Print Page | Close Window

Rugby World Cup Bid 2023

Printed From: You Boys in Green
Category: Other Forums
Forum Name: Whatever!
Forum Description: Anything else going on
URL: https://forum.ybig.ie/forum_posts.asp?TID=54672
Printed Date: 28 Mar 2024 at 6:02pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.00 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Rugby World Cup Bid 2023
Posted By: roverstillidie
Subject: Rugby World Cup Bid 2023
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:37am
The IRFU unveil today to see can they beat SA and France.
 
https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1114/831659-irfu-to-launch-world-cup-2023-bid-on-tuesday/" rel="nofollow - https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1114/831659-irfu-to-launch-world-cup-2023-bid-on-tuesday/
 
The radio had the GAA heavily involved, with all but three venues likely to be theirs. There is a massive punt that Casement will be done, with tourist hotspots Thurles and Castlebar included as well as Croker.
 
Will be interesting to see does the approach of larger stadia in towns that it would be questionable as to their ability to host large crowds versus smaller stadia in towns that can.


-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it



Replies:
Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:46am
The upside is, as the tournament gets to its sharper end it will centralise in Dublin around Lansdowne Road and Croke Park. You could easily play all from the QF's in those two stadiums.

The RDS, Ravenhill, and Thomond Park will all play major roles as the venues for games between the major teams and the also-rans. There will also be games which can be played in smaller venues without the concern of satisfying ticket demands, but will give the average punter the chance to get to games. 

I suspect it will be a bid which will mirror that of New Zealand'.s


Posted By: AnCearrbhach
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:48am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

The upside is, as the tournament gets to its sharper end it will centralise in Dublin around Lansdowne Road and Croke Park. You could easily play all from the QF's in those two stadiums.

The RDS, Ravenhill, and Thomond Park will all play major roles as the venues for games between the major teams and the also-rans. There will also be games which can be played in smaller venues without the concern of satisfying ticket demands, but will give the average punter the chance to get to games. 

I suspect it will be a bid which will mirror that of New Zealand'.s

What's the maximum number of grounds you are allowed have in 1 city? Probably have a excellent chance of getting it, bit mad to think you could have a World Cup game in Thurles.


-------------
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:49am
The rumoured bid will be

Dublin: Croker, LR, RDS
Belfast: Casement, Ravenhill
Limerick: Thomond, Gaelic Grounds
Cork: Pairc Ui Caoimh
Thurles: Semple Stadium
Killarney: Fitzgerald Stadium
Castlebar: McHale Park
Galway: Pearse Stadium
Derry: Celtic Park.
 
Lots of questions over some of those venues and towns compared to France tbh.


-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:51am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

The upside is, as the tournament gets to its sharper end it will centralise in Dublin around Lansdowne Road and Croke Park. You could easily play all from the QF's in those two stadiums.

The RDS, Ravenhill, and Thomond Park will all play major roles as the venues for games between the major teams and the also-rans. There will also be games which can be played in smaller venues without the concern of satisfying ticket demands, but will give the average punter the chance to get to games. 

I suspect it will be a bid which will mirror that of New Zealand'.s
Well isn't that the question. The smallest venue likely is 22,000. There is no way that they will sell all the tickets, so the question to me is would venues like Terrlyland, Turners Cross or Tallaght not make more sense for the Fiji v Georgia games than including the likes of Thurles or Castlebar. How many hotel rooms are there in Castlebar?

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Devrozex
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:52am
The current odds on P/P are:
 
Ireland 4/7
South Africa 2/1
France 6/1
 
I think we have a lot more to offer than the other two and provided we can put forward a professional submission we should be big favourites to land this. New Zealand's successful hosting in 2011 shows that a country with a similar size/infrastructure can pull it off, as Het-field alludes to above.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 10:56am
France had the WC in 2007 and SA have hosted it too. That is the only reason we are down as favourites. We have nothing approaching the sports infrastructure they do.

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:03am
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:


Well isn't that the question. The smallest venue likely is 22,000. There is no way that they will sell all the tickets, so the question to me is would venues like Terrlyland, Turners Cross or Tallaght not make more sense for the Fiji v Georgia games than including the likes of Thurles or Castlebar. How many hotel rooms are there in Castlebar?[/QUOTE]

The venues have not been announced, and Tallaght has hosted Rugby before, so I wouldn't rule it out unless Shamrock Rovers and SDCC have made it clear that they won't be participating, which they may have already done? Ditto any other football stadium. The only article I can find is something from the Irish Independent which conjectures where it may be held. Equally, Windsor Park held games during the 2000 Rugby League World Cup, and that could be in the mix. Again, I can find nothing that irrefutably states that football won't be involved.

i honestly don't think there will be a serious problem selling tickets, as the RWC has a history of selling Schoolboy/Girl Tickets, reasonably priced tickets for most fixtures up to the final, and ceilings for the dead rubber games.


Posted By: Devrozex
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:05am
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

France had the WC in 2007 and SA have hosted it too. That is the only reason we are down as favourites. We have nothing approaching the sports infrastructure they do.
 
Well, South Africa are 6/1 for a reason - they are rank outsiders here. Their own government hasn't even fully given them the green light yet and their bid looks to already be in disarray.
 
So that leaves ourselves and France. We have nothing approaching any of the infrastructure they do - sports or otherwise - because we are a far, far smaller country. And yes, the fact they hosted it so recently is undoubtedly the main factor in us being favourites. As I said, provided we can make a reasonable submission it is ours to lose really. NZ would have similar stadia sizes to ourselves - similar sized towns/cities etc so them hosting previously without any major issues is our second big trump card.
 
As long as we don't balls up the stadia we should be getting this.


Posted By: AnCearrbhach
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:08am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:


Well isn't that the question. The smallest venue likely is 22,000. There is no way that they will sell all the tickets, so the question to me is would venues like Terrlyland, Turners Cross or Tallaght not make more sense for the Fiji v Georgia games than including the likes of Thurles or Castlebar. How many hotel rooms are there in Castlebar?

