Comments for en-gb 30 Sat 05 Sep 2015 06:05:47 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Hookers_Do_It_Best Personally I feel that the fact that South Africa's rugby union have appointed a coach who dismissed blatent, serious, malicious foul play and that then their own disciplinary board were so leanient afterwards has probably helped to shoot themselves in the foot as much as their lack of ticket sales for the lions.Also, as much as I have loved traveling to south africa in the past, I feel that given at least 6 of the teams competing will be from europe, and the rest from all corners of the globe, greater financial benefits can be made by hosting the event in europe, as was seen with France 2007.Finally, if it is a choice between Italy and Japan for 2019, then Japan must win after the political rugby farce that was the voting and awarding of the 2011 world cup to New Zealand. The growth of the game internationally has been stunted, as well as millions of pounds in revenue being lost by hosting the tournament there. Although I would back italy to host 2023, maybe even co-host it with some stadiums being provided from the south eastern area of France. Thu 30 Jul 2009 14:34:10 GMT+1 pcmcgarryno452 BringonJune20:I dont need the media to tell me that the games against Lions, Cheeters and Sharks (large franchises) were played out in virtually empty stadia. Later games drew bigger attendances but that was only after huge numbers of Brits arrived for the tests. Saffers did not turn out in any numbers for any of the games due (partly) to the profiteering and greed of the organisers. To have a once-in-a-generation series of tests played out in front of walls of red shirts should not have been tollerated or allowed to have happened. SARU cannot be trusted to run such an important competition as the RWC. Tue 28 Jul 2009 16:51:02 GMT+1 DavidD As someone posted earlier, the IRB doesn't get anything from ticket sales. So the only beneficiaries will be the stadium owners and the English rugby board.As for the B&IL tour. Squeezed between an SA/Australian Test series,the IPL, Confederation Cup and the Tri Nations it just didn't have the same attraction. Possibly the SARU should be wondering if the B&ILs are past their sell by date?Regarding the one comment that Saffas, Kiwis and Aussies should be gratefull for being allowed to play in the NH, I can only say that without them the European domestic leagues would be about as attractive as the football League 2 is compared to the Premier League. Tue 28 Jul 2009 16:40:42 GMT+1 bringonjune20 69. At 4:16pm on 28 Jul 2009, pcmcgarryno452 wrote:After SA's shambolic attempts to host the Lions tour this outcome was never in doubt. The Springboks will probably wear "Justice 4 RSA" in the AB's game on Saturday! LOLAfter following the Lions tour in South Africa I can say it was very far from Shambolic. Every Lion + Bok fan commented on how fantastic it was. Perhaps the warm up games were underattended but there were still well over 25 000 in attendance for the games against the larger franchises. Also, the test arenas were FAR from empty, in fact I know a lot of people who couldnt get tickets for the first 2 tests.Please stop commenting on things you know nothing about. British media love exaggerating any fact if they think they can get small minded people to feel better about the countries they live in. Rant over. Looking forward to all the rugby to come (whereve in the world it is being held) Tue 28 Jul 2009 16:06:35 GMT+1 WillyGilly1990 TeddingtontaffCan't speak for Wales, don't know what their youth rugby players are like. Ireland have some great backs ready to break through in the next few years. Forwards wise the situation is little more worrying. I am hopeful though... Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:36:18 GMT+1 edgroves Common sense has prevailed.... Looking forward to a well run, profitable RWC in 2015. Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:28:30 GMT+1 Teddingtontaff Hey WillyGilly, I think it'll be a close run thing between Ireland and Wales to lift the cup. Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:23:53 GMT+1 WillyGilly1990 Well there you have it, all hype and speculation can now cease! Let's hope England and Japan can do a good job. At least for 2015 we Irish won't have that far to travel to watch our side triumph! I would question as well if this will have any impact on the FA's bid's for the football World Cup. Thoughts?On a separate note I wonder is it perhaps a bit too soon to be handing out the 2019 WC to Japan. It mightn't exist if Kim Jong Il has his way - bad taste? Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:18:30 GMT+1 pcmcgarryno452 After SA's shambolic attempts to host the Lions tour this outcome was never in doubt. The Springboks will probably wear "Justice 4 RSA" in the AB's game on Saturday! LOL Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:16:43 GMT+1 Teddingtontaff I don't understand why we even bother to hold the RWC in the southern hemisphere in the first place, there are far more rubgy enthusiasts in Europe and North America ! NZ and Australia are miles from anywhere and all the NZ team come from Fiji, Samoa, Tonga etc. If NZ are keen to propogate the game in the SH, why don't they invite teams like Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji etc. to the Tri-Nations ? After all, we invited Italy to the now 6 nations.The RWC should stay in the NH, after all it is the home of rugby ! Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:10:51 GMT+1 bringonjune20 Sorry uninventivename. The reason I said ticket prices and not travel package prices is pretty self explanatory. I was speaking objectively, taking into account that Im not the only person on the planet and although I'm willing to pay, most locals are not. Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:02:22 GMT+1 Prawnicus After that result I would imagine the IRB will go to South Africa in 2023 and then want someone like Italy, USA/Canada or Russia in 2027. Tue 28 Jul 2009 15:01:56 GMT+1 Uninventivename "The only reason why this is bad is that the tickets will be more expensive."For who? Personally I'll find it a lot cheaper going to a match here than one over in South Africa. Besides, the whole point of this seemed to be so that the IRB get some cash so I suppose high ticket prices aren't a massive shock. I'm glad Japan got it for 2019, but I suppose that wasn't really in that much doubt.When are Italy going to get it? Tue 28 Jul 2009 14:49:57 GMT+1 bringonjune20 So England have it.The only reason why this is bad is that the tickets will be more expensive. Otherwise, a fair result as it made no difference who it was awarded to - both countries would have put on great tournaments. Time to stop slating everything thats not your own on here boys and girls and lets look forward to a cracking tournament in Nz next year and England in 2015.From a true rugby fan. Tue 28 Jul 2009 14:45:43 GMT+1 Simon Austin So England have got 2015, with 2019 going to Japan...What do you think?#61 goes towards global rugby development Tue 28 Jul 2009 14:43:43 GMT+1 Shmunkie Sorry northvssouth, but what's to say that a small nation is going to be more likely to taking a bribe than a big one. At the moment the 'Home Nations' (Lions Nations) have eight votes between them - more than enough to influence any vote, hence why they're always implicated in these issue. Personally I want to see all countries that put in a team to qualification given an equal vote (Brazil and Sao Tome et Principe included). Then countries would have to detail how the world cup will benefit as many as possible and we might get a fairer (although in no way perfect) system like the Football World Cup. Tue 28 Jul 2009 14:24:32 GMT+1 TimfromJhb What does the IRB do with the profit anyway? Tue 28 Jul 2009 14:18:03 GMT+1 Chris How on earth can some of you slate a country you know absolutely nothing about! Calling SA a "horrible country" is pretty shallow. Not being able to fill a Lions game is also looking at it with one eye. Most super 14 games had more spectators than the Lions games. Also questioning the ability.... IPL, Cricket world Cup, Rugby World Cup, Confed Cup. Have some perspective of a country before slating it. NZ will host a great World Cup with their own flavor. Hopefully the minnows will take the next two but I recon politics and profit will stand in the way. Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:50:19 GMT+1 Poolfan4 This post has been Removed Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:40:29 GMT+1 northvssouth Only prob with One Country One Vote approach Shmunkie is that impoverished rugby countries like Samoa would be quickly and willingly bought off by the powerhouses anyway (though at least they'd see some benefit)... Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:21:55 GMT+1 Shmunkie Grow up guys, it's politics. All of it pure and simple. Each country is out there for themselves, getting what they can. In the same way that France bought off Scotland and Wales (and Ireland if they could have)with games in 2007, England have done the same with Wales this time. They get their votes in return for games and in response the Scots and Irish look out for themselves. Stop taking it so personally. If the English had offered to play games at Murrayfield the odds are the situation would be reversed.What we truely need is to get rid of this whole perverse system where one country is deemed more important than another. Do we not think that Samoa have as much right as France to decide where the next World Cup is held. One Country, One Vote - that would stop all this bartering and truely help the game grow globally. Tue 28 Jul 2009 13:04:16 GMT+1 northvssouth Whether its fair or not Japan will not get 2015, if for no other reason that their timezone is equally disagreeable to a European viewing audience as New Zealand's Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:59:27 GMT+1 WappingScarlet Here is the main reason why football stadiums and hence England should not host the WRC - pitch size.Millenium Stadium - 120m x 79mAnfield - 101m x 68mRugby just shouldn't be played at football grounds the pitches are not long enough...or in Anfields case not even wide enough. While rugby (union I hasten to add) has been played at Old Trafford it really wasn't good to see such small in-goal areas. Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:52:54 GMT+1 Sportsfan87 @ #16 why not not japan have 2015 and england 2019i think the answer to that is because of New Zealand 2011, NZ whilst being a spectactular country will be a financial meltdown for the IRB because of its location and timezone, travel costs etc etc. To have Japan hosting in 2015 as the next world cup after NZ could be lucrative, but its a gamble, having it after england which will be a profitable world cup for the IRB makes Japan 2019 sound alot more reassuring for the IRB money men. Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:42:53 GMT+1 AJtheGog Hackerjack, why are you grouping the Welsh with the Irish and Scotts on the voting issue..... Pathetic!I may be wrong but i seem to remember that the Irish stitched Japan up by changing their vote last time round in return for a guarenteed game with NZ (was either for their 100th anniversary or opening of the stadium).Hopefully all will be remembered if they ever try and put a bid in! Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:27:32 GMT+1 Still sporty at 40 Speaking from experience of the Lions tour to NZ I believe NZ will struggle to host the RWC2011 the tournament is simply too big. That said the decision has been made it is done so let's look ahead.There are clearly nations that are "cash cows" for hosting the world cup and like it or not you do need money to help grow the game so "flipping" between generating money and spreading the game appears to be a sensible choice. That said I think the IRB has been greedy as the financial requirements for hosting a WC are so huge this has precluded Australia from bidding. They hosted a fantastic RWC2003. I am sure SA could host a good WC but I am sure they would admit the number of empty seats in the recent Lions tour would not have looked good for this bidding process.I prefer a single nation hosting the WC (RWC2003). I think a failure of the France RWC2007 was that it was diluted by having games also in Scotland and Wales. The horse trading that goes on in "buying" votes in this way must stop as we find ourselves in the situation that Cardiff hosts every other world cup (1991, 1999, 2007 potentially 2015) as particular unions "sell" their vote for a game at home.Japan definately deserves to host and I guess (having not been there) having had a football world cup they would be perfectly capable of delvering it. We do also need to move away from the "big" nations if we want to grow the game. Why on earth is Argentina still not allowed to enter the tri-nations?That said I think for 2015 it is between SA and England. I am sure England can generate the money and fill the stadiums. The central rugby location and diverse population would also add also add to the atmosphere. The tournament needs to be seen in big stadiums with a full house at every stage including the group games.Regarding the Scotland union voting against an England bid...well if they would prefer their fans to travel to SA instead, if true pretty pathetic. Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:14:31 GMT+1 davedg Why England & South Africa? Why not Japan? They were cheated out of next World Cup by vote rigging.If we are to spread Rugby around the world why are we sticking to the Major Nations? One word Profit!!Japan already has all stadiums in place following their Football world cup. Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:12:06 GMT+1 rjaggar It does appear that South Africans, Australians and New Zealanders get more professional opportunities in England and, now, France, than the other way around.So in the spirit of quid pro quo, perhaps they might allow England to host WRC 2015? Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:03:08 GMT+1 hackerjack It's not a case of deserving, it is a case of financial need. A World cup in England will not only alllow for higher ticket prices and more merchandising sales but will also guarentee bigger crowds and beter sponsorship of the tournament.New Zealand, despite being a great world cup host are never going to be able to provide the same fiancial success as a world cup held in France or the UK simply due to positioning and economics. Australia are slightly better placed but they suffer teh same problem of long haul flights for every other rugby fan. Oceania combined has far fewer rugby fans than Europe does. South Africa have a similar problem, they have more people than Oceania but they have more who could never afford the tickets in the first place as well.Realistically the World Cup needs to come back to Europe every 8 years for financial reasons alone and the sooner that this is cast in stone the better it will be for world rugby to be able to plan in an 8 year cycle. Whether the european event is held in England, France or a combined Celtic Nations is largely irrelevant to the finances (Italy would generate a little less and would require a much greater capacity for fans staying frmo other countries). This leaves teh other RWC every 8 years that can then be played out in NZ/Aus, South Africa or Japan. North America would be a viable option as well, Argentina probably less so.-----Now some responses:if england do win than what stadiums will they use?i mean they cant rally use the football stadiums because the teams are playing. and the only stadiums they can use is wembley and twickham, the other rugby ground are far too small* Swansea City and The Ospreys share the Liberty stadium very successfully and the pitch is often very good for the football team to play on. I'm sure that grounds with even better resources like Old Trafford, The Emirates, The Madjeski etc. would have no problems at all in hosting rugby games, as long as there are no clashes with home football games (which should be easy to resolve with the PL/FA) there will be no problems.-----------Answer me this how many of you would sit down and watch New Zealand and England playing in the semi final and a last minute drop goal wins it 35-34 in one of the best games you've ever seen and then say yeah but there was only 30,000 fans watching and the New Zealand Government are going to have to stump up 30m....* You've just lost your own argument, according to you it would not matter one jot where the game was played as long as it was a good game. It would actually matter a great deal financially and that is just as important unless you want the game to go bankrupt.