Jump to content

2011 Irb Rugby World Cup


stevie

Recommended Posts

NNah, no confirmation yet on what will happen to Christchurch. RWC2011 chief Martin Sneddon has cut short a trip overseas and will be heading out to investigate.

Most people are making noises that the preference is to keep matches in NZ, I think aslong as they can put together a feasible accom plan, they will keep matches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 789
  • Created
  • Last Reply

:mellow: Early days yet, but the pool matches are being considered for moving. The QFs are still planned to stay...

But really the NZRU isn't concerned about it yet!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
:( An inspection today by CHCH mayor Bob Parker of AMI Stadium didn't bode well. The ground is badly ritted and there art some significant structual damage to stands. However the Government WILL pay for repairs if the IRB are happy that the battered stadium can be prepared in time. (It is exactly six months to the day of this thread being written that AMI will host it's first match.)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad news this ... but I'm sure they only did this with a heavy heart ...

Christchurch loses World Cup hosting rights

Earthquake-ravaged Christchurch has lost its rights to host seven Rugby World Cup games.

New Zealand Rugby World Cup Minister Murray McCully made the announcement this afternoon.

McCully said the two quarter-final matches would go to Auckland and five the pool matches would be divided between other venues. He hoped some of these would remain in the South Island.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Australia were due to be based in Christchurch for the pool stage of the tournament and were scheduled to face to Italy and Russia in the quake-hit city.

No decision has yet been made as to where the Wallabies will be based but Auckland is the early favourite.

He offered a heartfelt apology to Christchurch residents and Mayor Bob Parker for the decision that had to be made.

Also at the announcement at Addington in Christchurch were IRB chairman Bernard Lapasset, IRB chief executive Mike Miller, NZ Rugby Union chief executive Steve Tew, RWC 2011 chief executive Martin Snedden and Brian Pearson, chief executive of AMI Stadium owner Vbase.

The group met with McCully in Christchurch today ahead of the announcement. It was up to the IRB to make the final call on where games were played, but the New Zealannd Government insists it has significant sway over them.

The government had previously indicated it would be Friday before any announcement would be possible on the games, but there has been pressure to make a decision sooner.

Prime Minister John Key yesterday said he did not think Dunedin could manage to hold one of the two quarter-finals that had been scheduled to be held in Christchurch.

Reports in British media yesterday suggested the IRB had already resolved that Christchurch could not host any matches.

McCully visited the ground last week and said serious liquefaction had occurred to the turf and the stands had structural damage.

Vbase, the company that runs the stadium, had commissioned several reports.

Pearson said this week that only preliminary reports from consultants were available.

Sydney Morning Herald

Link to post
Share on other sites
:angry: This was going to happen but it still hurts anyway - mainly because this is fast becomming an AUCKLAND RWC. The IRB had no choice but as we know, the IRB powerplayers never wanted NZ to host this event.
Link to post
Share on other sites

the IRB powerplayers never wanted NZ to host this event.

I guess that's why they chose New Zealand.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, look at it this way. If they'd voted the other way, at best, just about right now they'd be wondering where they'd have to reschedule any matches meant for Sendai (or elsewhere up north), or at worst, whether the clouds rolling out from Fukushima will force them to cancel the whole tournament ... or reschedule it to NZ perhaps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's why they chose New Zealand.

:rolleyes:

NOT!...It was South Africa that held the decider!

:mellow: Anyhoo It looks like Invercargill and Dunedin will pick up a pool match each, while Wellington will have two and Albany one match.

:( The magical feeling of an up and comming event seems to have dissapeared, it just doesn't feel like it anymore. The country IS in Depression mentally and financially. There IS anger that Auckland has taken all the REAL matches and even though Auckland has stated that 'they don't want it this way', I can see that provincial NZ will still resent them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT!...It was South Africa that held the decider!

Whatever. It still required a majority of the IRB board. With a final vote of 13-8, it still required 12 other votes beyond the South Africans to give it such a thumping majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
:mellow: A shuffle around will see Dunedin pick up two pool matches while removing it's already designated Scotland v Georgia match to Invercargill. Nelson and Wellington pick up one each...But annoyingly, North Habour pick up the two remaining matches (which,as we know is Auckland), much to the anger of Tauranga and Hamilton.
Link to post
Share on other sites

David Atkins has been in New Zealand and last Friday was conducting interviews for high profile positions in the Ceremonies organisation. I note Hinewehi Mohi was involved also in a cultural symposium that he held in Auckland a few weeks ago, a brainstorm of ideas for ceremonies. He has loosely said the ceremony will tell the story of New Zealand.... in 30 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NOT!...It was South Africa that held the decider!

:mellow: Anyhoo It looks like Invercargill and Dunedin will pick up a pool match each, while Wellington will have two and Albany one match.

:( The magical feeling of an up and comming event seems to have dissapeared, it just doesn't feel like it anymore. The country IS in Depression mentally and financially. There IS anger that Auckland has taken all the REAL matches and even though Auckland has stated that 'they don't want it this way', I can see that provincial NZ will still resent them.

I would also add the the government was unable to get that brand new stadium (Stadium New Zealand I think?) for Auckland and had to opp for a revamped Eden Park. Nothing against Eden Park, it has its history, but how does it compare to championship venues of the two previous RWCs, Stade de France, and ANZ Stadium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I too was upset that Stadium NZ didn't go ahead. In saying that, the question of how it compared to the previous World Cup venues.

Well, in terms of size it doesn't - where it does, is that it is a true rugby ground, and that it is a cathedral of rugby. The mere fact that the players stepping out in the final will be stepping out where the final of the first rugby world cup was held - is quite something. And that is not counting the decades and decades of rugby legends who have walked out onto that pitch.

