I don't think its sour grapes. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with asking questions around the process and if you read the letter it asks relevant questions in a matter-of-fact way.
Fair enough. It's just that it seems like there is a scathing attack on SA Rugby, when they didn't do the independent report, and only their bid is being put under scrutiny.
1/ You say above that all of the World Cup games were sold out then go on to admit that they weren't. You cite a one off game breaking the attendance record. I don't doubt that the world cup final would sell out. Would Uruguay vs Samoa? Going by the graphic posted a few pages ago the smallest stadium you have is 44000 – surely you can see the benefit of having a few smaller stadia which would be full for a smaller game rather than a half full large stadium?
We have smaller stadia. But we instead decided to use our big stadiums in major cities that have hosted major events in the past and have managed to fill those stadiums to capacity.
We didn't select all the stadiums that were used during the FIFA 2010 tournament. For example, they didn't use Polokwane's stadium, which hosted 4 pool matches of which one was France vs. Mexico and the other was Argentina vs. Greece. I was at both games and the stadium was packed. But my beloved home town won't be used.
All the other cities are way bigger, with regards to infrastructure, hotels, recreation, transport and population, add to that all those countries have a team that's participated in the Currie Cup.
2/ An independent organisation was used to compile the report but do they have any expertise in relation to security matters? I don't know – nobody does. Surely it's worth asking the question? If they don't would they have been better engaging someone who does?
That's more a question for WR. But then again all the countries that bid probably knew about the reporting process and how it would be done.
As I understand it the process was as follows:
Applicant phase: June 1 – September 2016
- Designed to ensure that only qualified Unions and countries continue to the second phase.
- Italy withdrew at this stage, leaving only France, Ireland and South Africa.
Candidate phase: November 2016 – 25 September 2017
- Country visit: 13 – 15 March 2017
A senior Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) delegation, including the World Rugby CEO, CFO and RWCL lead visited South Africa. The visit included a day-and-a-half of presentations in Cape Town and a tour of the National Stadium in Johannesburg.
- Bid submission: 1 June 2017
SA Rugby submitted South Africa's bid to World Rugby in Dublin. The bid, which ran to more than 800 pages and 16 chapters addressed 300 questions. It included a comprehensive budget and a detailed match-venue file providing exhaustive information on each proposed venue.
A PDF summarising the bid submission can be downloaded by
clicking here. Please note, the file is 31Mb in size. Alternatively, it can be read
online.
- Signed government and match-venue guarantees and hosting agreement: 31 July 2017
Legal guarantees from National Government, all proposed match venues and the hosting agreement between SA Rugby and RWCL were submitted by the deadline.
- Bid presentation: 25 September 2017
The final stage of the candidate phase was a 30-minute presentation to World Rugby Council members, followed by a 20-minute Q&A.
France, Ireland and South Africa each presented their vision for the 2023 tournament and key aspects of the bid.
3/ A country is bidding to host a major international event, a city within that country was recently stripped of an international event due to take place a year before the RWC due to failings in governance, finance and risk management. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know the inner workings of the Commonwealth Games processes but I would imagine it was government backed (happy to be corrected if wrong). In my view it's prudent to ask questions around what went wrong and if it solely is a problem for SASCOC or if it's wider than that. Maybe those questions were asked but if not they should have been.
Again, comparing apples with oranges. Durban has 2 stadiums ready to go for RWC. But for the Commonwealth Games they need to basically build a new stadium, and do severe upgrades to the swimming pool they have, and add a diving pool too.
But the other reason was finances. And SASCOC couldn't fit the R8billion bill that the organisers wanted.
SARU on the other hand has the finances, and the financial backing to host a World Cup.
4/ I'm not sure the IRFU are specifically asking for Barclays to do it. More that it has been done for previous bid countries, why not this time? I'm sure Barclays are not the only ones who could undertake this. Again the South African government are committing to a lot of finance for this – much more than Ireland. With such a poor credit rating it seems prudent to ask if there is a risk there.
True. The question was however specifically about Barclays, to which I responded. I was merely pointing to the fact that Barclays specifically has ties to SA and would have been biased had they done the report.
Perhaps all of those things have been covered and that's fine, but it's not clear they have. I have no problem with relevant questions being asked. Ireland have put a lot of money and energy into this bid, if they feel that there are inconsistencies within the process they are well within their right to point them out. If they can be addressed satisfactorily then no problem.
Sure, and I guess, SARU could do the same and ask questions about Ireland's bid, or even France. But instead took the high road and trusted the independent contractor's reports. Perhaps, SARU should ask questions about Ireland and France's bid, maybe there are some issues in their prospectus that has to be scrutinized.
One of my biggest concerns, and this is doesn't just affect Ireland, is that bid countries didn't receive the weighting and scoring criteria until the end of October. To my mind that rings alarm bells. If you are looking to be open and transparent then you publish those up front. By waiting until they had already assessed the bids before revealing how they would be scored they leave themselves open to accusations of weighting the scoring to suit who you would like to have it. I'm not saying that's what happened (no matter how they were weighted Ireland wouldn't have come top), but it's another flaw in the process.
Well the bidders only did the final part of their bid on 25 September 2017. So it took the Independent Contractors almost exactly a month to release the figures. I don't think that's an unreasonable time frame.
What irks me is that it seems like there is an insinuation that SARU somehow bribed or collaborated the Independent Contractor of WR on the reporting. And that is serious accusations to make.
If the scores are incorrect, then why write just a letter to WR?? Why not approach the authorities to launch an investigation on bribery and corruption???