The venues have not been announced, and Tallaght has hosted Rugby before, so I wouldn't rule it out unless Shamrock Rovers and SDCC have made it clear that they won't be participating, which they may have already done? Ditto any other football stadium. The only article I can find is something from the Irish Independent which conjectures where it may be held. Equally, Windsor Park held games during the 2000 Rugby League World Cup, and that could be in the mix. Again, I can find nothing that irrefutably states that football won't be involved.

i honestly don't think there will be a serious problem selling tickets, as the RWC has a history of selling Schoolboy/Girl Tickets, reasonably priced tickets for most fixtures up to the final, and ceilings for the dead rubber games.
[/QUOTE]

Worth pointing out that by 2023 you could have Dayler and Tallaght in the 10-12k range. Which is partially why I asked about the amount of stadiums in each city. Windsor is a great stadium too I beloeve it sits around 18.5k. Adding in PUC and Casement (should it happen) and you'd have a string base there from Dublin, Cork and Belfast alone. The bid will benefit from not having the level of restriction FIFA/UEFA impose in terms of host cities.+


-------------
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:53am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:


The venues have not been announced, and Tallaght has hosted Rugby before, so I wouldn't rule it out unless Shamrock Rovers and SDCC have made it clear that they won't be participating, which they may have already done? Ditto any other football stadium. The only article I can find is something from the Irish Independent which conjectures where it may be held. Equally, Windsor Park held games during the 2000 Rugby League World Cup, and that could be in the mix. Again, I can find nothing that irrefutably states that football won't be involved.

i honestly don't think there will be a serious problem selling tickets, as the RWC has a history of selling Schoolboy/Girl Tickets, reasonably priced tickets for most fixtures up to the final, and ceilings for the dead rubber games.
 
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.


-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:13pm
Dalymount Park, will that be renovated by then? 
Windsor Park? 

What kinds crowds didthe like of FIJI and Romania get over in England? bear in mind we'd expect tp have far smaller ones if we hosted the WC.


-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.


Posted By: the_walls
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:16pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

The upside is, as the tournament gets to its sharper end it will centralise in Dublin around Lansdowne Road and Croke Park. You could easily play all from the QF's in those two stadiums.

The RDS, Ravenhill, and Thomond Park will all play major roles as the venues for games between the major teams and the also-rans. There will also be games which can be played in smaller venues without the concern of satisfying ticket demands, but will give the average punter the chance to get to games. 

I suspect it will be a bid which will mirror that of New Zealand'.s
Well isn't that the question. The smallest venue likely is 22,000. There is no way that they will sell all the tickets, so the question to me is would venues like Terrlyland, Turners Cross or Tallaght not make more sense for the Fiji v Georgia games than including the likes of Thurles or Castlebar. How many hotel rooms are there in Castlebar?
 
Hardly any but there shed loads of hotels and guest houses in Westport that is only 15 minutes away.


Posted By: Shedite
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:28pm
Possible Euro 2020 and World Cup 2023 in Ireland - nice Cool


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.


Posted By: zizu Kilbane
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:55pm
Fair play to the GAA (with the help of their minor partners the IRFU) in bidding for the Rugby World Cup

Not using Semple Stadium, which is the 2nd largestin the country by capacity, is extremely strange. Especially considering that the other 2 largest stadiums are in Dublin. There is absolutely some questions over transport/ accommodation etc but I think we can pull it off.

-------------
"Sometimes, sh*t happens, someone's gotta deal with it, and who ya gonna call?"


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.
True, but the narrative s different. Not one extra seat in anty venue they can use after the final whistle blows. If there was say a plan to turn, say, Musgrave ark into a 20,000 venue it would make sense.

Instead millions will go to the GAA to do up their grounds specifically corporate facilities, then millions in rent to spend on promoting gaelic games.

If there are huge banks of empty seats then this is a legitimate concern.

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

 

 True, but the narrative s different. Not one extra seat in anty venue they can use after the final whistle blows. If there was say a plan to turn, say, Musgrave ark into a 20,000 venue it would make sense.

Instead millions will go to the GAA to do up their grounds specifically corporate facilities, then millions in rent to spend on promoting gaelic games.

If there are huge banks of empty seats then this is a legitimate concern.

I think that the event will not suffer from the risk of empty seats (naturally, not all games will be full), but any game involving the Six Nations, or the Rugby Championship teams will attract a capacity/large crowd, including the games against the Namibia/Georgia/Tonga of the World. Dead Rubber games will naturally suffer from attrition, but if the event captures the imagination, plenty of seats will be filled.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:19pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:22pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

How many modern Olympic Games haven't failed from a legacy point of view though? I would say very, very few.

I wouldn't even for a second suggest they have been successful attempts. The legacy of Athens 2004 is a legacy of profligate and needless expenditure to host a historical vanity project. London 2012 was one of the few truly sensible Olympic Games which has maintained a degree of legacy. The rest are either token, or like Greece, and undoubtedly Rio will be legacies of genuine damage.


Posted By: SByrne24
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:24pm
An outstanding advertisement
Liam Neeson should swing it in our direction. It' would be magnificent if we can hold a world wide tournament it would be amazing actually, it made me truly proud to be Irish watching that short video.

-------------
YBIG Resident Pilot


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

How many modern Olympic Games haven't failed from a legacy point of view though? I would say very, very few.

I wouldn't even for a second suggest they have been successful attempts. The legacy of Athens 2004 is a legacy of profligate and needless expenditure to host a historical vanity project. London 2012 was one of the few truly sensible Olympic Games which has maintained a degree of legacy. The rest are either token, or like Greece, and undoubtedly Rio will be legacies of genuine damage.
Certainly has left a long and lasting legacy at West Ham..........Joking aside, it has seemingly done a lot for the participation of the public in sport, albeit at an entirely unnecessary cost. Maybe Sydney had an impact too, especially culturally thanks to Cathy Freeman, all others have been as disastrous as recent World Cups. Poor old Rio.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: Joe Stalin
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:32pm
Couple of points, mainly in response to RTID:
 
1. Comparisons with France and their infrastructure are ludicrous. Infrastructure is not the only factor in the decision. NZ is the comparator and they hosted it in stadia with grass banks and in towns that shut at 9pm. NZ towns make Thurles and Castlebar seem like Vegas. All of the Irish towns proposed can easily cater for the numbers.
 
2. Terryland, Tallaght etc. is equally ludicrous. The hosts make their money from ticket sales and so the incentive is to maximise the seats. Irish people are event junkies and will pack out Castlebar for Fiji vs. russis just to be part of the world cup experience
 
3. Bearing point 2 in mind, the organsiers don't care about legacy issues. Most sport orgs don't - if they did we wouldn't have the Olympics or football world cups in South Africa or Brazil. It's about bums on seats.
 
4. We'll win the bid. France are the only opposition and they had it in 2007. Now they've a very expensive and real terrorist threat to deal with it amongst other things. Ireland offers stability and money and Govt backing. This is in the bag.
 