--------Can't believe how one eyed the Scots are being... pathetic* Indeed, the Scots, Irish, Welsh and anyone else who is voting based on what benefits they can receive in return. It should be an independent decision made by independent arbitrators purely on the strength of the countries bids and the aims of the IRB. Tue 28 Jul 2009 12:02:07 GMT+1 RedDevilXV All very well and good using big football stadiums, but these are not going to fill up in England for a world cup whereas in Italy and Japan they may well do with a massive novelty factor.Can't see the Emirates getting more than a few thousand to Canada v Russia. With 20 teams in the world cup, there are a lot of games between what are in effect, amatuer teams. And stop the NZ making a massive loss in 2011 BS. Their government is underwriting any loss Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:52:17 GMT+1 sjholland So if next years Football World Cup goes belly up, will the IRB suddenly change it's venue?There was a post about the 95 tournament. Yes it was succesful but it didn't have the pulling power the world cup[ does now. If the crime is as bad in South Africa as it is reported, then just imagine how bad it will be when there are more people there? Your logic is stupid.Anyway, It should not go to south africa whilst that clown is in charge. End of story. Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:51:52 GMT+1 Simon Austin Calling SA a "horrible country" seems a bit unfair big-silvSure they have got big problems/ challenges, but it's also a beautiful and very interesting country.And the new stadiums they are putting forward for 2015, eg Moses Mabhida in Durban, Green Point in Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay in Port Elizabeth, are fantastic... Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:50:04 GMT+1 BennyBlanco Scotland struggle to fill Murrayfield for Scotland games, and the last World Cup game was a dreadful occasion when they put a 2nd team out in front of their own fans against a New Zealand weakened team and were smashed. The worst game of the 2007 tournament. So they can't really complain when no one wants them involved in any future tournament. They can cosy up with others all they want against England, it's not surprising. Hopefully their tourism minister will have s word; there's much more tourism potential for Scotland if everyone in the rugby loving world is decending on England than if they're heading for South Africa. Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:43:58 GMT+1 bionicFrankButcher i dont think either england or SA should host the RWC. The IRB should be looking to widen the appeal of the game, which means awarding the games to a country that hasnt yet hosted a RWC, but is capable of doing so Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:21:15 GMT+1 big-silv In my opinion England should get it, they have better transport links, better stadia and the authorities are a lot more efficient than their South African counterparts.South Africa is a horrible country, high crime and murder rates and not to mention the statistic that 1 in 4 men have admitted rape.And the Scots voting for SA is pathetic, France gave them 2 games in 2007 and they couldn't even fill them, which is appalling. Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:18:25 GMT+1 snowy_ajw I too, cannot understand why it wasn't a British bid. Guaranteed votes and a few extra grounds to use and the home nations would get to play on their own patch, boosting their chances of progression in the tournament.But England should definitely get the 2015 world cup. Our fantastic supporters will fill the grounds and Africa hosted the tournament after we did last, so surely we're in front of them in the queue. Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:08:59 GMT+1 robarms This just shows that the process needs to be overhauled. What is the point in having a commitee to decide which country should host the event if unions ignore the findings in favour of national spite in the case of Scotland or the promise of matches in the case of Ireland? Tue 28 Jul 2009 11:07:12 GMT+1 edgroves Can't believe how one eyed the Scots are being... pathetic Tue 28 Jul 2009 10:39:44 GMT+1 StandfreeFM Sounds like a petty reason for Scotland to vote for South Africa, given their inability to produce full houses for the two games they did get at Murrayfield for 2007 WC (calculated and thinly veiled policy of fielding 2nd string against AB's being the main shameful reason for this). Tue 28 Jul 2009 10:19:15 GMT+1 geordiebok As a South African I think the cup should be held in England . There is much better transport facilities as the distances to be traveled are not great. This means there is better choice as to where the games are played. They could rotate the games between the top stadiums giving people of the different regions a chance to see a top team. The stadium for the Olympics looks good and the village could be used. I also think that although they are held in England some games should be played in Scotland, Wales and Ireland(good rugby based fans) as this would mean these counties have also hosted part of the Cup. I do agree with most people on this site as to the credibility of the SA government. Tue 28 Jul 2009 10:19:05 GMT+1 hammersmithjack I think it is worth waiting to see how the 2010 Soccer World Cup goes in SA first. Sounds like that it is going to be an accomodation/transport and financial disaster and may kill SA's