Thursday, October 02, 2008

Jamaica withdraws RWC bid



A record number of bids, yes, but sadly, there will not be a RWC in the Americas until at least 2023.


Record number of World Cup bids

A record number of countries are set to make official bids for hosting the 2015 or 2019 Rugby World Cup tournaments.

Eight nations - England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, South Africa, Australia and Japan - have confirmed they will tender for the 2015 event.

And eight countries have also expressed interest in the 2019 tournament - Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Japan and Russia.


Each union had six weeks to review in detail the Rugby World Cup tender document before formally expressing their intention to tender.

Only Jamaica has opted not to continue with a bid to host a World Cup tournament.

"This strong response is unprecedented, and truly reflects the global attraction of the Rugby World Cup," International Rugby Board chairman Bernard Lapasset said. "It also reflects the significant economic benefits that accompany the hosting of a tournament that has grown in stature and prominence as a global event.

"For the first time, the IRB will award two tournaments at the same time. This provides longer-term certainty for the hosts, Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) and the tournament's commercial partners.

"It also ensures that future development investment initiatives in the game worldwide can continue to be underwritten by the tournament and planned accordingly.

"The IRB Council will announce the RWC 2015 and 2019 host unions in July 2009, six years prior to the first tournament and 10 years prior to the 2019 event.

"This timetable reflects the scale and nature of the preparatory work in delivering this world-class tournament."

Source.

4 Comments:

At 12:41 AM , Blogger Jason said...

If the IRB wants to maintain any credibility then one of the two tournaments has to go to Japan. They were essentially robbed of hosting in 2011 by the old farts club in Europe and are the most deserving bid.

The optimist in me thinks that even the IRB cannot avoid the obvious choice for 2015.

The cynic in me thinks that awarding England the Cup in 2015 and South Africa in 2019 would be followed my much spin-doctoring and ridiculous excuses (much like the 2011 bidding when the IRB tried to imply that Japan's infrastructure, the one area in which it was miles ahead of both New Zealand and South Africa, was somehow insufficient.)

The realist in me wonders if the IRB will award Engerland the 2015 Cup and finally throw the second tier nations a bone with Japan 2019.

*sigh*

Sometimes I wonder if the IRB would be happier if everyone outside of the Five Nations and SANZAR would just give up the sport.

 
At 8:13 AM , Blogger Dave said...

Re: "They were essentially robbed of hosting in 2011 by the old farts club in Europe and are the most deserving bid."

THis is an old swqwhorse that won't die. It's a canard. The Japanese bid for 2011 simply wasn't cmpetitive. In fact, it really wasn't even close. The winning bid was far more prepared, was far more comprehensive, came with a government-backed guarantee, and this guarantee was delivered by the nations' Prime Minister in person. The Japanese bid was vague, it was going to be bankrolled on the back of corporations a-la the Coca-Cola Olympic Games Atlanta 1996, and their PM was in the dark.

Time to put the mythology to bed and wake up to facts and reality. If a nation truly wants to host the RWC, they need to demonstrate it by pulling together the most convincing bid. Japan didn't know what they were doing last time. Perhaps with a lesson learned they'll get it together next time.

 
At 9:52 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course New Zealand had far more gloss on their bid; they had to compete against Japan's far superior infrastructure, both in terms of playing facilities and tourist infrastructure.

I would love to see some of the sources that you read about Japan's bid as they run counter to many of the reports in Japan at the time. The PM was not at the presentation but he had sent a message of support and a representative from his cabinet. That the PM was in dark seems to be a myth.

If it was the presence of the leader of a country where rugby comes 1st to 41st on the list of national priorities that helped make the difference then that speaks more to the IRB's need to justify a decision settled in advance.

In the end, New Zealand was the beneficiary of a ridiculously small-minded attitude towards growing the game. That is a simple fact that all the flash of New Zealand's shinier bid and lesser infrastructure and revenues can't hide.

 
At 10:18 AM , Blogger Dave said...

Re: "Japan's far superior infrastructure."

Japan has a far superior rugby infrastructure than New Zealand? Hmm, news to me. Perhaps Japan should use some of those resources to host a Junior World Cup to prove it. Y'know, that proverbial olde chestnut about walking before you can run.

Re: "I would love to see some of the sources that you read about Japan's bid as they run counter to many of the reports in Japan at the time."

Check the archive, I posted heaps for this blog and other publications.

Re: "The PM was not at the presentation but he had sent a message of support and a representative from his cabinet. That the PM was in dark seems to be a myth."

No, not "seems" to be a myth. It was an actual myth.

The government of New Zealand told the IRB delegates that the RWC was a national priority, and that they would underwrite all losses with guarantees.

The government of Japan came nowehere even remotely close, instead assuring skeptics that all the costs would be covered by sponsorship. Read: a corporate sell-out akin to the shameful and lousy 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games. No thanks.

Re: "In the end, New Zealand was the beneficiary of a ridiculously small-minded attitude towards growing the game."

Classic dummy-spit. No comment required.

"That is a simple fact that all the flash of New Zealand's shinier bid and lesser infrastructure and revenues can't hide."

You need a dictionary to understand that a dubious opinion does not deserve to be called a "fact," so straighten that out for a start.

And secondly, try to get some consistency in your pints instead of irony. You conede NZ had a "flash" and "shinier" bid after stating eariler that they did not. Whatever. Read the real story and not the fiction. Cheers.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home