5. For clarity sake I should add I can't stand rugby...do hope we win though as I think this bid could kick-start some much needed infrastructural investment in the country.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Certainly has left a long and lasting legacy at West Ham..........Joking aside, it has seemingly done a lot for the participation of the public in sport, albeit at an entirely unnecessary cost. Maybe Sydney had an impact too, especially culturally thanks to Cathy Freeman, all others have been as disastrous as recent World Cups. Poor old Rio.

That which was purpose built for 2012 is used on the regular, which has been a very good thing. Facilities in both the area around Stratford and in places like Loughton are constantly used, and have significantly increased the participate in sports which are highly prized Olympic Games. This includes the likes of Wapping Hockey Club, who I understand have grown to something like 20 senior teams, with a waiting list to boot. The venues which would struggle to maintain themselves financially after the games were temporary, and have been taken down. On most weekends the Olympic Park is full of elite amateur, and purely amateur sports people. As such, I believe that from an amateur point of view, it is money very well spent, particularly as with transport infrastructure, it is a facility available to anybody in the London area, albeit with various transport times.

It should not have been held in Rio. The locals were simply too poor to support the games in the way that Londoners did, and as such there was no demand for tickets. I would see Qatar 2022 going exactly the same way, as I foresee many supporters simply not making the trip for a number of reasons.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Certainly has left a long and lasting legacy at West Ham..........Joking aside, it has seemingly done a lot for the participation of the public in sport, albeit at an entirely unnecessary cost. Maybe Sydney had an impact too, especially culturally thanks to Cathy Freeman, all others have been as disastrous as recent World Cups. Poor old Rio.

That which was purpose built for 2012 is used on the regular, which has been a very good thing. Facilities in both the area around Stratford and in places like Loughton are constantly used, and have significantly increased the participate in sports which are highly prized Olympic Games. This includes the likes of Wapping Hockey Club, who I understand have grown to something like 20 senior teams, with a waiting list to boot. The venues which would struggle to maintain themselves financially after the games were temporary, and have been taken down. On most weekends the Olympic Park is full of elite amateur, and purely amateur sports people. As such, I believe that from an amateur point of view, it is money very well spent, particularly as with transport infrastructure, it is a facility available to anybody in the London area, albeit with various transport times.

It should not have been held in Rio. The locals were simply too poor to support the games in the way that Londoners did, and as such there was no demand for tickets. I would see Qatar 2022 going exactly the same way, as I foresee many supporters simply not making the trip for a number of reasons.
I have heard and read all sorts of statistics and personal views, all of which contradict each other, about the use of facilities since the Olympics, like most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This article, which I remember reading at time of publication, seems a fair enough summary.  http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games" rel="nofollow - http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games

One thing I will say, from a purely personal point of view, Stratford is a far more hideous place now than when I first visited in 2010.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: irelandfan
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:01pm
This is Rugby country is finally becoming a reality, maybe we'll have a nice double away header in a far flung destination Thumbs Up

-------------
I'm the gaffer whatever I say goes.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:10pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

I have heard and read all sorts of statistics and personal views, all of which contradict each other, about the use of facilities since the Olympics, like most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This article, which I remember reading at time of publication, seems a fair enough summary.  http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games" rel="nofollow - http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games

One thing I will say, from a purely personal point of view, Stratford is a far more hideous place now than when I first visited in 2010.

Stratford is certainly now a two speed location, which would appear to be part of intended re-generation. Whether that comes to fruition or not will only be told by 2028-2032 at the earliest.

However, I would be of the view that the London legacy is far greater and more professionally executed than many that have gone before. The article does acknowledge the public usage and availability of the facilities, while whether you agree with the use of the Stadium or not, between football, rugby league and union, athletics (the World Championships will bring out the punters en masse), and music, along with a variety of public events (10k runs etc) this is a far better and more effective use of the venue than simply letting it go to wrack and ruin, or prop up an athletics stadium entirely on public funds, which never gets filled. I personally think the brass tax legacy of London 2012 is highly commendable


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:14pm
The use of facilities argument after the fact is moot here - there are no new venues planned and the GAA venues will be as underused as they ever were but with standards brought up a notch.
 
I just find it quite short termist that the IRFU are (potentially) happy to give the GAA a huge bounce that they seem to have no interest in keeping in house.


-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

The use of facilities argument after the fact is moot here - there are no new venues planned and the GAA venues will be as underused as they ever were but with standards brought up a notch.
 
I just find it quite short termist that the IRFU are (potentially) happy to give the GAA a huge bounce that they seem to have no interest in keeping in house.

But if there is no need for new venues, which there really isn't, there is no need to set out to build from scratch a stadium, at undoubtedly a far greater cost, and which is liable to be a white elephant. 

A competition like this does not really need a long term vision. Particularly as facilities in Irish Rugby are already World Class, and this is at schools level before professional and senior rugby is involved in the discussion.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

I have heard and read all sorts of statistics and personal views, all of which contradict each other, about the use of facilities since the Olympics, like most things the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This article, which I remember reading at time of publication, seems a fair enough summary.  http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games" rel="nofollow - http://www.theguardian.com/cities/davehillblog/2015/jul/23/london-olympic-legacy-three-years-on-2012-games

One thing I will say, from a purely personal point of view, Stratford is a far more hideous place now than when I first visited in 2010.

Stratford is certainly now a two speed location, which would appear to be part of intended re-generation. Whether that comes to fruition or not will only be told by 2028-2032 at the earliest.

However, I would be of the view that the London legacy is far greater and more professionally executed than many that have gone before. The article does acknowledge the public usage and availability of the facilities, while whether you agree with the use of the Stadium or not, between football, rugby league and union, athletics (the World Championships will bring out the punters en masse), and music, along with a variety of public events (10k runs etc) this is a far better and more effective use of the venue than simply letting it go to wrack and ruin, or prop up an athletics stadium entirely on public funds, which never gets filled. I personally think the brass tax legacy of London 2012 is highly commendable
As someone who used to go and watch Orient, as well as the FA's decision to ignore their own rules added to my own dislike of West Ham means I was never going to be a fan of football there, otherwise it is hard to disagree from a sporting point of view, I guess the housing issue and any proposed re-generation is part of a much deeper housing problem in London. Stratford used to be a bit of a kip, like other nearby areas, now it is a completely soulless kip.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: zizu Kilbane
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:27pm
Effectively this is a GAA bid with the IRFU as a minority partner, and not the other way around.

-------------
"Sometimes, sh*t happens, someone's gotta deal with it, and who ya gonna call?"


