2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa

Smudge

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554645" data-time="1453935817">
<div>
I've got it, the only logical choice is...
 
 
...Russia. First, it's a big country. And it has lots of people. And they have football stadiums. And it's ticks the "grow the game" box. And Russia would be one of the 4 new shit teams.
 
As an added benefit they would pay heaps of money to the IRB delegates, and their team would be alright thanks to state sanctioned doping.
 
 
Of course, not a great tournament for the gays. Or the darker skinned players. But the country is really big. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
And the ABs could be based in Vladivostok, thus reducing the impact of the timezones! And we'd get good viewing times.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554682" data-time="1453939356">
<div>
Ignoring the silly comment about a police investigation your perspective is irrevelant . Ireland has five cities , claiming otherwise makes you look foolish and dishonest .
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's probably your silliest post yet. The criteria varies from country to country, and I've lived in many different countries. Where I am now, only Dublin and Belfast would meet the criteria. So that's my perspective, and my perspective is as relevant as anyone else's.

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554677" data-time="1453938754">
<div>
Sadly true. But the other half still dwarfs Ireland. & a World Cup might also help the cause. The 2015 tournament is thought to have injected 2 billion pounds into the British economy - exceeding the expense of staging it manifold. The comment has often been made that it's a shame major events like this are invariably held in wealthy countries, when they could do so much to help boost the economies of poorer countries,
</div>
</blockquote>
and that comment is highly debatable, given the real economic impact on a developing economy is often very difficult to establish. The infrastructure required to hold these major events is often far in excess of the on-going requirements of a country, and may facilities go under-used in the future. Public money is diverted from other services to pay for required stadia and transport that may not have been required without the event ever being hosted. Unused stadia need to be maintained whether they are used or not, and that costs money. Public money, which developing economies do not usually have.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554680" data-time="1453939241">
<div>
Two billion pounds? Can you give me a link to that? I had no idea the rwc was so lucrative.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
<div> </div>
<div>
 
"There has been a Â£1â€‰billion direct cash injection into the UK economy, a boost of Â£2.5â€‰billion when taking into account knock-on effects and the retail sales rise of 1.9 per cent last month." <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11964535/Englands-Rugby-World-Cup-billion-pound-extravaganza-is-the-biggest-and-the-best-says-World-Rugby.html'>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11964535/Englands-Rugby-World-Cup-billion-pound-extravaganza-is-the-biggest-and-the-best-says-World-Rugby.html</a>
</div>

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="554688" data-time="1453939967">
<div>
and that comment is highly debatable, given the real economic impact on a developing economy is often very difficult to establish. The infrastructure required to hold these major events is often far in excess of the on-going requirements of a country, and may facilities go under-used in the future. Public money is diverted from other services to pay for required stadia and transport that may not have been required without the event ever being hosted. Unused stadia need to be maintained whether they are used or not, and that costs money. Public money, which developing economies do not usually have. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
But it is Ireland which would have to do all the redeveloping, given they'd be relying on a bunch of creaky old Gaelic football and soccer stadiums. South Africa's vast array of stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, so the work has already been done. Very fortuitous, I'd say, provided rugby decides to take advantage.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554687" data-time="1453939962">That's probably your silliest post yet. The criteria varies from country to country, and I've lived in many different countries. Where I am now, only Dublin and Belfast would meet the criteria. So that's my perspective, and my perspective is as relevant as anyone else's.</blockquote>
 
