GAA and the Rugby World Cup

thesultan

It was stated at the time that the GAA Had to open Croke park when Landsdown was being redeveloped. The rugby one seems to be a money only issue.
A few things on this.
1 The higher archery in Croke park don't listen to the grass roots and pass stuff (sky deal ) without a congress vote .

2 Rugby has gotten a massive promotion the last few years while the gaa do little to promote its games.

3 Where will the money generated actually go ?

4 We are giving a rival sport massive promotion using our grounds.

iDave

This moany sh1te again. Even managed a Sky reference. Well done.

thesultan

Are we not promoting rugby massively by this?

ProudDUB

No.

The GAA will make massive amounts of money from all this, as well as getting freebie face lifts of grounds, paid for by the rugger buggers. That money will eventually trickle down to grass roots level. That will do more to promote "our" games over the long term, than a once off tournament that takes place for a few weeks and will then be over.

Expand your minds people !

Jayop

The GAA is promoting themselves by displaying the range of stadiums that no other amatuer sport in the world would be able to match. It's giving it's own members a chance to see absolute top level sport all across the country while still drawing huge numbers in to watch our own games.


Aaaand it's going to make a bloody fortune on gate receipts that will be distributed back across the game.

Win win win

nice_guy80

More money for Dublin GAA.

Fr Tod Umptious

ProudDUB wrote: »

No.

The GAA will make massive amounts of money from all this, as well as getting freebie face lifts of grounds, paid for by the rugger buggers. That money will eventually trickle down to grass roots level. That will do more to promote "our" games over the long term, than a once off tournament that takes place for a few weeks and will then be over.

Expand your minds people !

No, it will be paid by ourselves, the hosting of the RWC is being guaranteed to the tune of e380m by the Irish government(s), thus the cost incurred by the IRFU for putting on the event will be covered to that amount.

This is costing the rugger buggers zero.

This was all discussed in another thread a few months back.

I have no problem with grounds being used for other sports but I have a problem with this bid.

It's bad enough that we have too many GAA infrastructure vanity project all over the country, this will only add to it.

Jayop

And the money outlayed will be more than made back, no?

ProudDUB

Think we are talking about two separate things there Tod. Your definition of "us" is different to mine. Your "us" is the Irish taxpayer. My "us" is the GAA community.

If the GAA's grounds get face lifts, it won't come out of GAA coffers. That is my point.

Should the Irish tax payer foot the bill to host an event such as this, when there are homeless people on the streets and, people dying on hospital trolleys? Probably not. But if it does go ahead, the GAA will emerge from it in a better place financially. I don't think for a minute that the GAA is going to lose hordes of players to rugby, just because a rugby circus comes to town for 4 weeks, or whatever it is.

Fr Tod Umptious

Jayop wrote: »

And the money outlayed will be more than made back, no?

Not necessarily, the benefits are always overstated and the costs understated by the backers of these events.

I have posted extensively on the rugby board about how I think this will not be the boom that most assume it will.

Fr Tod Umptious

ProudDUB wrote: »

Think we are talking about two separate things there Tod. Your definition of "us" is different to mine. Your "us" is the Irish taxpayer. My "us" is the GAA community.

If the GAA's grounds get face lifts, it won't come out of GAA coffers. That is my point.

Should the Irish tax payer foot the bill to host an event such as this, when there are homeless people on the streets and, people dying on hospital trolleys? Probably not. But if it does go ahead, the GAA will emerge from it in a better place financially. I don't think for a minute that the GAA is going to lose hordes of players to rugby, just because a rugby circus comes to town for 4 weeks, or whatever it is.

The maintenance of them will come out of GAA coffers.

And do they really need face lifts ?

As I said there are enough GAA vanity projects as it is.

The RWC bid includes Castlebar and Salthill.

Both have not major redevelopment over the past 15 years and are grossly underutilized, Salthill especially, do they really need more development ?

Casement and Celtic Park are included.
Does Ulster really need three big grounds ?

Killarney is included, great location for such an event but giving Fitzgerald stadium a upgrade just after PUC has been built is crazy.

The GAA need to consolidate provincial grounds, not continue to upgrade under used ones.

ProudDUB

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The maintenance of them will come out of GAA coffers.

And do they really need face lifts ?

As I said there are enough GAA vanity projects as it is.

The RWC bid includes Castlebar and Salthill.

Both have not major redevelopment over the past 15 years and are grossly underutilized, Salthill especially, do they really need more development ?

Casement and Celtic Park are included.
Does Ulster really need three big grounds ?

Killarney is included, great location for such an event but giving Fitzgerald stadium a upgrade just after PUC has been built is crazy.

The GAA need to consolidate provincial grounds, not continue to upgrade under used ones.