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:29pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

As someone who used to go and watch Orient, as well as the FA's decision to ignore their own rules added to my own dislike of West Ham means I was never going to be a fan of football there, otherwise it is hard to disagree from a sporting point of view, I guess the housing issue and any proposed re-generation is part of a much deeper housing problem in London. Stratford used to be a bit of a kip, like other nearby areas, now it is a completely soulless kip.

I think the sporting value is something that I greatly value, particularly from an amateur level. Its quite incredible the number of people who are amateur sports-players who can claim to have used Olympic facilities, and who really enjoy the prospect of potentially using them. The numbers of people who have used the running track in the stadium, or the adjoining facilities is quite special, and is certainly promoting sport in ways that were not previously possible.

Ultimately, I would view it as a soulless area, with a significant emphasis on sport, rather than what it used by like out there. Hence, I find it hard not to support what it has become.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:37pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

As someone who used to go and watch Orient, as well as the FA's decision to ignore their own rules added to my own dislike of West Ham means I was never going to be a fan of football there, otherwise it is hard to disagree from a sporting point of view, I guess the housing issue and any proposed re-generation is part of a much deeper housing problem in London. Stratford used to be a bit of a kip, like other nearby areas, now it is a completely soulless kip.

I think the sporting value is something that I greatly value, particularly from an amateur level. Its quite incredible the number of people who are amateur sports-players who can claim to have used Olympic facilities, and who really enjoy the prospect of potentially using them. The numbers of people who have used the running track in the stadium, or the adjoining facilities is quite special, and is certainly promoting sport in ways that were not previously possible.

Ultimately, I would view it as a soulless area, with a significant emphasis on sport, rather than what it used by like out there. Hence, I find it hard not to support what it has become.
It had a bit of character but it has gone, same thing could be said of London in general though.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

It had a bit of character but it has gone, same thing could be said of London in general though.

The East End still has plenty of character. But I appreciate that since the 1980s there has been significant change between the regeneration of the City, the building up of Canary Wharf, and indeed the Olympic Project.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:44pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

It had a bit of character but it has gone, same thing could be said of London in general though.

The East End still has plenty of character. But I appreciate that since the 1980s there has been significant change between the regeneration of the City, the building up of Canary Wharf, and indeed the Olympic Project.
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.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie 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).




-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:45pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna 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.

Fear not, they will be. The figures would suggest that very little has been done to their average attendances.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/leyo.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/leyo.htm


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:49pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna 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.

Fear not, they will be. The figures would suggest that very little has been done to their average attendances.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/leyo.htm" rel="nofollow - http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/leyo.htm
Their attendances aren't the problem there, never were, always fairly steady. I would say lunatic Italian owners would be a far greater threat. Hopefully they are an easy 3 points though.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.


-------------


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 3:22pm
Originally posted by SuperDave84 SuperDave84 wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.


The Athens games cost €9billion. Nobody is trivialising that sort of money, but Greece's national debt is €340billion, so it's not a large part of their debt crisis, which would undoubtedly exist in any event had the Olympics not been staged there.

The Atlanta stadium hasn't been demolished. Current plan is to turn it into a 22k capacity college football stadium.

The Atlanta Braves have now left after deciding to build a car-dependent stadium 15 miles outside of the city centre.

The Sochi Winter Olympics is the worst example of criminal financial mismanagement, overspending and corruption. Bread and circuses.


-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: SuperDave84
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 3:32pm
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.


-------------


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by SuperDave84 SuperDave84 wrote:

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.

If you take the games alone, Athens was quite successful - but no, the legacy hasn't been good - but Greece's financial crisis is the cause of that poor legacy, rather than the Olympics being the cause of the financial crisis.

The US is a throwaway society. They don't do legacy, especially in as soulless a town as Atlanta. Turner Field was in a good downtown location and there was nothing wrong with it as a ballpark, but that's not good enough apparently - it's all about the $$$$$.

The Georgia Dome is due for the wrecking ball despite only being opened in 1993.

I take on board all points about major sporting events generally not doing legacy or producing an economic benefit in the way it's always promised.

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.




-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 3:52pm
Originally posted by sid waddell 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.



I think you've hit the nail on the head here Sid. However, I think that there will be an increase in tourism, even if it won't be massively influential, as I expect plenty of Six Nations fans to descend on the country for the duration of the tournament, or at least for the weekends in which the games are being played and their teams are involved.

Essentially, getting this over the line will certainly benefit the country, and there will be no long term damage done as a result.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 3:57pm
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.

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:01pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.


Im speaking from an exclusively economic point of view. Events of this magnitude have the ability to damage a country. The RWC would of course be a massive and major achievement to host, and undoubtedly we would host it well. The most professionally administered game at both grass-roots level, and at administrative/management level in Ireland is rugby. Hosting a tournament like this would extend the franchise of the sport around the country, which would have the potential to bring with it a swath of young kids who will grow to become the next generation of rugby players, while also diversifying the demography of the sport. That might sound idealistic, but I feel there would be genuine scope for that.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie 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.
Croke Park, Lansdowne Road, Thomond Park and Ravenhill are good to go as is. 

Pairc Ui Chaoimh is half built already. 

Casement Park will get built, one way or the other, and the NI government is paying. 

Other grounds need relatively minor upgrades and won't break the bank. 

It'll be good from a sporting infrastructure point of view for the country, it'll be good for the country in terms of international prestige, it will probably make a modest profit. 

The pluses outweigh any negatives.

I think you're the opposite of an idealist. 





-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:24pm
There are loads of hidden boosts to any country city hosting big tournaments.

Ireland's bid from a stadia point of view is very solid, they are here they just need to be upgraded, so a big win for the GAA helping out Rugby. 

A spin off for local people would hopefully be improved infrastructure. So lets say the government went and put 300m on these projects, does it suddenly become wasted money? Roads improved, broadband bettered, etc etc. 

The Ireland bid seems a fairly safe bet, I hope they get it.


-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:38pm
Obvious infrastructural projects (ie. roads, which are the only infrastructure we ever do in this country) that would help the bid include the Cork-Limerick motorway, a dual carriageway between Newry and Derry, and the Galway bypass (I'm torn on this one given that I live near the route and it has the potential to rightly mess up an area of scenic beauty). 

-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Shedite
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:45pm
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.

