Jump to content

2011 Rugby World Cup


Alexjc

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The Sunday Star Times here last weekend did their analysis on where votes could go in round one.

Japan

- Australia (2)

- Americas

- Asia

- England (2)

- Europe

New Zealand

- Oceania

- Scotland (2)

- Wales (2)

South Africa

- Africa

- Italy

Swinging

- France (2): tossing up beetween Japan and South Africa

- Canada: unreliable history

- Ireland (2): could vote for any of the 3

In the Sunday Newspapers last weekend, the NZRU also put a big full page ad based around *we gave it our best shot* , thanking all those involved in the bid.

Also looking at the Sunday papers, I see the South African bid chief has once again opened his big fat arrogant mouth and got himself into hot water by criticising NZ venues in an interview he did, aswell as saying he hoped he could cash in on the debts that many nations owed SA. The IRB were not happy, but nothing official was done about it.

Also, just out from the vote, must say I am kinda pissed off at some of the points pointing away from voting for NZ. 3 points in particular......

* New Zealand is too far away from the lucrative European timezone

* Rugby is already mega popular in New Zealand, you don't need a world cup

* The All Blacks have an extremely dominant record on home soil, why would we give them a home world cup?

Unfortunately, that comment came from a voting Scottish delegate, saying that it may be a factor when some people make their votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the South African bid chief has once again opened his big fat arrogant mouth and got himself into hot water by criticising NZ venues in an interview he did, aswell as saying he hoped he could cash in on the debts that many nations owed SA. The IRB were not happy, but nothing official was done about it.

Yep, Pienaar certainly didn't do the bid any favours with his comments _ I imagine it would have swayed a few votes away from South Africa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) The feeling I'm getting from fellow NZers is one of good luck to the NZFU but not holding out hopes for victory.  Also the feeling that Japan should host and if NZ falls in the first round, which is VERY likley, the NZ vote will be added to Japan's bid.

Personally I'd like to say GOOD LUCK to the NZRU, but remember there is still a chance for 2015, and this will give us more time to sort out stadium and transport issues.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is a fair assessment of how the NZ public see the vote. Not exactly brimming with confidence, but in general, they can accept that the NZRU have done almost everything that they could to win this bid, and have done a pretty good job.

The NZRU will need a stellar final presentation to the IRB to have any show of getting the votes, and reading the newspaper today, an IRB insider was saying that Jock Hobbs was a key, as he is extremely well respected on the IRB board.

We have a good 5 person lineup, and must say, compared to the South African presentation team - the NZRU one is an inspired group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really that time already? Geez, talk about time going past quickly. By the way, what do you mean that Canada is "unreliable" here?

That we have know idea who they will vote for although my money is on Japan.

scrum.com

When asked on scrum.com who do you want to win the results are:

NZ - 48%

Japan - 36%

South Africa - 17%

But the majority of people believe Japan will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By Peter Bills

South Africa and Japan are neck and neck, New Zealand fading fast.

That was the latest word on Tuesday night on the race to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

As frantic negotiations carried on throughout the day, it became increasingly clear that the New Zealand bid is in trouble. Unless there is a huge, last-minute movement in their direction, they seem likely to be eliminated in the first round of voting which will take place on Thursday afternoon.

They could turn from potential kings to king makers

Only Wales are so far believed to have agreed to support the New Zealand bid. But unless the Kiwis can muster some dramatic eleventh-hour numbers, they look like heading home with their tails between their legs.

But if they do fall at the first hurdle, ironically they could turn from potential kings to king makers. Their two votes could prove crucial. Which is why Francois Pienaar and his South African bid colleagues will almost certainly have spoken with the New Zealanders in the last 48 hours.

The subject will have been delicate in the extreme. “Mate, when – sorry, if – you lose in the first round, can we rely on your votes.” Or something like that. You try couching that in delicate terms.

However, some believe that the two New Zealand votes could well go to Japan in a final ballot. And to lose the four votes in the hands of Australia and New Zealand would leave South Africa desperately trying to make up the numbers chiefly among the northern hemisphere nations.

As ever, it is the traditional, founding rugby nations in each hemisphere, each of whom possess two votes, who hold the key. In Britain, Ireland and France alone, there are 10 votes available, a potentially decisive number.

As the clock ticks down to Thursday's expected 6pm (South African time) decision, it emerged where certain countries votes will go. South Africa are believed to have picked up France's two votes, as well as one each from Italy and Argentina. But the Australian vote is heading for Japan.

The decision looks as though it may rest in the hands of England, Scotland and Ireland. Each have two votes. England are thought to be likely to go for South Africa but the two Celtic countries are saying little. To win, Japan are probably going to have to persuade two out of England, Scotland and Ireland to support their bid.

