IRFU RWC 2023 Bid Officially Confirmed

[ratsapprentice]

Err....?

I think you're being massive naive there.

 

[Mikel92]

I have to agree with Nick this will be yet another RWC in an extremely similar area to where half of them have been played already not to mention the fact I really think Irish fans are ignoring the fact they hosted games in 1991 and 1999(some of which received atrocious attendance numbers, Romania vs. United States in Dublin is the worst attended game in RWC history in 1999). Some of those potential GAA grounds will require serious upgrades in order to be RWC read.

I'd rather have the 2023 RWC in Italy or Argentina. That being said they haven't launched formal bids yet and my opinions could change based on the strength of those particular campaigns if/when they are launched.

While I mostly agree with this post, there are some things I wouldn't be so heavy about. I agree there'll probably be need an upgrade of stadia, but that isn't anything New Zealand didn't have to do. And I don't consider the tournament we hosted to be a failure. A shortfall, yes, but Ireland have a geographical advantage. Also that attendance thing .. that was about 15 years ago where minnows could be taken for granted a little more than what they are now I imagine, and they probably didn't play quite as sharply as 2014. But yeah...they had a piddly crowd for Romania vs. United States? I don't think we'll hold that against them.

On the political side of things, aside from the stadia, would the city infrastructure cope over there? Over here in NZ there were a lot of concerns about the trains and public transport beforehand. Then again, the Auckland political scene couldn't organize a pi'ss up in a brewery.

 

[Shaggy]

I'd be shocked if North America got one that early. The big problem with having one over here is the timing of the event. It would likely have to be in the spring as going up against gridiron(and the end of the baseball season) would be suicidal not to mention the problem of stadium availability. While I think the Tier One games would be well attended I think minnows matches would likely end up being in half empty stadiums. I would think NA would be in more consideration in the 2030's/40's. An Argentine hosted RWC would also likely delay an NA hosted RWC for a cycle or so.

I guess it will come down to how much money the North Americans (the states) can make out of it/whether Wall Street can see any financial merit in it. It will probably be a "wait and see" as to how the general public reacts/embraces the Olympic Sevens.

I think Ireland would be a great venue for an RWC, as the venues are all close together - this is something that I think would play against a North American bid, as it's likely that each of pools would be spread out a significant distance geographically.

An Argentine bid also makes sense, as it might be able to capitalise on the Rio Olympics (although 2016 to 2023) might be to much time between events.

 

[LittleGuy]

While I mostly agree with this post, there are some things I wouldn't be so heavy about. I agree there'll probably be need an upgrade of stadia, but that isn't anything New Zealand didn't have to do. And I don't consider the tournament we hosted to be a failure. A shortfall, yes, but Ireland have a geographical advantage. Also that attendance thing .. that was about 15 years ago where minnows could be taken for granted a little more than what they are now I imagine, and they probably didn't play quite as sharply as 2014. But yeah...they had a piddly crowd for Romania vs. United States? I don't think we'll hold that against them.

On the political side of things, forget the stadia, would the infrastructure cope over there? Over here in NZ there were a lot of concerns about the trains and public transport beforehand. Then again, the Auckland political scene couldn't organize a pi'ss up in a brewery.

It certainly doesn't disqualify Ireland from hosting, but my point is that Irish fans have had ample (and affordable) chances to attend RWC games in both Ireland and the UK/France four times already and in some prior cases chose not to do so. More recently there were poor crowds in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 2007 these cities are only short commuter flights(or longer ferry rides in Cardiff's case) away from Ireland, of course it isn't all or even mostly the Irish fans fault in those cases but claiming there has been a dearth of RWC action in or nearby Ireland is my main sticking point.

Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression but it seems as though Irish fans are reacting to this as if it's going to be their only chance to see a RWC game. Argentine fans have had virtually no oppourtunities to attend RWC games, and South African fans since 1995 have also had immense travel to cope with. If the United States received a RWC I would prefer if Canada got games but I wouldn't be upset if I had to travel to places like Chicago/New York City to attend games which are comparable distances from Ireland to the upcoming RWC.