 


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:46pm
It's almost like they cogged my whole plan, even if I say so myself.

http://forum.ybig.ie/rogbee-world-cup-ireland-2023-a-detailed-plan_topic47347.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.ybig.ie/rogbee-world-cup-ireland-2023-a-detailed-plan_topic47347.html

-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Bob Hoskins
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 4:53pm
wtf Sid LOL LOL what the hell made you put that much time and effort into a sport, I think you've no interest in.

-------------
Romario 2016: And the ticket mafia gets caught! Well, four years ago I had already told the government.


Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 5:31pm
Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 
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.


Posted By: greenforever
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 5:41pm
Originally posted by Hoosay 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

-------------
I know nothing :-)


Posted By: Rocko
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 
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.


Please read up before posting. Thurles has not been included in the bid process. These Rugby big wigs know what they are at (I don't think they have a John Delany on board).
Accommodation won't be a problem in most of our cities compared to what New Zealand had to offer. Most Irish cities would be better than Cardiff which hosted 2 quarter finals on the same weekend last year


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 6:04pm
I would seriously trust the Union to put together an amazing tournament. A really professional outfit.


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 6:14pm
It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 9:22pm
I think we have a great chance

2 things which could hamper

1) Lack of accommodation in certain places namely Castlebar

2) two different currencies 


Posted By: Green Devil
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:40pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

The IRFU unveil today to see can they beat SA and France.
 
https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1114/831659-irfu-to-launch-world-cup-2023-bid-on-tuesday/" rel="nofollow - https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1114/831659-irfu-to-launch-world-cup-2023-bid-on-tuesday/
 
The radio had the GAA heavily involved, with all but three venues likely to be theirs. There is a massive punt that Casement will be done, with tourist hotspots Thurles and Castlebar included as well as Croker.
 
Will be interesting to see does the approach of larger stadia in towns that it would be questionable as to their ability to host large crowds versus smaller stadia in towns that can.

LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLClap


-------------
"He drives two Ferraris; I think he's a very lucky lad to have 50 caps for Ireland,"

Eamonn Dunphy on Glenn Whelan


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:45pm
Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 

There are barely 2,000 beds of any type in all of Tipperary.


-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: rossieman
Date Posted: 15 Nov 2016 at 11:59pm
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I think we have a great chance

2 things which could hamper

1) Lack of accommodation in certain places namely Castlebar

2) two different currencies 

They named more grounds than are needed so can cut some of those that arent up to standard



Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 12:02am
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I think we have a great chance

2 things which could hamper

1) Lack of accommodation in certain places namely Castlebar

2) two different currencies 
Irrelevant, we will be back to using barter by then.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: nvidic
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 7:38am
Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that


Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 8:16am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 

There are barely 2,000 beds of any type in all of Tipperary.
Loads of beds on wheels....


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 8:51am
Originally posted by Sham157 Sham157 wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 

There are barely 2,000 beds of any type in all of Tipperary.
Loads of beds on wheels....
Caravans?


Posted By: Sham157
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 8:55am
Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by Sham157 Sham157 wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 

There are barely 2,000 beds of any type in all of Tipperary.
Loads of beds on wheels....
Caravans?
Thumbs Up


Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 9:04am
Originally posted by rossieman rossieman wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I think we have a great chance

2 things which could hamper

1) Lack of accommodation in certain places namely Castlebar

2) two different currencies 

They named more grounds than are needed so can cut some of those that arent up to standard



Are you sure?

England hosted it with 13 stadiums and there is rumours the Worlc Cup will be expanded to 24 teams for the 2023 Tournament so 12 Stadiums will most likely be needed at minimum.

Another point which I forgot to add to the list South Africa has unsuccessfully bid for the last 3 World Cups some think they will be awarded this by default


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 9:11am
Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that
Well I don't know where they got a projection of €800m to the economy or over 400,000 visitors but that seems highly optimistic.
 
Interestingly the IRFU never released the above assumptions behind its projections, so its hard to tell how realistic they actually are. How many tourists would actually come to Ireland during that period, if the tournament wasn't on?
 
The Government have said they would pay the €100 million-€120 million fee that would have to be paid to World Rugby to host the tournament.
 
Then you have upgrades to stadiums in terms of facilities - I imagine the government will be funding the majority of this also through grants.  
 
Anyway I highly doubt it will be a net gain for the economy, but even with that in mind I still hope we get it.  


Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 9:20am
Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that
Well I don't know where they got a projection of €800m to the economy or over 400,000 visitors but that seems highly optimistic.
 
Interestingly the IRFU never released the above assumptions behind its projections, so its hard to tell how realistic they actually are. How many tourists would actually come to Ireland during that period, if the tournament wasn't on?
 
The Government have said they would pay the €100 million-€120 million fee that would have to be paid to World Rugby to host the tournament.
 
Then you have upgrades to stadiums in terms of facilities - I imagine the government will be funding the majority of this also through grants.  
 
Anyway I highly doubt it will be a net gain for the economy, but even with that in mind I still hope we get it.  


If you were to add up the number attendances for all the games it would be around that figure (when you take out perhaps home crowd) sure the Croke Park(reduced to 60,000) and Aviva capacity (50,000)would be 110,000 alone if both full those stadiums will be hosting at least 3-4 games each.


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 9:36am
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that
Well I don't know where they got a projection of €800m to the economy or over 400,000 visitors but that seems highly optimistic.
 
Interestingly the IRFU never released the above assumptions behind its projections, so its hard to tell how realistic they actually are. How many tourists would actually come to Ireland during that period, if the tournament wasn't on?
 
The Government have said they would pay the €100 million-€120 million fee that would have to be paid to World Rugby to host the tournament.
 
Then you have upgrades to stadiums in terms of facilities - I imagine the government will be funding the majority of this also through grants.  
 
Anyway I highly doubt it will be a net gain for the economy, but even with that in mind I still hope we get it.  

If you were to add up the number attendances for all the games it would be around that figure (when you take out perhaps home crowd) sure the Croke Park(reduced to 60,000) and Aviva capacity (50,000)would be 110,000 alone if both full those stadiums will be hosting at least 3-4 games each.
Sorry, what I mean is how much of a net gain will these 400,000 visitors be?
 
According to the CSO in 2015Q4 Overseas Trips to Ireland by Non-Residents was circa 1,996,000, so that's circa 665,333 a month - the length the tournament usually goes on for.
 
So with the price of flights going up when the tournament is going on, price of accommodation/lack of accommodation when the tournament is going on, how much of a net gain will we get with tourist numbers?
 
Will also those 665,333 tourists be back again or will it only be 200,000, 300,000? Will it actually only be a net gain of 100,000?