ideas of wanting 2015 anyhow. Tue 28 Jul 2009 10:10:01 GMT+1 Foppotee Answer me this how many of you would sit down and watch New Zealand and England playing in the semi final and a last minute drop goal wins it 35-34 in one of the best games you've ever seen and then say yeah but there was only 30,000 fans watching and the New Zealand Government are going to have to stump up £30m.... This is a sporting occasion and you all need to stop talking about money and stadium capacities and advertising revenue and the "Arsenal stadium" ffs who cares as long as there's enough money to pay for some air tickets and some kit for the Samoans to keep playing.I love the Rugby world cup and whilst it's nice if the tournament can expand slightly to include a few more nations do we really care if Japan are ever competitive? It's taken Argentina and Italy 20 years to get even remotely competitive so talk of emerging countries is a joke. We are stuck with what we have and that's more than enough for me. So lets focus on the sport and not the money. Tue 28 Jul 2009 10:06:29 GMT+1 auntCheeks South Africa must not be allowed the WC whilst De Villiers is in charge. Tue 28 Jul 2009 09:58:14 GMT+1 joaquinlive I believe this is a classic case of a slain campaign ahead of decision-making time for a host country. South Africa AND England both have merits on on the balance of things, it does appear reasonable to reward the event to England. There is still no guarantee that South Africa have what it takes to hold an event of this scale (let's not forget that the World Cup has not be held yet) but in the case of England, it would be forseeably easy to fill the grounds for all the games. Tue 28 Jul 2009 09:47:52 GMT+1 Simon Austin Thanks for your comments everyone. So we're getting closer to the vote. Looks certain that Scotland will vote for South Africa, partly because they're peeved at not being chosen to stage any 2015 games by England.Ireland were undecided last night and there were rumours that South Africa had offered to play them in the first game at the new Lansdowne Road in exchange for their vote.Soon all the horse trading will be over...the result of the vote could come through as early as 2pm BST or as late as 430pm... Tue 28 Jul 2009 09:19:36 GMT+1 Cape Town 2020 here we go again about South Africa and all its problems.1. It gave the highest gov guarantee2. It has the best stadia whether you would like to admit it or not3. Issues surrounding the use of non-rugby venues are NOT resolved4. South Africa, even with all the doom and gloom will continue to host major events successfully as it has been doing time and time and time again.5. 2010 broadcast revenues in RSA are 40% up on Germany, local 2010 sponsorship exceeds korea/japan 2002.6. england 2015 is 22 miles from france 20077. I'd much rather have japan and italy host 2015 and 2019.8. South Africa hosted arguably the best world cup in 1995, with MUCH less infrastructure, transport facilites, higher crime rates, and without 10 fifa standard venues. Tue 28 Jul 2009 09:19:19 GMT+1 BennyBlanco Fatherb, based on my personal experience of the 2005 Lions tour: NZ fans are the nastiest and most gloating I have experienced; the abuse I got as a Lions fan was much worse that the abuse I got as and England fan living in Cardiff in 1999 and 2005. NZ does not have a stadium fit for a World Cup final. Eden Park, even after it's superficial touch ups and the projected finished product visible on it's website, will still be an average stadium, and not a great experience for those with tickets. I guess the tv won't show how poor it is. There weren't enough hotel rooms for all the visiting Lions fans. How is that going to change for 2011? If more fans turn up than in 2005 there'll be nowhere for them to sleep, and if less turn up then it must surely be classed as a failure. The time difference, as with Australia means games will be played in the evenings locally to make them viewable to the European and South African tv audiences. Personally I don't like that, I think rugby should be an afternoon game when possible. So in my opinion there are plenty of reasons to think it won't be anywhere near as big and bold as France 2007 was. I think too many games not involving big nations will never be seen or heard about, and a neutral rugby fan in some random country will assume it's a Tournament for the same old well known rugby teams. So that is why I lament giving NZ the tournament and why the damage from that needs to be rectified for 2015. So ideally it should be Japan and Italy. But realistically England offers a repeat of France in terms of world wide visibility, so that's what the IRB will want most. Tue 28 Jul 2009 09:02:42 GMT+1 Davey Bones The Football World Cup is a disaster waiting to happen, there will be so much crime everyone will rejoice that the RWC went to England.South Africa is a country in violent meltdown, the police and authorities are impotent when it comes to protecting their own people, just think what's going to happen when all those naive football supporters turn up to the murder capital of the world. Tue 28 Jul 2009 08:34:06 GMT+1 edgroves It is natural that the RWC should be on a cycle that awards it to Southern Hemisphere, Northern Hemisphere, Emerging nation. 