But under the complex voting system, Wales could also play a decisive part if New Zealand are eliminated in the first round. If that happens, it is understood Wales would be almost certain to vote for South Africa.

Just 10 days ago, even certain IRB members considered Japan had little chance. But they have made up ground fast, so much so that no-one is prepared to exclude them from going all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 odd hours till announcment time and the final push for votes will now be WELL underway.  Like the Oympic decision, lobbing will be intense.

The end result will probibly see Japan make it through and host the 2011 RWC.  I, along with most in New Zealand, can live with that.  But a South African event will leave many here with a suspicion of White nepotisim from the "old guard" of nations that is Europe.  Then the ugly spectre of a rival rugby event may rear it's ugly head again (as it did in 1995 as professionalisim took over) and create havoc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) One positive that will come out of NZ's failure to win the 2011 WC will be the massive debate of where we went wrong.- Stadiums and five star accomodation.

This will be the focus if NZ ever attempts to bid for 2015.

I hope this will push the central government into assisting the construction of a replacement for Eden Park as well as helping out with Jade, Carisbrooke, and Waikato Stadiums.

That was the bottom line to a successful bid, Japan simply have the best of everything, stadiums, accomodation and in these wary times, saftey and security.

South Africa has great stadiums and accomodation but lacks the latter two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, if NZ loses, it could well be a blessing in disguise and force the Kiwis to finally get their act together and start upgrading or replacing their stadiums. It seems like it really is going to take such a disappointment to force their hand on the issue.

And the latest from the Daily Yomiuri on Japan's 2011 bid:

Rugby's great decision / Vote for Japan and the future or pat the old boyson the back

Rich Freeman Daily Yomiuri Sportswriter

The International Rugby Board has, to all intents and purposes, a pretty simple decision to make when it meets on Thursday to decide who will host the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Look to the future of the game and award the third biggest sporting event in the world to Japan, or reinforce its image as a glorified old boys' club and award the sport's flagship competition to South Africa or New Zealand.

As Wallaby legend David Campese has often said about a number of rugby-related issues: "We are not talking rocket science here."

When the idea of a World Cup was first put forward, the only real backers of the competition were New Zealand and Australia. The view from the Northern Hemisphere was that the competition would never last, and the only way the first tournament got off the ground in 1987 was through the sponsorship of Japanese communications giant KDD.

Fast forward to 2003 and the Rugby World Cup in Australia was watched on TV by 3.5 billion people in 150 countries; 1.8 million passed through the turnstiles and over 90,000 fans flew into Australia to watch the event.

Rugby has become big business and yet in the eyes of the world it is still not deemed a global sport.

Earlier this year, the IRB failed in its bid to get the seven-a-side version of the game included in the Olympics and former IOC supremo Juan Antonio Samaranch made it very clear last week that rugby would never become an Olympic sport until it was recognized as a sport played throughout the world.

Bearing in mind two-thirds of the world's population lives in Asia, it would seem a no-brainer, therefore, to give the RWC to a country that can help open up a new frontier.

And yet there are still those who say that South Africa or New Zealand--both of whom have already held the tournament--should host rugby's cash cow.

The general argument put forward for New Zealand is that it is a rugby nation and the event has grown so much that this is the last time it will be able to host it.

Supporters point to the success of the recent tour by the British and Irish Lions and claim it is the venue the players want.

But with the All Blacks seemingly unstoppable, it is probably the last place most teams would want to go. After all why give the best team in the world even more of an advantage.

Yes, New Zealand coped in June and July but they only had to deal with 30,000 "invaders" following one team. And even then fans were forced to spend nights in camper vans and cruise ships, such was the lack of hotel beds in New Zealand.

It is not stretching the imagination to say the Land of the Long White Cloud would sink if it had to cope with 120,000 foreigners crisscrossing the two islands as they follow their teams.

Supporters of the South Africa bid claim that a World Cup in Africa would be the most profitable and would allow the sport to really take off in countries such as Tunisia, Morocco and Kenya.

What they fail to mention is that the country's rugby administration is an absolute mess; rugby fans would be visiting one of the most dangerous countries in the world; and there is the very real danger of sponsorship burnout, bearing in mind that South Africa is hosting the British and Irish Lions in 2009 and the FIFA World Cup in 2010.

===

Roller-coaster ride

Starting out as the initial favorite, Japan's bid seemed to take a nosedive following a leaked report from the IRB that spent far more time highlighting the problems Japan could face, while ignoring the problems contained in the other two tender bids.

For example, the IRB seemed to find it totally acceptable that rugby fans would spend six weeks in a camper van, when the chances of one of their own committee members doing the same are absolutely nonexistent.

