Rugby World Cup Bid 2023

pre Madonna wrote: Taking this way off-topic but I find nearly all of London soulless now, something I once would have only accused small pockets of being. Even Brixton, which was my favourite place, is being overrun with ****s. Try to avoid the place these days, although I am meant to go to Orient on New Year's Eve, if they are still going.

sid waddell wrote: pre Madonna wrote: Het-field wrote: roverstillidie wrote:   Tallaght would definitely be offered as it would raise the profile, bring a big event to the area and could justify further work. Dalyer will be onstream then too However that would mean 5 stadia in Dublin even though all have the bells and whistles others don't have.   I think they have simply gone with the biggest venues regardless of standard of stadium and suitability of the town and I would question if people will travel to Thurles, Castlebar or Derry for 'smaller' games. What are the corporate facilities like in Celtic Park? Three of the NZ venues were smaller than what is currently mooted as the smallest  Irish one in Ravenhill, but to be fair, I don't think they had many other options.   The reality is that the GAA would be the big winners here, which is not ideal either in terms of legacy. The issue of legacy is not particularly big in the RWC. England 2015 swept the nation, engendered and renewed a love of the game with the oval ball, was played, came to an end, and moved on. The same in France 2007. RWC 99 is one of the few tournaments with a legacy, namely the Millennium Stadium, and 1995 has more of a mythical legacy rather than any tangible difference. Ultimately, it is different from a cultural point of view to the Olympic Games which sees legacy as a major part of its appeal. How many modern Olympic Games haven't failed from a legacy point of view though? I would say very, very few. Rome and Munich probably. Barcelona definitely (the most successful example). Sydney (arguably).

Rio: a corrupt disgrace with facilities all over the place that will clearly never be used again, in a country with a huge poverty problem and in a city with awful organised crime and violence needing serious attention.
London: has been a financial shambles, with awful planning, and no clear plan for what to do with the stadium afterwards, costing a fortune for what was meant to be a low cost games.
Beijing: a totalitarian regime with facilities now in ruin, spending huge sums of money that could well have been better spent elsewhere.
Athens: a large part of the cause of the biggest sovereign debt crisis of a developed nation in the 21st century; I don't need to say more than that.
Sydney: arguably a success.
Atlanta: the stadium has already been demolished. Whatever legacy there was (in a baseball stadium for the Braves, mainly, a massive public subsidy for a corporate entity) is now long gone. The stadium was in the "wrong part of town" (read: a poor part of town) that didn't suit Braves fans because of traffic and lack of public transit, and they've now moved to a new stadium, with a public subsidy of almost $400m. That's a pretty negative legacy.

That's one of the last six that has arguably had a good legacy. I would accept that Barcelona, Los Angeles and a few others had decent legacies but if you go on recent games only (the best examples, I'd say), you'll see it's largely negative. That's leaving aside the likes of Montreal, too, which everyone knows about. I think they've finally paid off the debt from then.

Alright, but still... you can't say Greece was a success (look for the pictures of the venues) and Atlanta hasn't worked either if almost $400m of public money is being spent now building a new stadium for the baseball team.

Thanks for the corrections but they don't change much.... Athens and Atlanta were and remain financial disasters with no real legacy.

sid waddell wrote: I think Ireland's Rugby World Cup bid is a good one and while I don't expect it'll produce any economic benefit, it won't bankrupt us, it mainly uses existing facilities and won't leave us with any white elephants. I also think that being a small island which does tourism well, who will buy into the event in terms of interest means we are exceptionally suited to hosting it.

roverstillidie wrote: Maybe I am an idealist, but getting one of the bigger sports events out there to Ireland being done on a 'won't cause any long term damage' isn't very inspiring.

There are loads of hidden boosts to any country city hosting big tournaments.

Edited by Bob Hoskins - 15 Nov 2016 at 4:24pm

The England world cup bid used 4 rugby grounds, 8 Football and 1 Athletics. It's nothing new to make the most of what's available in the country. There's not many countries could handle the world cup in all rugby stadiums.

wtf Sid   what the hell made you put that much time and effort into a sport, I think you've no interest in.

Hoosay wrote: <span style="line-height: 1.4;">Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.</span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span> <span style="line-height: 1.4;">For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. </span> Where are people going to stay?  If they find beds in surrounding counties how do you get them from wherever they are staying to Thurles? If England, Wales, Scotland and France are all playing outside of Dublin, you've got to find beds and ways to transport tens of thousands of people on a decrepit public transport network.

Transport will not be an issue

Travel distances are relatively short

15 luxury coaches can move 1,000 people

No problems coaches been hired in from the UK to meet demand