So I guess it's a case of looking at it both ways, Eden Park does have the history card which is a biggin.

I think also, people will be pleasantly surprised with the venue... as a venue. Alot of work has gone into it, and it has turned out pretty good. I think it's going to look amazing come World Cup time, will be a fantastic finals venue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

:mellow: It's too late to add a third set of rails at Kingsland and Morningside railway stations. Eden Park's transport achilles heal.

Reccomendations have arrived too late for the RWC. Auckland Council's report on the mock trial earlier this year found that an extra platform at Kingsland would've helped alleviate congestion before and after the match. It also said that the inconvenient Morningside stop which upset so many fans traveling from the west would not have been needed if the third line was avaliable with a dedicated direct access platform.

There were provisions for this in the resource consent process, the platform would be locked out of use during regular daily operations and thus run at minimal costs. There is still a likely chance that a temporary structure can be installed in time but constrution times would be pushing it.

:angry: Yet another 'why don't you screw it up for the rest of us Auckland' debacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
<_< Well it's a hundred days to go untill kick off...As usuall sniviling whinger RWC11 CEO Martin Sneddon is saying ticket sales are still 'light' and New Zealanders lack of enthusisim at this point in time...I wonder why?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiji Olympic chief urges World Cup boycott

Fiji’s Olympic chief has called for the Pacific nation to consider boycotting this year’s Rugby World Cup in New Zealand if Wellington maintains a ban on players linked to the military regime.

The ban, imposed after a 2006 military coup, was preventing Fiji from selecting its best team for rugby’s showcase tournament, Fiji Association of Sports and National Olympic Committee (FASNOC) president Vidya Lakhan said.

Lakhan said New Zealand’s ban amounted to political interference in team selection and should be unacceptable to the International Rugby Board (IRB).

“If Fiji cannot send its best team to take part in the World Cup then we should consider boycotting the World Cup,” he said in a video posted on the committee’s website Wednesday.

“Whoever we select must be allowed to take part in the World Cup, which is an IRB event, it is not a New Zealand event.”

Lakhan said the IRB should look at relocating Fiji’s World Cup games from New Zealand to another venue if Wellington refused to lift the ban ahead of the September 9-October 23 tournament.

He said FASNOC was willing to help the Fiji Rugby Union to present its case to the IRB.

New Zealand has barred anyone with ties to Fijian strongman Voreque Bainimarama’s military regime since 2006 but the issue has come to a head recently as players and officials seek clearance to attend the World Cup.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key said last week that he had no intention of removing the ban and had made his government’s position clear to the IRB.

“At the end of the day, we don’t take our riding instructions from the IRB and our view is that we want to see democracy restored in Fiji,” he told commercial radio.

“They’ve had four coups in 20 years and, quite frankly, we want to put a bit of stability back into Fiji. This (the travel ban) is the only thing we’ve got that holds their feet to the fire, so we won’t be changing it.”

IRB chief executive Mike Miller said in April that Fiji would send a team to the tournament, regardless of any bans imposed by New Zealand.

Fiji has been drawn in Pool D in the World Cup, alongside South Africa, Wales, Samoa and Namibia.

Times Live

Link to post
Share on other sites

<_< That's so gonna blow back in Fiji's face. There is every chance the Fiji will be banned anyway...No one cares!

So who replaces them? :mellow:

Anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Backfire.... you're right about that.

New Zealand has made its position on Fiji known for many a year, they have had plenty of time to select a team which isn't full of players linked to a corrupt regime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Atkins has been in New Zealand and last Friday was conducting interviews for high profile positions in the Ceremonies organisation. I note Hinewehi Mohi was involved also in a cultural symposium that he held in Auckland a few weeks ago, a brainstorm of ideas for ceremonies. He has loosely said the ceremony will tell the story of New Zealand.... in 30 minutes.

30 minutes? That wont even be long enough for the powhiri! They'll have to keep the 'tena koutou's' to one per speaker max.

Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes? That wont even be long enough for the powhiri! They'll have to keep the 'tena koutou's' to one per speaker max.

That's very true.

I remember the rather elongated speech of welcome by the late Sir Hugh Kawharu from the Auckland 1990 opening, haha, complete with the shifting of the phlegm from the throat.

I think the 2003 opening must've been about 45mins or something, the 2007 was quite abit shorter.

Will be interesting to see what they come up with, lots of brown I would say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1990 was a different world, looking back now - yes it goes on forever...In the high speed 21st century it would be easy to fit a quick powhiri of little more than 8 minutes. Followed by a quick dance and song routine. 2003 RWC Opening was typically Australian over the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fire up a hangi in the middle of the ground. Get whatever royal is coming to cast the ceremonial hot rock onto the top and bang start the match. By the time it is done the meat will be cooked and everyone can have some grub aye?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just fire up a hangi in the middle of the ground. Get whatever royal is coming to cast the ceremonial hot rock onto the top and bang start the match. By the time it is done the meat will be cooked and everyone can have some grub aye?

:angry: UP YOUR'S! :angry: I'm going out of my way to ruin NZ's so called 'freindly, laid back, easy going' reputation that's being forced on us by Herr Martin Sneddon and all the other RWC11 troglodytes. Expecting us to help people for free and pay those kiwis the minimum wage in the hospitality industry...And then bringing in foreigners and paying them top dollar...Get stuffed! Minimum Wage Minimum Effort!

So much for 'what great benefits the RWC will bring' when we won it way back on '05.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...