There was no mention of the Japanese law that prevents price hiking by the hotels and that Japan's hotels are on average cheaper and more plentiful than in other rugby playing nations.

Concern was also raised about the fact the government, unlike the governments of South Africa and New Zealand, had not said it would underwrite the 48 million pounds guarantee the host nation needs to pay to the IRB.

What they did not perhaps realize was that local law prevents the government from making monetary promises particularly regarding events that will take place six years from now.

In place of such a guarantee, the JRFU have letters from the CEOs of 22 major multinational companies, that support Japan's bid, saying they will underwrite the 48 million pounds. It is perhaps worth noting the market value of these companies is far greater than the GDP of certain countries.

Opponents of Japan's bid have also pointed out that Japan is not in the European TV-friendly time zone and that the Japan national team is unlikely to reach the knockout stages of the competition and thus crowds are likely to fall once Japan is knocked out.

JRFU Chief Executive Koji Tokumasu, however, has the answers.

"We are aiming to go further [than the projected South African profit of 160 million pounds]by maximizing the Rugby World Cup's broadcasting revenues and repeating the outstanding success of the 2002 FIFA World Cup," he said.

Tokumasu went on say that the 2002 soccer World Cup was the most viewed sporting event in television history and was just as successful in Europe as it was worldwide.

"A final in Japan would kick off at around noon on Sunday, European time, prime time for watching a sports event. The time difference should be no handicap to maximize broadcasting revenues."

Tokumasu also has an answer regarding the worry that a World Cup in Japan would mean empty stadiums.

Speaking to a delegation from a number of other unions recently in Tokyo, Tokumasu said that he was one of 65,000 that watched Ireland play Saudi Arabia during the 2002 World Cup.

"The FIFA World Cup and the three Olympics that we have held show that Japan is not only capable of hosting a major sporting event but that Japanese people will come out in huge numbers to support such events," he said.

"During the 2002 World Cup, the average attendance by Japanese citizens for matches not involving the Japan team was 90 percent. I am sure the stadiums will be full."

And Tokumasu is not alone in his support for Japan's bid, which is one reason Japan is once again favorite to win the vote.

===

Worldwide support

One major difference between the three bidders is that while the New Zealand bid is supported by Kiwis, and the South African bid by South Africans, the Japan bid crosses all borders.

Supporters of the JRFU proposal include RWC winners such as Martin Johnson, Nick Farr-Jones and New Zealander John Kirwan, Welsh legend Ieuan Evans and Scotland's Scott Hastings, while the backing of the second most capped player in the world (and renowned bon vivant) Jason Leonard shows that the off-field delights of Japan have not been ignored.

As Eddie Butler recently wrote in the Observer: "For the sake of meaningful development, the World Cup has to go to Japan."

Japan's bid represents a bid not just for Japan but for Asia, an area that in rugby terms stretches from the Arabian Gulf through Kazakhstan and India, Vietnam and the Philippines and onto Japan and Guam in the east.

It is a continent that can produce one of the biggest players in the NBA, the Olympic hammer throw champion and 110-meter hurdle gold medalist.

Just imagine how global the sport would be if kids in Mongolia who would otherwise become wrestlers; 2-meter tall basketball want-to-be's in China, soccer players in the Arabian Gulf and soldiers in India all took up the game played in heaven, because they all watched it being played at the highest level in a fellow Asian country.

It really isn't rocket science after all.

(Nov. 15, 2005)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:( Also can't forget that NZ blew it's sub hosting rights for 2003 regarding "clean" stadia, and all the politicing involved with that.

There are some stadiums that have multi-year naming rights that are still not resloved regarding this issue as the 2011 bid decision approaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I’m going to set my alarm clock for 4:50am tomorrow morning and hope for the best. I agree that if we lose this it could force the government to look at our national stadium (or lack of one) problem and maybe we will bid again for 2015 although I seriously doubt it. Maybe your right rotel and this could be a blessing in disguise but I just have to ask myself when is it going to be our turn? Rugby is so important to kiwis so when will it be our turn to host the world cup of our national game or will the IRB turn into FIFA or IOC where $$$ is all they care about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if they will go for 2015 if they don't win 2011.

Chris Moller , has however, said that they probably won't.

He said it was likely to be New Zealand's last shot at hosting a cup. "You never say never but the tournament is not getting any smaller and bidding for the cup is a tremendous drain on resources. We have put nearly $3.5 million into this, which is a lot of rugby balls. So we definitely won't be bidding for the cup in 2015."

If NZ does get through first round of voting and South Africa is knocked out, the SARU has confirmed their two votes will go to New Zealand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...