What maintenance is going to be needed, over and above what is currently there? They are hardly going to be turning Fitzgerald Stadium into the Bernabeu. If they rip out the old wooden benches & put in proper seats, give the dressing rooms a facelift, improve the toilets and other facilities for the spectators etc etc, then I am all for it. Pairc Ui Chaoimh is a joke shop of a white elephant, that is out on its own, thankfully.

munchkin_utd

thesultan wrote: »

Are we not promoting rugby massively by this?

Rugby are making inroads in a massive way that this might consolidate, but I dont think it in itsself will make or break the increasing popularity of Rugby down the country.

For me, one of the most alarming articles was on Cora Staunton there this week - and if she is saying it, thats not good.
'If I was a young player now, I might choose rugby over the GAA' - Cora Staunton
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/ladies-football/if-i-was-a-young-player-now-i-might-choose-rugby-over-the-gaa-cora-staunton-35564118.html

Boom__Boom

For me I'm worried the Irish taxpayer is getting sold a pup on this.

The Irish government have agreed to underwrite the tournament for €272 million and the Northern Irish government have agree to underwrite it for €48 million, which is a total of €320 million.

By comparison when England were hosting it in 2015 the British government underwrote the bid for £25 million. £25 million was worth around €34 million in 2015, and around €29 million today.

The vast difference in those two figures are a massive red flag for me in terms of the financials of the bid.

Cloudio9

Boom__Boom wrote: »

For me I'm worried the Irish taxpayer is getting sold a pup on this.

The Irish government have agreed to underwrite the tournament for €272 million and the Northern Irish government have agree to underwrite it for €48 million, which is a total of €320 million.

By comparison when England were hosting it in 2015 the British government underwrote the bid for £25 million. £25 million was worth around €34 million in 2015, and around €29 million today.

The vast difference in those two figures are a massive red flag for me in terms of the financials of the bid.

They're guarantees provided, not cheques written.

I don't know why the guarantees are different but I imagine it's to address the perceived riskiness of hosting the tournament in a small country that has never hosted anything vs France which has hosted the football World Cup, Rugby world cup and the European championships in the last 20 years.

Fr Tod Umptious

Boom__Boom wrote: »

For me I'm worried the Irish taxpayer is getting sold a pup on this.

The Irish government have agreed to underwrite the tournament for €272 million and the Northern Irish government have agree to underwrite it for €48 million, which is a total of €320 million.

By comparison when England were hosting it in 2015 the British government underwrote the bid for £25 million. £25 million was worth around €34 million in 2015, and around €29 million today.

The vast difference in those two figures are a massive red flag for me in terms of the financials of the bid.

And I'd imagine ever penny of that €320m will be needed.

Don't be surprised when the final price of the stadium upgrades is way over budget because let's face it we have never been much good at keeping down costs when something that is precieved as being of national importance has to be done, be that a tunnel, a tram line, a famine ship repecla.

Boom__Boom

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And I'd imagine ever penny of that €320 will be needed.

Don't be surprised when the final price of the stadium upgrades is way over budget because let's face it we have never been much good at keeping down costs when something that is precieved as being of national importance has to be done, be that a tunnel, a tram line, a famine ship repecla.

Yup - it just smacks of one of those things where everyone adopts a "shur it'll be grand"/"wahey we can all party"/ "pulling on the green jersey" attitude with zero accountability or responsibility and the tax payer ends up getting shafted again.

Jayop

Cloudio9 wrote: »

They're guarantees provided, not cheques written.

I don't know why the guarantees are different but I imagine it's to address the perceived riskiness of hosting the tournament in a small country that has never hosted anything vs France which has hosted the football World Cup, Rugby world cup and the European championships in the last 20 years.

So does that mean that the tournament has to make at least that amount through gates and advertising or we'll make up the difference?

Fr Tod Umptious

Jayop wrote: »

So does that mean that the tournament has to make at least that amount through gates and advertising or we'll make up the difference?

If the bid is successful then the IRFU fork out approx €120m to World Rugby for the honor of hosting the event.

Then everything else with the exception of TV rights belongs to the IRFU, i.e ticket revenue, advertising etc.

But it's a cost to the IRFU to provide the stadiums, facilities etc.

So any shortfall in the above, up to €320m, will be paid for by the government(s).

The whole event will not cost the IRFU a penny.

The last few world cups have been net losses for the host unions.

Edit:2015 in England may have made a surplus, need to check, but NZ 2011 was a loss.

Edit Again: England (RFU) had £15m surplus, NZ (NZRU) had a £15m loss

The Lost Sheep

Boom__Boom wrote: »

For me I'm worried the Irish taxpayer is getting sold a pup on this.