These are also my intial "at a glance" views of the bids. I have no idea of knowing how formal bids from South Africa/Argentina/Italy would hold up in comparison. It might be that the Irish bid blows them out of the water in which case I would support them. As it stands Ireland would likely be a safe choice for a decent RWC but isn't that kind of a wasted oppourtunity with the other potential countries likely to put their hand up?

 

[Mikel92]

I don't personally mind if Italy or Argentina get it. The Italian thing would have a cool Roman gladiator vibe for the Final perhaps but both nations would, as someone mentioned, need to work on camera angles and general broadcasting. Some of the angles are pretty frustrating and are shot WAY too high imo. But sorting that out can't be any more complex than upgrading stadia. One advantage would be the hard/dry tracks to promote attacking rugby. Italy might be slightly safer than the Argies in terms of corruption and who you can trust? Transferring monies to World Rugby, etc.

 

[LittleGuy]

I don't personally mind if Italy or Argentina get it. The Italian thing would have a cool Roman gladiator vibe for the Final perhaps but both nations would, as someone mentioned, need to work on camera angles and general broadcasting. Some of the angles are pretty frustrating and are shot WAY too high imo. But sorting that out can't be any more complex than upgrading stadia. One advantage would be the hard/dry tracks to promote attacking rugby. Italy might be slightly safer than the Argies in terms of corruption and who you can trust? Transferring monies to World Rugby, etc.

Is this handled partially by World Rugby? I'm genuinely asking here, because I think the Olympics and FIFA World Cup they essentially plant people with the host broadcaster to help out with these things and try to get as good a presentation as possible. I have no idea whether the IRB did this previously or trusted the hosts with broadcasts since they had experience showing high quality televised rugby.

 

[William18]

Can I say who cares what country can grow the game fast etc. I'm in a bit of a ****** off mood after Munster BUT it's simply who puts up the best bid. We've put forward our bid showing we have all the relative stadiums, infrastructure and financial backing. Now it's up to others to do likewise and may best bid win simple.

This.

The thing is some of the Irish comments on here are a little strange. There is no such thing as "we deserve it" for a Rugby World Cup. If you want it, then you have to put forward the best bid. Some of the comments like the RWC may get too big for Ireland to host in the future so this is their last chance seems strange to me. This is the bid for the 2023 RWC and should be determined by the strength of the bid in 2023. If Ireland's bid is "we are Ireland, we deserve it" then it will get nowhere. There just isn't a requirement that every traditional rugby nation gets their turn.

I still doubt the stadium situation. I'm not saying that the stadiums aren't big enough. Do those GAA stadiums actually have the space for enough broadcasting facilities? Will the fact that they aren't all seaters affect the bid?

My early favourite would be Italy. I guess the biggest stumbling block would be making sure that they can get use of the soccer stadiums.

 

[Big Ewis]

yeah I mean it's maeve to think a country "deserves it", I mean, like, how maive is that, to think that. I mean France deserves it but that's because you know, eh..like. I don't really need to give a reason here, okay, hah, I mean it's obvious. But to think that thinking Ireland deserve it is just, that's just mnaeve.

My God, what has this RWC bid done to us we're like chickens on a piece of steak just sinking our teeth in whatever inch of flesh we can find, just so long as we're holding onto it. We've forgotten the important thing here, that chickens are meant to stick together, we're all brothers, not in an African-American slang kind of way but a more literal sense, and self-esteem is key and you should always be yourself and keep the seat up when you have women in the house, but through all this desert course we've forgotten the essential important thing which is you should always always, and I think that's the most important. I think we've learned something from this today, and you should never underestimate, as a principle, to do your homework because some people in Africa are starving. And you just can't put a price tag or a Vitamin C capsule on that, that's just priceless for just 99.99. The IRFU sounds like a savage but abstract insult depending on how you read it.

 

[munstermuffin]

This.

The thing is some of the Irish comments on here are a little strange. There is no such thing as "we deserve it" for a Rugby World Cup. If you want it, then you have to put forward the best bid. Some of the comments like the RWC may get too big for Ireland to host in the future so this is their last chance seems strange to me. This is the bid for the 2023 RWC and should be determined by the strength of the bid in 2023. If Ireland's bid is "we are Ireland, we deserve it" then it will get nowhere. There just isn't a requirement that every traditional rugby nation gets their turn.