You're wrong , your opinion is irrelevant . Under Ireland's rules they have five cities , it doesn't matter what qualifies as a city anywhere else in the world . If this is the best you can do to support your case for SA I think you need to go back to the drawing board, so far your argument has been underwhelming to say the least and you've had to resort to distorting the truth in an attempt to score a fairly meaningless point.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554684" data-time="1453939520">
<div>
I would agree with that, people from the uk and the rest of Europe not to mention expats from the sh. I doubt SA has large communities of expats to draw on for games not involving the boks.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What matters is that you can fill out the stadiums, and SA would most certainly do this. Besides, UK fans have already had the luxury 4 times from the 8 tournaments to date. Very nice for them. South Africa is far from isolated. Rugby is actually quite popular among most of its neighbors, they just don't have the funding or the opportunities to be successful. But a World Cup for SA would be a World Cup for Africa, for the first time in a generation, and that would have a ripple effect in Namibia and Zimbabwe, on through Madagascar and Zambia and right up to 7s-mad Kenya and African Cup first division newcomer Uganda. These re developing rugby nations with large player communities.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554691" data-time="1453940235">
But it is Ireland which would have to do all the redeveloping, given they'd be relying on a bunch of creaky old Gaelic football and soccer stadiums. South Africa's vast array of stadia was upgraded for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, so the work has already been done. Very fortuitous, I'd say, provided rugby decides to take advantage.</blockquote>
 
Once again can you explain how you came to the conclusion Ireland's stadiums are creaky and old ?

taniwharugby

While I agree that it being in SA would be great and sure they would do a great job, but your arguments against it being in Ireland are weak, and I think they would do an equally great job of hosting it too.

Crucial

Funny thing is that here in NZ we don't care too much about where it is hosted (in a NH/SH context). Most possibilities are in a timezone well away from optimum viewing for us so I think we accept the fact that until the next time it may become Australia's turn we will always be watching in the early hours.
 
I doubt we will see the event here again except for a co-hosting with Australia and Australia have the sense not to waste money on a bid until SA has had another turn.

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554694" data-time="1453940993">
<div>
Once again can you explain how you came to the conclusion Ireland's stadiums are creaky and old ?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Sure, the majority of those likely to be used (according to an article in the Independent) were built between 132 and 76 years ago. About half of them have a capacity between 18,000 and 26,000, and all of the bigger ones are Gaelic & hurling stadiums, apart from Aviva which was build for rugby and soccer.
 
South Africa has 16 stadiums with a capacity between 96,000 & 40,000 (and about a dozen more between 40,000 & 25,000), about half of them rugby-purpose, the other half built for soccer. The majority of these have been built during the past 40 years, with a few only constructed during the last decade for the FIFA World Cup.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554704" data-time="1453944758">Sure, the majority of those likely to be used (according to an article in the Independent) were built between 132 and 76 years ago. About half of them have a capacity between 18,000 and 26,000, and all of the bigger ones are Gaelic & hurling stadiums, apart from Aviva which was build for rugby and soccer. 
 
South Africa has 16 stadiums with a capacity between 96,000 & 40,000 (and about a dozen more between 40,000 & 25,000), about half of them rugby-purpose, the other half built for soccer. The majority of these have been built during the past 40 years, with a few only constructed during the last decade for the FIFA World Cup. </blockquote>
 
So they've had no upgrades or renovations in those years? I find that very hard to believe

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554632" data-time="1453934756">
<div>
You seem to forget that the first four Rugby World Cups actually featured four team pools and that they were very successful, throwing up plenty of fascinating contests. Things got complicated - and controversial - when the organizers decided to create 5-team pools at the beginning of this century.
 
I didn't compare Ireland to Samoa or Fiji? I simply wanted to know where the line would be drawn on small nation World Cups. Geographically Ireland is half the size of the South Island of NZ. In my view, that would be a massive step backward for a tournament which is growing with every edition. NZ was a minor step backward, and it's time to move on to big and better pastures.
</div>
</blockquote>
You seem to have quickly forgotten that that complicated and controversial structure resulted in the best RWC yet just last year and yet you want to water it down.
 
