be cheaper for them, easier for them, cheaper for their fans, easier for their fans, would therefore ensure more of their fans in stadiums on match days etc.

Seriously now, stop. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Ireland is not going to be a hell cheaper, easier etc compared to France, its much of a muchness.
Obviously it would be compared to SA.

And I'm not embarrassing myself, I'm offering an alternative point of view, something that seems to get a lot of push back around here.

The people who are embarrassing themselves are the poster like to one this morning that accused me of misinterpreting a report when in fact it was them who were incorrect.

CMOTDibbler

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Edit: It clearly states on P 13 of the report that there were 406,000 international visitors.
Not that 406,000 stayed 14 days or more.

So who is misinterpreting what now ?

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/163399?lang=en

406,000 international visitors stayed an average of 14 days each in the UK, providing tourism and economic benefits to the host nation

Podge_irl

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/163399?lang=en

I'm pretty sure he's right on that one. It was 406,000 foreign visitors in total, and of those they stayed an average of 14 days.

Which is sufficient to refute the point that we will only get a few day trippers anyway.

CMOTDibbler

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he's right on that one. It was 406,000 foreign visitors in total, and of those they stayed an average of 14 days.

Which is sufficient to refute the point that we will only get a few day trippers anyway.

What's not included in the 406k are people travelling from Scotland and Wales (and possibly even Ireland because of the CTA). Not to mention English ticket buyers.

They would all be considered visitors here (except Irish obviously). They have to be factored in to our calculations even if they were left out of the British ones. 406k people wouldn't buy 2,500,000 tickets between them.