I still doubt the stadium situation. I'm not saying that the stadiums aren't big enough. Do those GAA stadiums actually have the space for enough broadcasting facilities? Will the fact that they aren't all seaters affect the bid?

My early favourite would be Italy. I guess the biggest stumbling block would be making sure that they can get use of the soccer stadiums.

But Ireland have never said they deserve it. They simply said they've a bid and can host it if successful.

Regards GAA stadiums - They host games for broadcast every year in GAA and I'm pretty sure I saw grass banks in New Zealand stadiums but if it's required then temporary seating can be put in terraces. And the likes of Croke Park and the newly developed Pairc Ui Choimh (when it's done) would probably put most rugby stadiums in the world to shame. The GAA have a lot more money to invest than most bodies in the world of sport.

Italy's bid may be hurt by fact the soccer season is on same time as RWC and stadiums like the San Siro and Olympic stadium in Rome can't be used

 

[Shaggy]

You've got to stop those genetic experiments on animals ... Good lord ... Steak eating Chickens with teeth! ... Isn't the Chicken the national symbol of France? ... You really shouldn't tamper with that, man

OK, to try and say something remotely relevant, I'd support Ireland's bid over any other country that doesn't have to use undersized grounds ... I think this might be an issue for Italy, and the States

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It certainly doesn't disqualify Ireland from hosting, but my point is that Irish fans have had ample (and affordable) chances to attend RWC games in both Ireland and the UK/France four times already and in some prior cases chose not to do so. More recently there were poor crowds in Edinburgh and Cardiff in 2007 these cities are only short commuter flights(or longer ferry rides in Cardiff's case) away from Ireland, of course it isn't all or even mostly the Irish fans fault in those cases but claiming there has been a dearth of RWC action in or nearby Ireland is my main sticking point.

Perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression but it seems as though Irish fans are reacting to this as if it's going to be their only chance to see a RWC game. Argentine fans have had virtually no oppourtunities to attend RWC games, and South African fans since 1995 have also had immense travel to cope with. If the United States received a RWC I would prefer if Canada got games but I wouldn't be upset if I had to travel to places like Chicago/New York City to attend games which are comparable distances from Ireland to the upcoming RWC.

These are also my intial "at a glance" views of the bids. I have no idea of knowing how formal bids from South Africa/Argentina/Italy would hold up in comparison. It might be that the Irish bid blows them out of the water in which case I would support them. As it stands Ireland would likely be a safe choice for a decent RWC but isn't that kind of a wasted oppourtunity with the other potential countries likely to put their hand up?

The whole 'Ireland fans have had a chance to go to games before' as an argument for us not to get it is more watery than my whole tradition argument! it's completely different being thrown a token game and having the honour of hosting the tournament and showing our abilities to do so, it's more about pride and profit than allowing fans easy access to games.
Unfortunately the sports not big enough to bring it the showpiece all over the world and I can assure you that Ireland would get more fans, at home and travelling, than Argentina or Italy because rugby in Ireland has grown hugely in the last 15 years, Croke Park being filled for Leinster v Munster in '09 being an example of this. I also think that SA and Ireland are both at a huge advantage over the other two as we wouldn't have to sell the sport like they would in Argemtina or Italy because they're not "second class" sports in the countries. (I know rugby is Ireland's fourth most popular sport but considering Lansdowne road has been a full house more oft than not for internationals for over 100 years shows the nations love for the sport) For a rugby World Cup go to SA or Ireland for a reason to advertise with rugby as a background, not quite as bad as what the 2019 WC will be, go to Argentina or Italy.

