Rugby World Cup Bid 2023 |
Post Reply | Page <1 1819202122> |
Author | |||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Unless they are a large country with the infrastructure already in place you are correct |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
But thats not how it works. Moral equivalence is no bar to hosting an event. Also, there are very few countries with the existing infrastructure to host these events, and they all have their own socio economic concerns. That would raise questions on what the money generated would be used for and what is more morally acceptable for it to be used for.
|
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
But it isn't a transfer of money. I totally agree it produces localised benefits, but its not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Also, as I said, countries like the States, and the UK are not short of pressing and concerning issues, and the potential for money generated to be squandered or not spent appropriately. So there remains concerns in relation to that too. But as I said, its wider than just the economic issue. |
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
If you read back over my post you will see that I accept that it is localised. Social benefits are far more difficult to pin down, but the previous example was the Special Olympics, which brought into play a fantastic amount of civic activity and engagement. The same would apply at a tournament like this. Furthermore, it would promote interest in the game, which could produce an upswing in those taking up the sport, which in turn is a civic good, while also promoting the physical, and potentially mental health of new participants. As such, if people choose to participate, it won't matter where they are from.
Edited by Het-field - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:02pm |
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. Edited by Het-field - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:08pm |
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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. Edited by Het-field - 18 Nov 2017 at 7:29pm |
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Who it may benefit is endless on a society basis. The opening of rugby to a wider audience due to increased publicity around the hosting of the tournament would undoubtedly assist.
|
|||
Zinedine Kilbane 110
Jack Charlton Man City records obsession Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Location: Dundalk Status: Offline Points: 9647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
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 |
|||
|
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Show me the figures that it would have made a profit.
|
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That could only be answered post tournament. |
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
But where is the evidence that these are kids who would have played another sport anyway therefore the benefit to the nation is zero as it's just one kid playing rugby as opposed to Gaa or football or hockey. |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Baldrick
Robbie Keane Peyton-tly Pedantic Joined: 18 Sep 2008 Location: Ireland Status: Offline Points: 32826 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
So spend the money on the basis that it may help :). With hard evidence :) ffs |
|||
AKA pedantic kunt
|
|||
Het-field
Roy Keane By Appointment to His Majesty The King Joined: 08 Mar 2016 Status: Online Points: 10744 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Many kids play more than one sport. It can also result in older players returning to the game. At best it can result in the establishment of new clubs in untapped areas.
|
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 1819202122> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |