New Zealand 2011: Its all going wrong!

[Ripper]

From what I recall, New Zealand could barely cope with the last Lions tour. The non-test matches were poorly attended. With the decision for hosting the 2011 world cup taking place only a few months after that Lions tour, how on earth did New Zealand win the vote? [/b]

What are you on about? All the Lions Games sold out from memory, bar the Auckland game which still got 40,000 on a Wednesday night in the rain

Rugby administration will be better when the "old farts" are replaced with people who grew up with a professional game. Horse trading for votes (as the NZRFU undoubtedly did) has no place in the modern game. If rugby is to truly expand into a global game, then the tier one nations must stop thinking of themselves first and foremost. An emerging nation, be it Japan, the USA or Argentina, must get the rights to host the 2015 tournament once it's financially viable to do so. [/b]

lol, the USA, what an event that would be, we could play it in their MLS Stadiums and get 12,000 people to the Final.

If memory serves me correctly, 2003 was supposed to be joint hosted by NZ and Aus, then when it turned out that the Kiwis couldn't host their half, Aus was given the whole shaboodle.

If they can't hold half a tournament, what chance in hell do they have of the whole thing?[/b]

The only reason we lost the co-host gig in 2003 was because the NZRFU screwed up in having "clean stadiums" in terms of advertising - it had nothing to do whether we could host it or not, it was just an admin error by screwjobs who got fired virtually right away and probably can't even get jobs at Burger King anymore.

 

[TRUE LEGND]

We (bought) the rights and ain't no **** you can do bout that 1 Hahaha

The Lion's tour was a success in our memory but of course people on the outside looking in there always going to presume what went wrong

Where hosting the event Nuff sed

 

[Prestwick]

lol, the USA, what an event that would be, we could play it in their MLS Stadiums and get 12,000 people to the Final.[/b]

Or they could just host it in the many many NFL stadia that they have across America like they did with, let me think, the Diveball World Cup in 1994! How about 90,000 for the RWC Final? How does that one grab ya?!

The only reason we lost the co-host gig in 2003 was because the NZRFU screwed up in having "clean stadiums" in terms of advertising - it had nothing to do whether we could host it or not, it was just an admin error by screwjobs who got fired virtually right away and probably can't even get jobs at Burger King anymore. [/b]

Nope. He got fired from Burger King and was promptly hired on the spot to run the preparations for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Either that or they hired someone from the UK or Multiplex in Australia. Preferably someone with either no experience of organsing anything bigger than their two year old daughter's birthday or someone so incompetent yet so well connected that they end up organising big projects anyway.

<div class='quotemain'>
We bought* the rights and we run it how we run it, NOT how you want us to run it
[/b]

*corrected [/b][/quote]

:lol: Sums it up really. Quick! Ripper! Get Comical Ali off the stage before he ruins everything! :lol:

 

[RC]

Seriously? Laughing at America possibly hosting the RWC?
Your patriotism towards your country is truly blinding you, isn't it Ripper?
And people from Europe would find it much less hassle travelling to America rather than Australasia.

I think hosting it in new zealand will be like hosting it in Wales: it will fail to capitolise on the huge possibilities the RWC offers.
Think about it: New Zealand playing in Strade park...there were 15,000 there - packed out.
New Zealand hasn't got loads of big stadiums has it...actually has it even got a 70,000+ stadium at all?
America and Japan would host the RWC and they would reap the maximum benefits.

 

[scuubasteve]

There seems to be some serious animosity thrown NZ's way here?

How did the NZRU "bribe" the successful world cup bid?

Delegates VOTED for the best option?

In no way is any other Union benefitting from NZ hosting the 2011 cup.
So the suggestion of underhanded tactics or bribery would seem to be without substance.

Criticising SANZAR for monopolising the hosting rights is interesting in that the only world cups that have been in a single country (not using the selling off of games to garner votes) has been South Africa in 1995, eventually Australia in 2003 and NZ in 2011.

I will agree that the NZRU board were idiots for the way they lost themselves (with the help of some shrewd work from the very intelligent John O'Neill) the sub-hosting rights in 2003. And the entire board was sacked accordingly. In their place the put an amazingly talented and highly qualified board (CEO Chris Moller was previously the CEO of New Zealand's largest company, the international dairy giant Fonterra), who have taken the NZRU administration to amazing heights.

Regarding attendance and organisation, were any of you guys here for the Lions Tour?

Brand spanking new hotels/motels were built all across the country to help meet demands, and similar growth will again occur for 2011.

It was a superbly organised event. With sold out crowds across the country! Even my mighty Manawatu team (who got thrashed) managed a sellout crowd of 18,000 from a city of 70,000 people!

Looking at the current state of subhosting games to Scotland and Wales (with some very dismal turnouts) I think NZ CAN host a better tournament than 2007.


Personally, I'd love to see Japan hosting a Rugby WC. But how do you think the crowds will turnout when the host nation fails to win a game (Japan in 2007 WC)?

Rugby IS growing in Japan, but it pales in significance to Football, and just assuming it will be well supported, because the soccer world cup did ok, is a little naive.

People watching the event on TV (or visiting the host nation) will respond far better to passionate, capacity crowds and a nation steeped in Rugby history and culture, rather than a nation virtually foreign to the game.

Money is not the be all and end all for sport! The world cup is not just about making as much money for the IRB and just becuase Japan is a lucrative marketplace does not make it the best option.

Sure, upfront NZ will lose money, it has far less massive stadiums than France or Japan and its exchange rate is only around 0.55 euros ffs!

More importantly though is that the IRB will still receive their hosting fee (so the monetary growth of the game is secured) and that BILLIONS of dollars will pour into the NZ economy solely because of this tournament, which is one of the many reasons the NZ government was so keen to support this event!

The fact that the NZRU presentation offered the political support from their nations Prime Minister and passionate speeches from two of the games all time greatest players, from both the amatuer and modern versions of the game (Colin Meads and Tana Umaga), speaks volumes about the commitment and support NZ will throw behind this event.

Contrasting this to Japan's business-like, profit orientated, presentation paints a very clear point of difference betweem how these two events would have turned out.

Sure, the money would be nice. And popularity for Rugby in Japan would take a boost. But the home team will need to be more competitive and the Japanese people will need to become more aware of the game before Japan can offer a truely succesful bid for the cup.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[I Bleed Black]

I still say Japan should be hosting it now.

DAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU SANZAR!!!! *shakes fist*
[/b]

I cant believe you moderators. I agree the 2011 should have gone to Japan in the interest of growing th game, but to lambast NZ ability to host it when it won the right the same way as every other tournament has been won... including Eng and Fra??

I know that NZ does get certain priveledges in the game, but lets not forget that NZ along with SA and AUS, DO PROVIDE THE STANDARD OF RUGBY IN THE WORLD.

IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE THAT... SORT YOUR OWN NATIONAL ISSUES OUT AND COME TO THE TABLE AGAIN.

<div class='quotemain'> NZ$30 million loss?!?!?!? That's terrible. I have one pound forty five pence in my pocket.....can anyone chip in with the other shilling in order to make up the shortfall?
[/b]

I'm sure Helen "I'm pretentious enough to think that I'm making a difference by calling New Zealand a nuclear free zone" Clark will find some loose change down the back of the sofa of her official residence in New Zealand.
[/b][/quote]

Sorry mate, how is it a bad thing for a Govt to think about whats good for its own country financially? Sure NZ makes a stand on world issues (namely Nuclear) But we also made a stand on Irag when a fair proportion of the world (including... mainly USA, then Eng, then AUS) decided it was a good idea...

Perhaps a free minded head of State is an advantage

 

[I Bleed Black]

<div class='quotemain'>
We bought* the rights and we run it how we run it, NOT how you want us to run it
[/b]

*corrected
[/b][/quote]

Yes we bought it by having a credible rugby team that puts bums on seats at a top price.

Why do we have a credible rugby team??? Because NZ sees the importance of international rugby over everything else.