I don't even know what you're going on about in that second bit. Geographical size?! Is there a minimum distance RWC hosting countries have to have between their stadiums or something? Cause to me it looks like you're talking shit. Fact is, they've got the population, stadiums and accommodation to easily support a RWC and are right next door to the UK and France, so they'll get plenty of people visiting.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="554703" data-time="1453943082">
<div>
Funny thing is that here in NZ we don't care too much about where it is hosted (in a NH/SH context). Most possibilities are in a timezone well away from optimum viewing for us so I think we accept the fact that until the next time it may become Australia's turn we will always be watching in the early hours.
 
I doubt we will see the event here again except for a co-hosting with Australia and Australia have the sense not to waste money on a bid until SA has had another turn.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Japan's only three hours behind us.
 
Argentina would also be pretty convenient for us too, as would the US/Canada (though I think they should have to prove themselves with their national comp first, if it's sustainable then that proves there's a base the RWC can build on).

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jegga" data-cid="554706" data-time="1453944904">
<div>
So they've had no upgrades or renovations in those years? I find that very hard to believe
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Most of them have at times, though few of them recently, and some of them we're going back a long way. There's no contest concerning stadia. South Africa is light years ahead

Rowan

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="554708" data-time="1453945006">
<div>
You seem to have quickly forgotten that that complicated and controversial structure resulted in the best RWC yet just last year and yet you want to water it down.
 
I don't even know what you're going on about in that second bit. Geographical size?! Is there a minimum distance RWC hosting countries have to have between their stadiums or something? Cause to me it looks like you're talking shit. Fact is, they've got the population, stadiums and accommodation to easily support a RWC and are right next door to the UK and France, so they'll get plenty of people visiting.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The tournament is growing with every edition. But the controversy over the 5 team groups and unequal scheduling has not gone away. There were four perfectly successful World Cups with 4 team groups and equal scheduling - NO controversy.
 
Yes, we are discussing geographical size, not population. You seem to have confused the two. Ireland is a tiny country geographically, half the size of NZ's South Island. There just isnt room for a 20 team tournament, let alone the 24 team expanded model World Rugby is contemplating. That's why I had little doubt that, within hours of being awarded a World cup, Ireland would promptly announce that a substantial number of games would be shipped to Britain. We've been duped this way before, of course. As for stadiums and hotels, I'm not so confident personally, and when it comes to stadia I have already illustrated that South Africa's are bigger, more modern and vastly more plentiful.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554711" data-time="1453945261">
<div>
Most of them have at times, though few of them recently, and some of them we're going back a long way. There's no contest concerning stadia. South Africa is light years ahead
</div>
</blockquote>
 
There's no way its most. All of them would have been upgraded at some time to meet changing building and fire codes. The only thing in question is when they were last upgraded and if they can be upgraded in time for a rwc.

jegga

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554693" data-time="1453940632">
<div>
What matters is that you can fill out the stadiums, and SA would most certainly do this. Besides, UK fans have already had the luxury 4 times from the 8 tournaments to date. Very nice for them. South Africa is far from isolated. Rugby is actually quite popular among most of its neighbors, they just don't have the funding or the opportunities to be successful. But a World Cup for SA would be a World Cup for Africa, for the first time in a generation, and that would have a ripple effect in Namibia and Zimbabwe, on through Madagascar and Zambia and right up to 7s-mad Kenya and African Cup first division newcomer Uganda. These re developing rugby nations with large player communities. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The ripple effect was one of the reasonings behind giving Japan the rwc, i thought that was bullshit then too.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rowan" data-cid="554626" data-time="1453934104">
I'm expressing my opinions. That's what forums are for. It's dismissing opinions with silly insults which is haughty. So, no, there's no hypocrisy at all. Personal experience, you say? I've actually been to Ireland. How about you?</blockquote>
 
I've developed a bit of a feeling that Pot Hale may have been to Ireland at some stage ...

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="554695" data-time="1453941013">
While I agree that it being in SA would be great and sure they would do a great job, but your arguments against it being in Ireland are weak, and I think they would do an equally great job of hosting it too.</blockquote>
 
What TR said. Except: vuvuzelas.

The Silver Fern

2023 (expanded) World Cup in South Africa