 

[LittleGuy]

The whole 'Ireland fans have had a chance to go to games before' as an argument for us not to get it is more watery than my whole tradition argument! it's completely different being thrown a token game and having the honour of hosting the tournament and showing our abilities to do so, it's more about pride and profit than allowing fans easy access to games.
Unfortunately the sports not big enough to bring it the showpiece all over the world and I can assure you that Ireland would get more fans, at home and travelling, than Argentina or Italy because rugby in Ireland has grown hugely in the last 15 years, Croke Park being filled for Leinster v Munster in '09 being an example of this. I also think that SA and Ireland are both at a huge advantage over the other two as we wouldn't have to sell the sport like they would in Argemtina or Italy because they're not "second class" sports in the countries. (I know rugby is Ireland's fourth most popular sport but considering Lansdowne road has been a full house more oft than not for internationals for over 100 years shows the nations love for the sport) For a rugby World Cup go to SA or Ireland for a reason to advertise with rugby as a background, not quite as bad as what the 2019 WC will be, go to Argentina or Italy.

No it really isn't, every 2nd Rugby World Cup has been located within the Northwest corner of Europe between the old five nations sides, is it too much to suggest we take a look at Africa or South America for a change? Hell even Southern Europe? Or is dicking around in the relatively small and already tapped markets of the Celtic nations till the end of the time World Rugby's end goal?

If it's any consolation to the Irish fans, this RWC bid is certainly a million times smarter than the Canadian Soccer Associations bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup!!

 

[William18]

But Ireland have never said they deserve it. They simply said they've a bid and can host it if successful.

Regards GAA stadiums - They host games for broadcast every year in GAA and I'm pretty sure I saw grass banks in New Zealand stadiums but if it's required then temporary seating can be put in terraces. And the likes of Croke Park and the newly developed Pairc Ui Choimh (when it's done) would probably put most rugby stadiums in the world to shame. The GAA have a lot more money to invest than most bodies in the world of sport.

Italy's bid may be hurt by fact the soccer season is on same time as RWC and stadiums like the San Siro and Olympic stadium in Rome can't be used

People have made arguments about whether or not Irish people have had the proper opportunity to attend RWC games. I just don't think those arguments are relevant. The RWC should go to the country which will put on the best tournament. I don't think the fact that the 2015 and 2007 World Cups had games played in the UK should help or hinder the Irish bid.

I don't know how the GAA works but I imagine that at every GAA game there would only be two commentary teams. Perhaps one in Irish and another one in English. At the 2011 RWC there were 4 separate commentary teams from New Zealand at each game the All Blacks played. I'm sure it could be overcome but it is an example of a logistical issue that Ireland could face. I'm sure not having all seater stadiums would automatically rule out Ireland but it could count against it.

Isn't the All-Ireland final played in September? Would all those games have to be moved? Also would the final be at Croke?

 

[munstermuffin]

People have made arguments about whether or not Irish people have had the proper opportunity to attend RWC games. I just don't think those arguments are relevant. The RWC should go to the country which will put on the best tournament. I don't think the fact that the 2015 and 2007 World Cups had games played in the UK should help or hinder the Irish bid.

I don't know how the GAA works but I imagine that at every GAA game there would only be two commentary teams. Perhaps one in Irish and another one in English. At the 2011 RWC there were 4 separate commentary teams from New Zealand at each game the All Blacks played. I'm sure it could be overcome but it is an example of a logistical issue that Ireland could face. I'm sure not having all seater stadiums would automatically rule out Ireland but it could count against it.

Isn't the All-Ireland final played in September? Would all those games have to be moved? Also would the final be at Croke?

Yeah but GAA said they will work there schedule around it. It's only the football final that would clash and it's easily fixed. So just 1 game would be moved which the GAA have said isn't a problem. And regards there GAA commentary you'd have 8/9 commentary Teams in Croker so that's no issue either and is overcome already.
Ireland can easily transfer the 1 or 2 that aren't all seater in to all seater as they've done in the past again no problem.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Would the hill have to be seated? Because it is the best terracing in the world.

 

[munstermuffin]

Would the hill have to be seated? Because it is the best terracing in the world.

Well only for the Dubs
But if it's seating needed well they done it for games before so no issue. Could you imagine if Dubs had to play a lot of Championship outside Croker ha that'd be some craic

 

[big ginger 8]

It didn't have to be seated when it was being used for rugby, don't think that's changed.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

There is no such thing as "we deserve it" for a Rugby World Cup. If you want it, then you have to put forward the best bid. .

I agree. Whoever hosts the World Cup should get the gig based on it's merits and not due to it being their turn.