2011 will be an excellent RWC - New Zealand deserve it having not held the tournament since 1989. This does mean that 2015 probably should go to Japan, but due to financial constraints it can't, so the next RWC should by rights go to a Northern Hemisphere nation - either Italy or England.As stated in my previous post, it would be the worst decision to send the RWC to South Africa. Based on the Lions experience, where they played in front of empty stadiums because of stupid and irrational ticketing policies, the RWC should not go anywhere near them until they have grown up. If they can't get the Lions right, what hope is there for them selling tickets for some of the lower tier matches. Tue 28 Jul 2009 08:23:48 GMT+1 rhjmerlin Has it become a rule that whenever the RWC is held in the Northern Hemisphere, matches have to be played in the Millenium Stadium? It seems that no matter who's holding the it, Wales 99, France and now (potentially) England, Cardiff always manages to get involved! Not that I'm complaining mind you - it is a fantastic stadium in possibly the best city to go to to watch rugby live. Unlike most capital cities, where the central focal point is a religious/governmental building, the centre of Cardiff is the rugby ground! Tue 28 Jul 2009 08:20:43 GMT+1 Sammy the Scenter No one "deserves" the RWC, but the mess created around the parochial decision to award the hosting rights to New Zealand in 2011 are now being felt. 2011 should have gone to Japan which had a far more compelling bid. South Africa could not fill stadia (which are relatively small compared to those proposed for use in England incidentally) for a Lions' tour, what hope do they have for Georgia vs Italy for example? Ticket prices would also have to be much lower so the IRB would definitely be calling on the SA Govt guarantee. For me, Japan should also be awarded the hosting rights for 2019, it is a fabulous country and has a very strong rugby tradition, not to mention superb stadia and the financial wherewithal to assure a commercially successful event.It is, however, time to reform the IRB so that the influence of teh parochial nations is reduced or eliminated. Tue 28 Jul 2009 08:20:07 GMT+1 PDGalles Why Not Also Earmark the Olympic Stadium in Stratford To Host Some of the Matches It will have all the transport infra structure already laid on , 80,000 capacity and is due to be reduced in size after the olympics to 25,000 capacity this could prolong It's life somewhat Tue 28 Jul 2009 08:03:41 GMT+1 Prawnicus It is sad that the sport that for so long did not want to embrace professionalism because of what it would do to the sport is now obsessed so much with money. But on this front:2015 should go to Japan (how can you say that England would make more money, when Japan has the 2nd biggest economy in the world)2019 should go to Italy (they have pretty much the same size economy as the UK, plus it is in Europe so would still be in eawy reach of the all home nation supporters) Tue 28 Jul 2009 07:55:28 GMT+1 Mike Martin South Africa, judging by the Confederations Cup, is simply too crime-ridden to even countenance giving them the RWC. I fear for the fans at the FIFA World Cup next year. And the SARFU could not even sell out the Lions Tour matches, so a SA World Cup would lose even more money for the IRB. Tue 28 Jul 2009 07:54:56 GMT+1 fatherb Jesus, I am sick of reading about you guys slagging NZ off for daring to hold the world cup. Who cares if it doesn't make lots of money. It'll be held where people want to see the sport and appreciate the game.The world cup has been held in Britain in 91, 99, and 07. You've had it enough already. Time to see it back in sth africa where they'll appreciate it a whole lot more than the football-centric English. Better still send it to Japan so we can spread the game a bit more. Tue 28 Jul 2009 07:52:53 GMT+1 Carraher If we dealt in facts re the financial situation from NZ and 2011, it might put into perspective this so called "need" for England to be awarded 2015.Its amazing this 30m loss is still being reported incorrectly, because Millar from the IRB has refuted it on numerous occasions with the comments "we expect to make the same as with France 2007 - no more, no less". And that's a quote.It is the NZRFU, as host, that will lose 30m - not the IRB - and (not that it matters to anyone else) that will be picked up by the NZ government.The IRB makes the overwhelming majority of its RWC revenue from broadcasting rights, with a (relatively speaking) small balance from corporate hospitality, travel packages and merchandising. No general ticket revenue goes to the IRB. None. The so-called "challenging" time zone (only 3hrs ahead of Japan's) will be offset by the naturally increasing popularity of the tournament when the bidding numbers come in. Could the IRB have made more in Japan? Probably. But the important thing is NZ won't make any less than France, despite the mischevious claims to the contrary.So, with a similar revenee figures from 2007 for 2011, isn't it safe to follow what all the UK papers were telling us last time and go with Japan (or Italy) as opposed to more of the Old Guard? Tue 28 Jul 2009 07:30:37 GMT+1 The Marvellous Mechanical Mouth Organ de Jong. The 2011 RWC is in the Southern Hempisphere. Do you really think it should be in the Southern Hemisphere again?As someone who lived in South Africa and have had first hand experience of how tourists are preyed upon by criminals, let them sort this out before they start shouting the odds about being the 'best' nation to host the RWC! Tue 28 Jul 2009 07:09:26 GMT+1 DavidD I can't understand how the WC should go to England. The last one was in France, 22 miles away, with games played in Wales and Scotland. Now the IRB is looking at giving it to the same region with games again played in Cardiff.So much for the global game. Tue 28 Jul 2009 06:35:23 