The Irish government have agreed to underwrite the tournament for €272 million and the Northern Irish government have agree to underwrite it for €48 million, which is a total of €320 million.

By comparison when England were hosting it in 2015 the British government underwrote the bid for £25 million. £25 million was worth around €34 million in 2015, and around €29 million today.

The vast difference in those two figures are a massive red flag for me in terms of the financials of the bid.

It was 25 million out of 80 million total that the English had to pay to host the tournament. And England got the hosting rights back in 2009 so it would have been quite different...

For the next World Cup in Japan the guarantee fee which has to be paid to Rugby World Cup is £96million.

Irish tax payer isnt getting sold a pup. The tournament is increasing in size in every way each tournament and the fee we would have to pay is only an estimate for now.

Boom__Boom wrote: »

Yup - it just smacks of one of those things where everyone adopts a "shur it'll be grand"/"wahey we can all party"/ "pulling on the green jersey" attitude with zero accountability or responsibility and the tax payer ends up getting shafted again.

But people are looking at costs and potential risks just because theyre mainly positive doesnt mean there is a lack of accountability or responsibility....

Cloudio9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The last few world cups have been net losses for the host unions.

Edit:2015 in England may have made a surplus, need to check, but NZ 2011 was a loss.

Ireland is far better positioned then New Zealand to make a surplus on this. It is one of the midst isolated places in the world and has nothing like the hotel infrastructure in Ireland

We are within 90 minutes of the Vast majority of northern hemisphere rugby support. New Zealand is two and half hours from even Sydney.

Fr Tod Umptious

Cloudio9 wrote: »

Ireland is far better positioned then New Zealand to make a surplus on this. It is one of the midst isolated places in the world and has nothing like the hotel infrastructure in Ireland

We are within 90 minutes of the Vast majority of northern hemisphere rugby support. New Zealand is two and half hours from even Sydney.

Firstly you have to differentiate between the cost/benefit to the host union and the cost/benefit to the host nation as a whole.

The cost to the host union is the fee to be paid to World Rugby, the cost of ground development, facilities etc.
They​ try and recoup the cost then by ticket sales, advertising, corporate events etc.

On this regard the NZ rugby union lost money in 2011, I posted links the exact cost on the rugby board a few months ago .

It seems that the RFU made money on 2015, but you must remember that England already had the stadiums in place, have a huge population a thus could maximize the revenue from ticket sales, advertising etc.

Ireland does not have that luxury, there is a huge amount of stadiums to refit, plus the rent cost to the GAA.

And because we have a smaller population and a far smaller rugby following population the ability to maximize revenue through ticket sales is not there, tickets will have to be sold cheap to lower profile games to get bums on seats, something that was not an issue in England nor in NZ, which has a small population but it's a population with a huge rugby following.

All of the above leads me to believe that it's very likely all of the 320m will be forked out to the IRFU to cover the cost of this.

The cost/benefit to the country as a whole is a different matter and harder to measure, but it's a well know fact that the backers of these events always overestimate the return and underestimate the cost.

Ticket sales and money spent by Irish people at the event is of no benefit as it's money that would be spent on something else anyway, and tourists figures have to take crowding out into effect, i.e how many people are not coming to visit that would come if the RWC was not on.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Jayop wrote: »

The GAA is promoting themselves by displaying the range of stadiums that no other amatuer sport in the world would be able to match. It's giving it's own members a chance to see absolute top level sport all across the country while still drawing huge numbers in to watch our own games.


Aaaand it's going to make a bloody fortune on gate receipts that will be distributed back across the game.

Win win win

It isn't a win win for the GAA in fairness.It's giving it''s own members the chance to see top sport is of no relevance as the sport isn't Gaelic Games.

The waste of money on these stadia is horrendous particularly when it could be put to much better use in general.

nice_guy80

the money could be spent on supporting clubs down the country and helping develop games of hurling, handball and football

the lack of support in some counties is galling

BonnieSituation

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

It isn't a win win for the GAA in fairness.It's giving it''s own members the chance to see top sport is of no relevance as the sport isn't Gaelic Games.

The waste of money on these stadia is horrendous particularly when it could be put to much better use in general.

Better use such as?

There is this weird consensus sometimes when anything sport or culturally related is attempted in this country that we would have a better health service, lower taxes, better roads etc.

We wouldn't. Look at the state of Dublin's transport network for a case in point for political will being no where to sort this ****e hole out.

In the absence of that it would be absolutely unbelievable to host this world cup and given how NZ in 2011 went I can only imagine just how bloody successful this will be.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

the money could be spent on supporting clubs down the country and helping develop games of hurling, handball and football

the lack of support in some counties is galling

What's that got o do with RWC2023?