Posted By: lassassinblanc
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 10:08am
Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that
Well I don't know where they got a projection of €800m to the economy or over 400,000 visitors but that seems highly optimistic.
 
Interestingly the IRFU never released the above assumptions behind its projections, so its hard to tell how realistic they actually are. How many tourists would actually come to Ireland during that period, if the tournament wasn't on?
 
The Government have said they would pay the €100 million-€120 million fee that would have to be paid to World Rugby to host the tournament.
 
Then you have upgrades to stadiums in terms of facilities - I imagine the government will be funding the majority of this also through grants.  
 
Anyway I highly doubt it will be a net gain for the economy, but even with that in mind I still hope we get it.  

If you were to add up the number attendances for all the games it would be around that figure (when you take out perhaps home crowd) sure the Croke Park(reduced to 60,000) and Aviva capacity (50,000)would be 110,000 alone if both full those stadiums will be hosting at least 3-4 games each.
Sorry, what I mean is how much of a net gain will these 400,000 visitors be?
 
According to the CSO in 2015Q4 Overseas Trips to Ireland by Non-Residents was circa 1,996,000, so that's circa 665,333 a month - the length the tournament usually goes on for.
 
So with the price of flights going up when the tournament is going on, price of accommodation/lack of accommodation when the tournament is going on, how much of a net gain will we get with tourist numbers?
 
Will also those 665,333 tourists be back again or will it only be 200,000, 300,000? Will it actually only be a net gain of 100,000?


Well let's say 24 teams(projected numbers of teams for the tournament) now I'm not sure of format yet perhaps 6 groups of 4 or 4 Groups of 6 either way let's say a minimum of 5,000 visitors per country came over that would 115,000, if each of those visitors spent say €1500 spending money that is nearly 2m just there and that is the minimum.


To Further enhance the argument The attendance for 2015 World Cup was 2,477,805 take same logic that say some of that was home support so let's say - 47,805 to make it 2m each one of those spent 1k that's 2billion right there.






Posted By: Devrozex
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 10:36am
I see Alan Kelly is losing the rag over Thurles not being selected as venue - 'incomprehensible' he reckons. To be fair there are likely a number of far less complex matters that are incomprehensible to the man than the many intricacies involved in hosting a major international tournament.
 
Apparently the IRFU employed the same crowd who did the 2012 London Olympics and the 2015 RWC to find the best possible mix of stadiums required. If Thurles had a smaller stadium they may have had a chance, but with a capacity of 53,000 they would need it to be hosting the bigger games and there just clearly isn't the infrastructure there. It's hardly comparable to a Munster final which seems to be his confusion - it's an international tournament where spectators would be expecting to stay and go out in the host city etc.


Posted By: KING-CON
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 10:45am
Originally posted by Devrozex Devrozex wrote:

I see Alan Kelly is losing the rag over Thurles not being selected as venue - 'incomprehensible' he reckons. To be fair there are likely a number of far less complex matters that are incomprehensible to the man than the many intricacies involved in hosting a major international tournament.
 
Apparently the IRFU employed the same crowd who did the 2012 London Olympics and the 2015 RWC to find the best possible mix of stadiums required. If Thurles had a smaller stadium they may have had a chance, but with a capacity of 53,000 they would need it to be hosting the bigger games and there just clearly isn't the infrastructure there. It's hardly comparable to a Munster final which seems to be his confusion - it's an international tournament where spectators would be expecting to stay and go out in the host city etc.

Its bizarre. Either he is an idiot and he doesn't see the simple logic in it or else he's faking outrage to keep his constituents on side.  


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:10am
Originally posted by KING-CON KING-CON wrote:


Its bizarre. Either he is an idiot and he doesn't see the simple logic in it or else he's faking outrage to keep his constituents on side.  

I suspect its the latter. Anybody who travelled to Thurlas in 2001 for the Dublin v Kerry Quarter Final would understand how difficult it is to enter the town, and to get out of the town after the game. Its not an easy place to navigate at all, and would be particularly difficult if it were to host a major game between England and the All Blacks, or Wales and the Wallabies. The reason it works seamlessly for the Munster Final is the depth of local navigational knowledge.


Posted By: the_walls
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:14am
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

I think we have a great chance

2 things which could hamper

1) Lack of accommodation in certain places namely Castlebar

2) two different currencies 
 
Again Westport is 15 minutes away and there is loads of accommodation in Westport.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:17am
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by KING-CON KING-CON wrote:


Its bizarre. Either he is an idiot and he doesn't see the simple logic in it or else he's faking outrage to keep his constituents on side.  

I suspect its the latter. Anybody who travelled to Thurlas in 2001 for the Dublin v Kerry Quarter Final would understand how difficult it is to enter the town, and to get out of the town after the game. Its not an easy place to navigate at all, and would be particularly difficult if it were to host a major game between England and the All Blacks, or Wales and the Wallabies. The reason it works seamlessly for the Munster Final is the depth of local navigational knowledge.
In fairness it's no different, or it's actually considerably better, should I say, in terms of access than Pairc Ui Chaoimh or Pearse Stadium - each of which only has one road in and out, and both of which are included in the bid. 

Transport access is not the reason Thurles is not included in the bid.


-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:19am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

In fairness it's no different, or better, should I say, in terms of access than Pairc Ui Chaoimh or Pearse Stadium - each of which only has one road in and out, and both of which are included in the bid. 

Transport access is not the reason Thurles is not included in the bid.

The availability of accommodation is probably the premier factor. However, having been to all three regularly, the latter two are infinitely easier to get to. Thurlas would be very difficult to sustain an international tournament in.


Posted By: ABFC
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:21am
Personally I hope we don't get this tournament. It would potentially make rugby bigger than it should be. France should get it. Stadiums already built with many many hotel rooms on offer.


Posted By: reddladd
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:22am
The only reason Thurles was a problem when Dublin played Kerry was because GPS wasn't available back then. They couldn't read maps that was the problem.


-------------
I could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:22am
Originally posted by ABFC ABFC wrote:

Personally I hope we don't get this tournament. It would potentially make rugby bigger than it should be. France should get it. Stadiums already built with many many hotel rooms on offer.

Seriously? What an insular attitude.


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:23am
Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by lassassinblanc lassassinblanc wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

Originally posted by nvidic nvidic wrote:

Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

It won't make a profit anyway. Most if not all major sporting tournaments do not. Lots of literature out there on that. It does generally improve happiness for the hosting country so that's one plus.