Why are the Brits so incensed? You have the richest domestic comp and yet dont have a competitive intl team, whos fault is that?

England.... Please understand..... Rugby in NZ,SA, and maybe AUS, cuts a little bit deeper than in the NH (mind wales) because it is our national sport.

Im sorry (not really) but as a proud NZer, that knows his own country has it own faults, I believe that while it may not have been rightly contested (like all the rest), we have 2011 world cup, its done, it may be great, it may suck, but we run the risk of being labelled by it, so dont judge us until then.

More importantly, start working on a decent team to bring down under....

Phew...... enough of posting while under the influence....

 

[TRUE LEGND]

I Bleed Black i believe you have just knocked the man for a 6

 

[Brodizzle]

How did the NZRU "bribe" the successful world cup bid?

Delegates VOTED for the best option?

In no way is any other Union benefitting from NZ hosting the 2011 cup.
So the suggestion of underhanded tactics or bribery would seem to be without substance.
[/b]

I believe they bribed primarily the NH nations with 'All Blacks tours', which guarantees a packed stadium, not quite underhanded but the money was better then any potential growth if staged in another region. (like rugby CEO's give a crap about growth when they get a big cash guarantee)

It was a superbly organised event. With sold out crowds across the country! Even my mighty Manawatu team (who got thrashed) managed a sellout crowd of 18,000 from a city of 70,000 people!
[/b]

And imagine when all the tourist come into your nation, a stadium of 18,000 will be half of what you need for a lowly pool game, will every match be staged at Eden Park or Jade Stadium? (AMI Stadium?)

Even they aren't big enough despite Eden Parks upgrade to around 60,000 for the end games of the world cup, tickets are going to cost crazy amounts even for the lowest of seats the way this is going.....

Personally, I'd love to see Japan hosting a Rugby WC. But how do you think the crowds will turnout when the host nation fails to win a game (Japan in 2007 WC)?
[/b]

The Japanese are crazy over thier sport, no matter how they go....they'll be there in droves...especially to see your All Blacks....

 

[scuubasteve]

Brodizle, mate, there's some seriously interesting specualtion in there...

What makes you think that the NZRU "bribed primarily the NH nations with All Blacks tours"? If you're refering to the extra game (inaugrating Twickenhams south stand) played on the Grand Slam tour 2006, I think that was probably for the $2million+ that NZ recieved for revenue sharing wasn't it?. If you want to talk about mis-scewed global management of rugby then lack of Revenue sharing has more merit than World Cup vote 'bribing' as you call it!

As you've suggested, the All Blacks would sell tickets in Japan (or wherever they play), but how do you argue on behalf of the dismal crowds Japan attracts for the Pacific 6 Nations (the only international rugby its required to promote!) compared to countries like Fiji?

Want some facts?

Tonga-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2005
Samoa-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2006
Junior AB's-Japan attracted 13,123 in 2006

Hardly bumper crowds for international rugby, and actually less than an average NPC match.

Juniour AB's-Fiji attracted over 25,000 in 2006 (nearly double Japan!)

So while its all good and well to have 60,000+ seat stadiums it won't be that easy filling them up like the French have, and like New Zealand will.

Eden Park will be 62,000 seats (hosting both semi's and the final)
AMI stadium will be 45,000
Westpac Stadium will be 40,000
Rotorua Stadium is 32,000
The proposed enclosed Carisbrook stadium would be 30,000
Waikato Stadium is over 30,000
Mt Smart stadium is 29,000
Albany Stadium is currently 25,000
Yarrow Stadium is 25,000
Homeworld Stadium is 25,000
Bluechip Stadium is 20,000

Just for your interest, half the stadiums used for the 1999 world cup were less than 30,000 seats, as were alot of the stadiums for the 2003 cup, in your own backyard no less.

So I really don't understand where alot of this is coming from?

But hey, its cool putting games in the biggest stadiums possible, like Murrayfield with 68,000 seats, or Millenium Stadium with 74,000 seats and having crowds of 31,000 and 34,000 turning up to leave it half empty.

