Rugby World Cup Bid 2023

Baldrick wrote: So spend the money on the basis that it may help :). With hard evidence :) ffs

This "hard evidence" thing is not a panacea to ending this discussion.

Het-field wrote: Baldrick wrote: Show me the figures that it would have made a profit. That could only be answered post tournament.

So spend the money on the basis that it may help :). With hard evidence :) ffs

Baldrick wrote: Show me the figures that it would have made a profit.

That could only be answered post tournament.

Baldrick wrote: Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: Baldrick wrote: Deise is right. Cost benefit analysis on major tournaments such as this do not prove they make a return on investment for the country even taking the multiplier effect into account Are you being serious? You think countries are fighting over the rugby WC because they think it will be loss making.... Ffs It's not the olympics were you have to accommodate 50 different sports and put up large numbers for free. Ingerland made a killing on the last Rugby WC as all the infrastructure was in place. All they had to do was collect all the cash. Are you serious. You do know that LA1984 was the last Olympics to make a surplus. Major sporting events cost money they do not stand up from an economic point of view. 2015 is an outlier as infrastructure already in place.

Read my post again really slowly.....

I said it's NOT the olympics which everybody accepts is loss making due to the vast number of facilities that need to be made available.

For the RWC you need stadiums. Ireland had these in place, some needed to be upgraded but we weren't building any from scratch.
This would have been a profitable event to Ireland.
The worst case scenario would be we made zero profit but had a number of stadiums with upgrades that would be used again.

Host countries for sporting events that made significant losses built new stadiums just for the tournaments and had no use for them after.

Without a doubt every Rugby World Cup has been profitable to that country and it's no surprise the same ones want to host it again.




Edited by Zinedine Kilbane 110 - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:41pm

Het-field wrote: I would actually argue that is irrelevant. Each tournament ought to be taken on a case by case basis. But that is only a part of the civic benefit. There are those who will volunteer at the tournament to help visiting and domestic supporters, and we couldn't possibly know those numbers until the tournament begins. It may well be a leap of faith (I personally think it's stronger than that), however, it is one worth taking.

But why should one group of people pay for the transfer of income from their pockets to other people's pockets on the basis of a leap of faith that it may increase memebership at rugby clubs which may benefit the health of a group of people who are probably the healthiest in society.   All of this on the basis of a leap of faith.

Edited by Baldrick - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:42pm

Het-field wrote: Baldrick wrote: Yes but you don't accept it is a transfer of income which it is if it doesn't generate enough income to wash it's face. How do you measure the upswing in interest in the game over and above what would have happened anyway Easy, club membership (playing and non playing), and upswing season ticket & supporter club subscription, a rise in attendances at local, provincial, and international level. The numbers who agree to perform volunteer roles at a tournament. It is very easy to determine. And this can be taken in a vacuum, and doesn't require previous examples to back up the point. It either stands or falls based on the figures.

But you only know this after the fact. Have rugby numbers gone up in previous host nations and was it caused directly by hosting the event or did other factors contribute. Where is the evidence that all these social benefits happened in previous hosts, Without this evidence it is a leap of faith

Edited by Baldrick - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:26pm

Yes but you don't accept it is a transfer of income which it is if it doesn't generate enough income to wash it's face.

How do you measure the upswing in interest in the game over and above what would have happened anyway if we did well in a world cup, never mind the impact that had on the health of the nation. Sounds all very woolly and not much hard science behind what you say.

Is there any hard evidence that hosting tournaments has had all these benefits you say on previous hosts.

Edited by Baldrick - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:06pm

Sorry if it costs more money than it makes and some people make money than it is a transfer of money from one group of people to another group of people I.e. the benefactors. That's just basic logic.

In relation to large countries they have the infrastructure in place stadiums etc so they have the possibility of making money like England did in 2015.


In relation to benefits other than economic. Who benefits from these. Does the whole population or the same group that will benefit economically.

Will Joanne in blanch benefit. Johnny in Southill, Michael in Clancy Park etc etc

Edited by Baldrick - 18 Nov 2017 at 6:58pm

Exactly and as result it's questionable that we should have a transfer of money from one group of people to another group of people for the benefit of a few when there are many issues on hand.


Japan has the infrastructure so does France and so does England. And these countries will host three out of four tournaments on thr trot. After that it will he possibly be Australia and the States and Canada. All have the facilities. So the chances of a country which needs investment in infrastructure getting it is remote.


I think we possibly could have done it with Wales and Scotland as Co hosts

Edited by Baldrick - 18 Nov 2017 at 6:42pm