Yeah but how many of them built white elephant stadiums? We've a few upgrades or overhauls that needed to happen anyway, might not make a profit just on ticket sales but with the money brought into the economy find it difficult to believe that
Well I don't know where they got a projection of €800m to the economy or over 400,000 visitors but that seems highly optimistic.
 
Interestingly the IRFU never released the above assumptions behind its projections, so its hard to tell how realistic they actually are. How many tourists would actually come to Ireland during that period, if the tournament wasn't on?
 
The Government have said they would pay the €100 million-€120 million fee that would have to be paid to World Rugby to host the tournament.
 
Then you have upgrades to stadiums in terms of facilities - I imagine the government will be funding the majority of this also through grants.  
 
Anyway I highly doubt it will be a net gain for the economy, but even with that in mind I still hope we get it.  

If you were to add up the number attendances for all the games it would be around that figure (when you take out perhaps home crowd) sure the Croke Park(reduced to 60,000) and Aviva capacity (50,000)would be 110,000 alone if both full those stadiums will be hosting at least 3-4 games each.
Sorry, what I mean is how much of a net gain will these 400,000 visitors be?
 
According to the CSO in 2015Q4 Overseas Trips to Ireland by Non-Residents was circa 1,996,000, so that's circa 665,333 a month - the length the tournament usually goes on for.
 
So with the price of flights going up when the tournament is going on, price of accommodation/lack of accommodation when the tournament is going on, how much of a net gain will we get with tourist numbers?
 
Will also those 665,333 tourists be back again or will it only be 200,000, 300,000? Will it actually only be a net gain of 100,000?


Well let's say 24 teams(projected numbers of teams for the tournament) now I'm not sure of format yet perhaps 6 groups of 4 or 4 Groups of 6 either way let's say a minimum of 5,000 visitors per country came over that would 115,000, if each of those visitors spent say €1500 spending money that is nearly 2m just there and that is the minimum.


To Further enhance the argument The attendance for 2015 World Cup was 2,477,805 take same logic that say some of that was home support so let's say - 47,805 to make it 2m each one of those spent 1k that's 2billion right there.




Again though, how much of that is a net benefit? Those who came over for the Rugby World Cup in England displaced tourists who would have come over to the country anyway during the period to spend money.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:23am
Originally posted by reddladd reddladd wrote:

The only reason Thurles was a problem when Dublin played Kerry was because GPS wasn't available back then. They couldn't read maps that was the problem.

Getting in and out of the town is a historical nightmare. The problem was on arrival there was such a backlog that nothing could be done. Granted, I feel there were serious logistical failings on the part of the Dublin fans that day.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 11:39am
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by KING-CON KING-CON wrote:


Its bizarre. Either he is an idiot and he doesn't see the simple logic in it or else he's faking outrage to keep his constituents on side.  

I suspect its the latter. Anybody who travelled to Thurlas in 2001 for the Dublin v Kerry Quarter Final would understand how difficult it is to enter the town, and to get out of the town after the game. Its not an easy place to navigate at all, and would be particularly difficult if it were to host a major game between England and the All Blacks, or Wales and the Wallabies. The reason it works seamlessly for the Munster Final is the depth of local navigational knowledge.
In fairness it's no different, or it's actually considerably better, should I say, in terms of access than Pairc Ui Chaoimh or Pearse Stadium - each of which only has one road in and out, and both of which are included in the bid. 

Transport access is not the reason Thurles is not included in the bid.


Been to Thurles over ten times and never found it remotely as difficult as Pairc Ui Chaoimh to get to.

And that was with the tunnel under the Lee and the motorway built.


-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by greenforever greenforever wrote:

Originally posted by Hoosay 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

Of course it will be a problem.
Let's say England play Wales. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect 20,000 to travel for that.
It could be on a weekend that Ireland are playing Australia for example and France are playing Scotland. They decide to put Ireland in Croker, France in Lansdowne and England v Wales in Killarney with it's 50k stadium.
Some will come by ferry and drive. Some will fly to Cork, Kerry or Shannon. Most will fly to Dublin. 
Some will get the train down. 
You could could still end up with 10,000 travelling by coach from Dublin. That's 150 coaches that you somehow have to get into Killarney, find parking for etc in addition to all the cars from the UK, the cars of people who drove to see it from Limerick, Kerry, Cork etc the normal tourist traffic in Killarney, the coaches ferrying people in from Cork airport, Farranfore, Shannon etc. 

Originally posted by Rocko Rocko wrote:

Originally posted by Hoosay Hoosay wrote:

Transport and hotel beds are the main issue.

For example, Thurles has a 52k capacity stadium, and there are 2000 hotel beds in all of Tipperary. 
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.


Please read up before posting. Thurles has not been included in the bid process. These Rugby big wigs know what they are at (I don't think they have a John Delaney on board).
Accommodation won't be a problem in most of our cities compared to what New Zealand had to offer. Most Irish cities would be better than Cardiff which hosted 2 quarter finals on the same weekend last year

Fair enough I was going off the list on the wikipedia article.

The difference with New Zealand is that Ireland is much more accessible. New Zealand is an expensive, once in a lifetime trip for most people in Europe, and for a lot of people in Australia and South Africa too. I don't know how many traveled from UK, Ireland, France to NZ but there is no doubt many many more will come to Ireland. 
You've also got the large ex-pat kiwi, ozzie and saffa communities in the UK and Ireland who would want to see their teams play. 
We'd probably have fewer people coming over for 2-3 weeks than New Zealand did, but we'd have thousands more coming over for a night or two around specific matches. 
We will need more hotel beds and bigger stadiums than New Zealand. We have the stadiums at least.

http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Documents/3_Research_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Accommodation_capacity_in_Ireland_2015.pdf?ext=.pdf" rel="nofollow - This Failte Ireland list shows the number of beds by county. Cardiff has around 4500 hotel beds according to a BBC article a few years ago, so a lot less than Dublin, or Cork, but more than Kerry for example, around the same as Limerick. However Cardiff is much more accessible from places like London, Birmingham, Bristol etc than a lot of Irish cities and towns are from each other.

If England do play Wales in Killarney, and 20,000 people travel for it, you could find hotels for them in Cork, Limerick, Killarney, Tralee, Dublin, Waterford, Kilkenny etc. And of course there are B&Bs, AirBnB etc 
But you still have to get them to Killarney on the day of the match.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying transport is an issue and accomodation is an issue because both the transport infrastructure and the largest number of hotel rooms are centred on Dublin, and for this to work you have to get people out of Dublin to the regional stadiums. 