And the $30million predicted loss is based on ticket prices taken from this years world cup. So no, tickets won't be any more expensive then they allready are.

Don't believe everything the media tells you.
The facts all suggest NZ will host a very successful world cup.

 

[Brodizzle]

What makes you think that the NZRU "bribed primarily the NH nations with All Blacks tours"?
[/b]

I regretted using the word 'bribe' as soon as I posted the post. I will look up on it when I'm not at work but I remember reading somewhere that NZRU had made deals to gain the support of NH hemisphere teams, which involved tours to thier nations, once again...I will search for what it was that I was reading later...

Tonga-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2005
Samoa-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2006
Junior AB's-Japan attracted 13,123 in 2006

Hardly bumper crowds for international rugby, and actually less than an average NPC match.
[/b]

This is the World Cup we are talking about, they would attract bumper crowds from overseas and the locals will get into it if not for the huge marketing or even simply the novelty, the Pacific 6 Nations has nothing of the prestige of the World cup, to be honest I didn't watch a game of the tournament...

Just for your interest, half the stadiums used for the 1999 world cup were less than 30,000 seats, as were alot of the stadiums for the 2003 cup, in your own backyard no less.
[/b]

The stadiums over here, except for maybe Adelaide were large stadiums, even Subiaco is around 43ish thousand.

I am working under the assumption that the growth in people supporting rugby will rise therefore the standards for previous world cups in terms of capacity must be raised and also for the minnow games you can see at the moment (besides against the 3N sides) that they are getting better, so I would assume they would get better and by 2011 there would be much closer pools, with your Namibia's having a good chance to topple your England's, that would attract a fair crowd.

On a side note the new Carisbrook will be a disaster me thinks, last time I was over there a 7,000 turn out was a good turnout for a Super 14 game, other supporters preferring to simply watch it on Sky, how do they expect to fill a 30,000 stadium?

 

[TRUE LEGND]

On a side note the new Carisbrook will be a disaster me thinks, last time I was over there a 7,000 turn out was a good turnout for a Super 14 game, other supporters preferring to simply watch it on Sky, how do they expect to fill a 30,000 stadium? [/b]

Looks as though you dont travel there very often do you, are you basing your 1 experience on 1 match?? Super 14 has nothing to do with RWC :wall:

 

[Brodizzle]

<div class='quotemain'>

On a side note the new Carisbrook will be a disaster me thinks, last time I was over there a 7,000 turn out was a good turnout for a Super 14 game, other supporters preferring to simply watch it on Sky, how do they expect to fill a 30,000 stadium? [/b]

Looks as though you dont travel there very often do you, are you basing your 1 experience on 1 match?? Super 14 has nothing to do with RWC :wall:
[/b][/quote]
My family is all over there, so not really a casual visitor....my question about the stadium was more of a general nature then anything, you can get people to any game of the world cup, that I am sure of, but after do you seriously thing 30,000 will show up to your average Super 14 game?

 

[TRUE LEGND]

but after do you seriously thing 30,000 will show up to your average Super 14 game? [/b]

That question was bought foward to you son

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
but after do you seriously thing 30,000 will show up to your average Super 14 game? [/b]

That question was bought foward to you son [/b][/quote]

No, he asked you that question. Please answer it, and no going off topic or attempting to start another pointless argument that goes in circles please.

What makes you think that the NZRU "bribed primarily the NH nations with All Blacks tours"? If you're refering to the extra game (inaugrating Twickenhams south stand) played on the Grand Slam tour 2006, I think that was probably for the $2million+ that NZ recieved for revenue sharing wasn't it?. If you want to talk about mis-scewed global management of rugby then lack of Revenue sharing has more merit than World Cup vote 'bribing' as you call it![/b]

Yup, which is why All Blacks matches are so lucrative for the Northern Hemisphere Unions. Its not "speculation", its what goes on day in day out up here in the NH, namely, how can we get as many big names here for the Autumn as possible as to extract the most dosh from the wallets of our punters and give as little to the visitors as possible?" It isn't pretty and its damn right shameful in how we do it but thats what happens. New Zealand simply used our greed as leverage for votes. Simple as that.