Without knowing the ins and outs of the bid or who else is in the running, Ireland can put forward a strong bid.

1. It's in a similar time zone for TV viewership as all the major markets (England, SA, France) which will be worth a lot in terms of revenue generated.
2. There are major airports in 4 cities (Dublin, Belfast, Limerick/Shannon, Cork) and ferry terminals near the big urban centres of Cork, Dublin (Dun Laoighaire and Dublin Port) and Belfast (Larne and Belfast Port). The road network is also well developed with all major urban centres within 3 hours of Dublin. Ease of access to the island wont be a problem.
3. The governments of both countries have already agreed to underwrite the tournament so funding wont be an issue.
4. The stadium situation is well advanced already. Croke Park and the Aviva Stadium are elite stadiums already. The RDS is soon to be redeveloped into a 24,000 capacity stadium which will be suitable for pool games. Ravenhill has room to be increased in capacity to 24,000 also from the 18,000 it currently holds. Thomond Park holds 26,000. All of the above are modern stadia with more than sufficient press areas. On top of that Pairc Ui Chaoimh in Cork has had planning permission approved to become a 45,000 modern stadium and the redevelopment of Casement Park in Belfast is underway turning it into a 40,000 capacity stadium. That's seven stadium which are just about ready with funding secured. Additional funding would be needed to bring GAA stadia in Killarney, Limerick, Thurles, Galway and Castlebar/Derry/Clones up to scratch.

I think the World Cup will go to Ireland or South Africa. Italy's main problem is the higher risk of poor attendences. World Rugby will likely go to one of the traditional elite after Japan in 2019 in my opinion.

 

[Mikel92]

Short term, yeah you might sell more tickets for pool games in a rugby mad nation, or where rugby is high up on the playing/popularity list.

But longer term, aren't we trying to grow the game internationally? Statistics suggest playing numbers trend upwards following the hosting of a tournament like the world cup. Certainly New Zealand enjoyed that (granted, actually winning the thing also would have contributed a great deal. But generally when you host a tournament, it captures attention and more people get involved and inspired). Sticking with 'safe zones' for Rugby World Cup tournaments where you know tickets will sell, okay, well we could do that forever. But we're not going to gain traction globally that way. I don't think the longer term benefits can be found sticking with that formula. That's not to say that it should never be hosted in a country who vastly enjoys rugby ever again, I'm just saying - it's worth being cognizant of. It is meant to be World Rugby, not Top Ten rugby. I suppose if places like South America wanted to make a case for themselves, that sort of reasoning would be valid.

The profits thing can swing both ways in regards to where we host it. Do we want a quick million? Or do we want to start tapping into markets with a gigantic amount more potential for revenue? Granted, the latter would take more than 4 years, but it's a big start.

 

[munstermuffin]

Short term, yeah you might sell more tickets for pool games in a rugby mad nation, or where rugby is high up on the playing/popularity list.

But longer term, aren't we trying to grow the game internationally? Statistics suggest playing numbers trend upwards following the hosting of a tournament like the world cup. Certainly New Zealand enjoyed that (granted, actually winning the thing also would have contributed a great deal. But generally when you host a tournament, it captures attention and more people get involved and inspired). Sticking with 'safe zones' for Rugby World Cup tournaments where you know tickets will sell, okay, well we could do that forever. But we're not going to gain traction globally that way. I don't think the longer term benefits can be found sticking with that formula. That's not to say that it should never be hosted in a country who vastly enjoys rugby ever again, I'm just saying - it's worth being cognizant of. It is meant to be World Rugby, not Top Ten rugby. I suppose if places like South America wanted to make a case for themselves, that sort of reasoning would be valid.

The profits thing can swing both ways in regards to where we host it. Do we want a quick million? Or do we want to start tapping into markets with a gigantic amount more potential for revenue? Granted, the latter would take more than 4 years, but it's a big start.

People say all this about growing the game and I'm all for that. But handing a RWC to a country doesn't mean the game will grow. Like if a non traditional country got it and stadiums were half empty up to the QF stages then that could do opposite and harm the game as well as hurt financially the IRB in growing the game.
You mention the game grew in NZ but that is a strong hold regardless.