GMT+1 tenniseveryone37 It needs to go to south africa and japan before England Tue 28 Jul 2009 04:08:01 GMT+1 kiwifella as a kiwi I was disappointed RWC did not go to Japan for 2011reason being if we are going to spread the game globally that so needed to happen and now it seems we wait till 2019 for JapanI know RWC in NZ will be awesome and I hope to be in a position to follow every ...go the ABs Tue 28 Jul 2009 01:30:44 GMT+1 BennyBlanco Ideally it should be Japan then Italy, but it has to be England because however much kiwis say 2011 will be a good World Cup, it just won't make enough money. England will make more than SA so the IRB and RWC committee will need to go for them. This is all because of the joke decision to give 2011 to NZ. Eden Park is a joke. Temporary uncovered seating for a World Cup semis and final in a city where it rains all the time? Great idea guys.. Poor transport links, not enough hotel rooms, poor links between the other cities meaning Christchurch and Wellington get neglected after the quarters... So after all that England is the only place that can make up the financial deficit. As far as England's bid, I have concerns about football stadiums, simply because the pitches aren't big enough. A rugby pitch should be 100m long, then more for each dead ball area. That can't happen at Emirates or Anfield. Tue 28 Jul 2009 00:40:15 GMT+1 elroberto89 Having just played in the Junior World Cup in Japan, I think it'd be a great shame if they weren't given the tournament. The country is ready to host the competition now. There's a massive interest out there for rugby and the people are fantastic. Every game will be a sell out - they managed to get crowds of 11000 for group matches at u20 level which is pretty rare and the atmosphere was great. Logistically everything was very well organised and the tournament was a credit to the Japanese rugby union and people.It was a shame they didn't get the 2011 tournament but i think to deny them the WC for another 4 years when the rugby scene is ready to take off would not benefit Japan at all. They wouldn't be bidding for it if they weren't ready now. Why not recommend England for the 2019 world cup and let Japan have this one? Tue 28 Jul 2009 00:31:13 GMT+1 hutchturner RFU dilemma - short term positve cash flow with top 10 teams, or grow the game and possibly lose the house. Suggestion: Add into the host evaluation mix the ability to make money with teams ranked 10 through 25. Results would be factored into any future hosting bids. The Olympic Games have had some success in this i.e. Kenya, Ethopia, etc. The golden goose of the teams ranked 15+ is sponsorship based on TV, streaming, etc., not soley "fannies in the seats". If the middle third is profitable rationalizing "fannies in the seats" for short term revenue goals is easier. At times, one could think that the RFU does not completely comprehend the difference between marketing and awarding exclusive rights. Perhaps its time to allow non-host individual countries to bid for the right to promote the RWC in their own country to promote a healthy organic growth of the game. Mon 27 Jul 2009 23:57:03 GMT+1 Tom Yorkiemonster - In addition to Twickenham and Millennium Stadium in Cardiff football stadiums will be used - Elland Road in Leeds, Southampton's St Mary's, St James' Park in Newcastle, the Ricoh Arena in Coventry, Arsenal's Emirates, Liverpool's Anfield and Manchester United's Old Trafford. Additionally Gloucester's Kingsholm and Leicester's Welford Road grounds would be used. The RFU have stated the football owners are happy to offer their grounds. Mon 27 Jul 2009 21:51:33 GMT+1 F0kker Having witnessed the outcry from the English media when Japan and South Africa lost out to New Zealand for the 2011 hosting rights, I am aghast that the English media and fans are now arrogant enough to think that the proper host for 2015 should be England. There was strong argument that Japan rightfully deserved to host the 2011 RWC to spread the game and that this had to happen at the very next opportunity. Obviously, what they meant was at the next opportunity AFTER England have it handed to them. Regardless of where it is held, it should be a cracker of an event if they reduce the number of teams or make it a two-tier competition. Otherwise it will be the same 2 weeks of mismatches followed by New Zealand crashing out in the quarter- or semi- finals. Bring it! Mon 27 Jul 2009 21:49:59 GMT+1 yorkiemonsterr if england do win than what stadiums will they use?i mean they cant rally use the football stadiums because the teams are playing. and the only stadiums they can use is wembley and twickham, the other rugby ground are far too small Mon 27 Jul 2009 20:48:04 GMT+1 robarms unounos I don't think many people are having a go at the country hosting the RWC, it was the way it was awarded and the fact it will lose £30m. It was expected to go to Japan but because of the secret ballot and the trading that went on between the unions for summer tour matches New Zealand sneaked it. I think rugby is now at a crossroads where the IRB are going to have to decide whether to use the RWC to spread the game or make money, it appears from this round of competition they can't do both. Personaly, I am in favour of spreading the game around the world, but that would mean the big unions getting their finances in order and I think (I might be wrong on this) it was only the French, Welsh and English unions that made money last year. Mon 27 Jul 2009 20:25:37 GMT+1 bavarianguinness Simon , accoeding to the Fed Italy website they are candidates