Want some facts?

Tonga-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2005
Samoa-Japan attracted 8,000 people in 2006
Junior AB's-Japan attracted 13,123 in 2006

Hardly bumper crowds for international rugby, and actually less than an average NPC match.[/b]

Nice facts. Pity they're flawed. Yes, the All Blacks sold them in Japan but the distribution of tickets and where you could buy them from was up to the Japanese RFU. In Japan, the places to buy tickets for games are rarely advertised on national television and are even rarer to find. I challenge you to find a ticket next time for some of those Pacific 6 Nations games and I'm sure you'll find it bloody hard. Most of that crowd were probably people who could get the tickets through their company clubs.

The World Cup is a completely different kettle of fish. As its a huge, once in four years event on which national pride rests on the brilliant success of, the Japanese would try their utmost to advertise, market and make sure that everyone can get their tickets from all the main ticket outlets. The Japanese are really enthusiastic about any new sport to be honest and dive ball didn't really take off until 2002. You simply cannot compare the two.

And the $30million predicted loss is based on ticket prices taken from this years world cup. So no, tickets won't be any more expensive then they allready are.[/b]

What a load of crap! A loss is still a loss! And this is still taking into account that running costs, building costs, etc could shoot up as the four years progress. It is still very poor planning not to realise that you'll have to get a $NZ30 Million bailout from the government just to cover the books in the initital stages. What if there are delays to Eden Park or any other part of the preparations and the running costs shoot up from $NZ310 Million (which, they probabbly will)?

But hey, its cool putting games in the biggest stadiums possible, like Murrayfield with 68,000 seats, or Millenium Stadium with 74,000 seats and having crowds of 31,000 and 34,000 turning up to leave it half empty.[/b]

Again, thats a silly point because apart from Murrayfield and the Millenium Stadium (both only being used because France bribed Scotland and Wales with matches in exchange for votes), all of the venues in this years Rugby World Cup have been absolute sellouts. Even in the group games between nations like Tonga and Fiji the games or Italy and Georgia, the games have been absolutely jam packed. Italy vs Portugal alone got an audience 47,000 people. Game attendences in the group stages have skyrocketed for this world cup when compared to four years ago.

*insert random drunken ramble here*[/b]

Oooookay, right, lets try and address this one at a time:

1. We're lambasting New Zealand because they won it in the same dirty way that everyone else uses which in turn has infuriated me so much. I have no beef with New Zealand, I just completely disagree that the best bid won. To actually develop a game in a country, you've got to actually hold a World Cup there, not mess them around with patronising words before keeping the golden cup to yourself and your buddies. We're all to blame for this, not just New Zealand.
2. Hosting World Cups has nothing to do with the performance of the teams on the pitch.
3. The Head of State of New Zealand is Queen Elizabeth II, also the head of state of the United Kingdom, which uses nuclear power I believe. Actually, if the Queen does agree to preside over a nation which cuts its emissions by using nuclear power and a nation which doesn't then that is pretty open minded. I apologise. :lol: (you know, she's also Head of State of a country which does illeigal logging and seal cub clubbling in the Arctic! Yow!)

 

[scuubasteve]

In terms of 2003 crowds:

5 games were played at Subiaco Oval averaging <25,000
4 games at Canberra stadium average <20,000.
3 games at Dairy Farmers stadium average <20,000.
3 games at Central Coast Satdium average <19,000
2 games at WIN Stadium average <17,000
2 games at Adelaide Oval average = 30,000
1 game at Aurora Stadium =15,500

Across these 20 games thats an average attendance of 21,500.

Add to that the 33,000 average crowds across the 5 games at Aussie stadium...and you're worried about NZ stadium not being big enough?

Hell, the average for the quarterfinals of 2003 was only 41,000!!!

The only real difference is that the last 4 games (both semi's, 3rd/4th playoff and Final) were played at Telstra Stadium and averaged 78,000!!

I don't see where 2011 is going to be any less than 2003 apart from the finals? That is after all where Aussie managed to post a profit and NZ will post a loss. The size difference between Telstra Stadium and Eden park will be 20,000 seats. That capacity difference provided an extra $40,000,000 over those 4 final games for the ARU's coffers that it won't for the NZRU.

As for Carisbrook, the new stadium will have a permanent capacity of 25,000. And will be expandible (like Westpac Stadium) to 30,000.

The Highlanders currently average around 13,000 (only 5,000 less than the Reds) in a stadium that's rubbish and with a team that hasn't come close to the finals for a few seasons.

One would assume that a new stadium, closer to the city and university would boost crowds significantly (as it did for the Hurricanes and Wellington Rugby when Westpac Stadium was built).

 

[Prestwick]

Again, you're using completely outdated statistics here. France have experienced far higher crowd attendences than in Australia 2003. Roughly 30-40,000 a game.

I AM THE FACTS MONSTER! I EAT THEM UP LIKE CARS!

OM NOM NOM NOM!

 

[esoj]

not suprising the england supporters etc are already looking ahead to the next world cup. it would have nothing to do with their team being completely **** right now would it .

 

[scuubasteve]

Here's another fact for you to eat up then Prestwick, regarding Carisbrook.

Match attendance figures for the Vodafone Wellington Lions were 12,300 at Athletic Park in 1999.

Crowds averaged above 30,000 in 2000 when Wellington moved into Westpac Stadium.

So 25,000 capacity for the Highlanders looks fine to me.


As for the world cup, what do you mean outdated statistics?

Do you expect the world cup to continuously grow and grow like the nom nom fact monster?

France has 64million people and is on the doorstep to Europe?
Australia has 21million.

Does the fact monster expect 3 times the match attendance based on a nation 3 times the size?

How bout these facts, the 1999 world cup had a match attendance of 1.75million (from 41 games), 2003 had a match attendance of 1.8 million (from 48games).

You don't need to be a fact monster to realise Europe has more people so of course will get more people turning up.

 

[scuubasteve]

Regarding the comments you added to your earlier post, the NZ government copping some expenses for the world cup isn't any different to Australia of France.

The Queensland government just shelled out another $160,000,000 to build a new stadium for the Gold Coast ***ans RL team!

The French government has dumped $56millions into this tournament, on top of money spent for the FIFA98 cup.

FIFA02 saw 21 stadiums built in Japan and South Korea!

And ask any Aussie about the many millions of dollars shelled out to sporting teams and bodies and you'll realise that the NZ government is well overdue in giving a bit back to the sporting community, especially when it comes to new stadia and international events hosting.

So contributing a bit to Eden park and the deficit from hosting could hardly be described as a 'bail out'. They knew exactly what the tournament cost before they tried for, and won, the hosting bid. And they also know that the indirect funds brought into the country will far outweigh the $30M cost.


I just can't understand why trying to cristicise NZ is going to do anything? Saying they bribed other countries, don't have big enough stadia etc and need monetary help from the government are all just petty arguements.

The French ProD2 has 5 times the crowds that the Japanese Top League musters. Japanese people just don't support rugby. And you may say its difficult to get tickets there. But if Fiji can get twice as many people to play the Junior AB's as Japan can from a country 150 times smaller (and surely with poorer ticket distribution) just makes me wonder whether than can get enough people to all those 50,000+ capacity stadiums?


You say people won't travel to NZ and tickets will be expensive, I would have thought Japan would alot more expensive to travel to?

Japan will one day host the world cup, but to mock NZ and accuse them of bribery etc, just because Japan didn't get the 2011 cup really annoys me.

I believe NZRU CEO Chris Moller summed up my feelings on the accusations pretty well. "I find that insulting," he said. "Our bid was about honesty, trustworthiness and integrity. We have not offered any games for votes."

So speculate away about misgivings, but personally I'm glad the world cup is coming back to where it started, and the international drawcard of the All Blacks and NZ rugby in general will ensure that 2011 will be another successful world cup.

The 2011 rugby world cup is not going all wrong.