for 2015 not 2019 ! Mon 27 Jul 2009 20:19:42 GMT+1 makalika Don't be peeve Unounos - I'm English living in NZ and there is active debate on whether NZ is going to be able to host the world Cup. There's no doubt the country is excited and everyone will get a very warm welcome but there still isn't a single stadium that could host the final. You're right though that every game would be sold out and it would be awesome to see the All Blacks in the final bnut economically, this is a very small (but beautiful) country.. Mon 27 Jul 2009 20:17:29 GMT+1 bavarianguinness Spread the game ffs , Italy 2015 , Japan 2019 . speaking as an englishman !!! Mon 27 Jul 2009 20:13:55 GMT+1 Kubali I do get a bit peeved when people have a go at New Zealand hosting the world cup. At least you are guaranteed that most games will be a sell out which would not be the case in Japan or Italy - despite what some PR people try and make you believe.New Zealand is also a stunning country and it will hold a decent world cup which will be played in front of knowledgable fans with the host nation very likely to feature in the closing stages - and no I am English not a kiwi. Mon 27 Jul 2009 19:17:31 GMT+1 botraga Why is it an English bid not a British/Irish bid? There are fantastic rugby stadiums in the UK and Ireland, which would be wasted with a solely English bid. Using these stadiums would cause less disruption to the football season and larger stadiums would be available for the big matches.I shudder at the thought of an amateur egg-chasing match between Japan and Canada tearing up the beautiful emirates pitch in a half empty stadium. Mr Wenger would not be pleased, however I am sure it would help to pay back Arsenals mounting debt though.I also notice the list did not include Leicester, Bristol or Plymouth, whish are cities that are all passionate about rugby. The stadiums would be more likely to be near capacity for the smaller matches. This would make for a much better advert for rugby.I am sure the greediest financial concerns and political infighting will prevail leading to a world cup in South Africa or a white elephant of a tournament in England. Mon 27 Jul 2009 18:15:55 GMT+1 njt221 Do England deserve the WC over SA?Oh DUH! You actually have to ask that question? Mon 27 Jul 2009 18:09:52 GMT+1 Tom I think the arguments for South Africa or Italy to hold the cup are daft. The IRB needs a big world cup in 2015 after hosting one in New Zealand in 2011. New Zealand is a small country with an inconvenient time zone (great place mind). I think having the world cup there will be fantastic but it won't bring in much cash. Therefore the following cup needs to be in a big rugby market (England, France or perhaps Australia). As France held the last cup and Australia the one before that it makes England's case pretty watertight. Additionally South African or Italian government guarantees mean nothing - the IRB may not end up out of pocket but think of the damage to the game if cup games are watched in half empty stadiums? The recent Lions tour was fantastic on the pitch but most games looked pretty poorly attended. England as a host can guarantee to sell out almost every game. Mon 27 Jul 2009 17:21:31 GMT+1 SheriffSlade England and South Afica have hosted it already, it was farcical that New Zealand got it for the 2nd time. It is called the 'World Cup' not the 'elite cup'. I say give it to Italy or Japan, the USA or Canada. Lets make it a world cup. Mon 27 Jul 2009 17:20:06 GMT+1 edgroves Would be a travesty if the RWC goes to South Africa. Bearing in mind the complete farce over Lions ticketing and their inability to sell tickets for the Tri Nations (5 days before last Saturdays All Blacks match, tickets were still available - would never happen in the UK)it would just show how corrupt international rugby is. It would also jeopardise the tournament being held in Japan in 2019 - something that needs to happen to widen the rugby world.Please let common sense prevail.... Mon 27 Jul 2009 16:57:00 GMT+1 dingo I think arguements about money before the event takes place are speculative at best. I admit I want England to host the 2015 RWC event, so I am biased. However, it is beyond me how South Africa can generate the same income as England (along with that little piece of Wales). The relative strengths of the economies appear to dictate that. However, there is a strategic reason as well. Centering the 2015 event in London will result in a much stronger global appeal, simply because London is one of the world's top media capitals. That will raise the profile of rugby amongst persons, groups, and countries where rugby is not commonly visible. In other words, it will generate incremental attention (read revenue and growth) simply because it is an event in London, as compared to Pretoria/Johannesburg/Cape Town/Durban. This is the attention Rugby needs to grow globally. The 2011 RWC in New Zealand is a failure waiting to happen (financial terms only) since it is out of the way, difficult to travel to, and will garner little or no excitement outside of the rugby family. More than anything, this is why England hosting the 2015 event is strategically important to the sport.Regarding the decision about 2019, Japan does appear lucrative. However, an autumn RWC in Italy, especially with the nice weather, could also be a monster, would attract significant players and supporters there, and would significantly elevate Italy in Rugby terms, potentially to challenge the top teams regularly. To me, should have been there in 2011. Mon 27 Jul 2009 16:24:13 GMT+1