It's not just Killarney, getting large numbers of people into most of our towns and cities will be tricky. Even Dublin would struggle with an all-ireland final sized crowd and a six nations size crowd in the same weekend and thousands of other people passing through to get to the other venues at the same time.

They have 6 years to solve it, but the team behind the bid will have to show how they're going to manage the transport issue, good transportation minimises the hotel issue because you don't have to stay in the town where the game is on if you can to/from somewhere else easily.


Posted By: Hoosay
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 12:57pm
I found this study on the NZ 2011 tournament -  http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/evaluation-of-government-programmes/NZ-2011-Rugby-World-Cup-tourism-perspective.pdf" rel="nofollow - http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/publications/evaluation-of-government-programmes/NZ-2011-Rugby-World-Cup-tourism-perspective.pdf

According to that.
Quote 133,200 visitors came to New Zealand for the RWC Out of the total 785,600 visitors who came to New Zealand during the RWC time period, 133,200 of these came for the RWC1 . Most of the RWC visitors were from RWC participant countries such as Australia (55,500), France (11,500), South Africa (8,600), England (7,000), the USA (5,400), Ireland (4,100), Argentina (3,000) and Japan (2,800).

International RWC visitors spent a total of $387 million International RWC visitors spent a total of $387 million2 . RWC visitors spent on average $3,400 each compared to $2,400 for non–RWC visitors over the same time period. The net increase in visitor expenditure attributable to the RWC was approximately $280 million; this figure accounts for the assumed loss made from visitors who chose not to come to New Zealand because of the RWC. 

If 7000 will go from England all the way to New Zealand, you have to assume that a huge amount more would travel to Ireland even if it's only for 2-3 days around a game (which is what I did travelling to France for the Euros). Same with France, Scotland and Wales, they'd all likely have large numbers travelling for short periods of time.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:01pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by KING-CON KING-CON wrote:


Its bizarre. Either he is an idiot and he doesn't see the simple logic in it or else he's faking outrage to keep his constituents on side.  

I suspect its the latter. Anybody who travelled to Thurlas in 2001 for the Dublin v Kerry Quarter Final would understand how difficult it is to enter the town, and to get out of the town after the game. Its not an easy place to navigate at all, and would be particularly difficult if it were to host a major game between England and the All Blacks, or Wales and the Wallabies. The reason it works seamlessly for the Munster Final is the depth of local navigational knowledge.
Kelly knows that Semple can save the most simple of politicians.

How many fans come from each nation for the 6 nations games? Surely that would be a reasonable guideline.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:26pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:



Been to Thurles over ten times and never found it remotely as difficult as Pairc Ui Chaoimh to get to.

And that was with the tunnel under the Lee and the motorway built.

To me that comes with the experience you have. Failure to adequately plan to get to Semple Stadium can make it a nightmare. Thankfully my auld fella knows it inside out so he knows how to navigate it. In fairness, its a fairly subjective thing.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:



How many fans come from each nation for the 6 nations games? Surely that would be a reasonable guideline.

The difficulty is that figures for Six Nations weekends are slightly distorted based on the fact that its a single game, played in a Stadium which hosts roughly 50k. Even with the floods of punters who attend without tickets, its hard to quantify, especially as there will be tickets floating around for games against the weaker nations, which will still draw the folks from England, Wales etc.


Posted By: pre Madonna
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:



How many fans come from each nation for the 6 nations games? Surely that would be a reasonable guideline.

The difficulty is that figures for Six Nations weekends are slightly distorted based on the fact that its a single game, played in a Stadium which hosts roughly 50k. Even with the floods of punters who attend without tickets, its hard to quantify, especially as there will be tickets floating around for games against the weaker nations, which will still draw the folks from England, Wales etc.
Oh I know, the key word is guideline.


-------------
Greed has won, big finance has won. Whatever small role elite clubs still play in the local communities from which they grew is dwarfed now by their position as global brands.


Posted By: sid waddell
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:



Been to Thurles over ten times and never found it remotely as difficult as Pairc Ui Chaoimh to get to.

And that was with the tunnel under the Lee and the motorway built.

To me that comes with the experience you have. Failure to adequately plan to get to Semple Stadium can make it a nightmare. Thankfully my auld fella knows it inside out so he knows how to navigate it. In fairness, its a fairly subjective thing.
Traffic problems with Thurles in the past, such as in 2001, were often in Abbeyleix, not Thurles itself. That's no longer a factor now with the motorway. 


-------------
Edited by Trigboy 10 at 10:03pm


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:37pm
Do I understand this right? The government will pay the €100,000,000 that goes to the organisers to host and cover infrastructure and stadium upgrades, which means the IRFU make 100% profit on all ticket sales minus stadium rental to the GAA, which may not even be levied? Great work from them, not so good from the taxpayer perspective

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:55pm
Originally posted by sid waddell sid waddell wrote:

Traffic problems with Thurles in the past, such as in 2001, were often in Abbeyleix, not Thurles itself. That's no longer a factor now with the motorway. 

Very much take your point on Abbeyleix being a traffic hotspot. Absolute nightmare.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:57pm
Originally posted by pre Madonna pre Madonna wrote:

Oh I know, the key word is guideline.

It would be a good starting point, no doubt. The only issue would be the swell in numbers due to the wider appeal and nature of the tournament. It would certainly be a good barometer for the bigger games.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 1:59pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

Do I understand this right? The government will pay the €100,000,000 that goes to the organisers to host and cover infrastructure and stadium upgrades, which means the IRFU make 100% profit on all ticket sales minus stadium rental to the GAA, which may not even be levied? Great work from them, not so good from the taxpayer perspective

Tickets will be subject to VAT. Jersey and memorabilia sales will be subject to VAT. The hospitality industry will pay over a significant amount in VAT. This is before you even factor in the swell which will come from the national interest, in the event the tournament is awarded to us.


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 2:12pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:

Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

Do I understand this right? The government will pay the €100,000,000 that goes to the organisers to host and cover infrastructure and stadium upgrades, which means the IRFU make 100% profit on all ticket sales minus stadium rental to the GAA, which may not even be levied? Great work from them, not so good from the taxpayer perspective

Tickets will be subject to VAT. Jersey and memorabilia sales will be subject to VAT. The hospitality industry will pay over a significant amount in VAT. This is before you even factor in the swell which will come from the national interest, in the event the tournament is awarded to us.
 
What does the swell from the national interest mean?
 
The stakeholders that will benefit from this are the IRFU, the GAA, and the public in terms of morale and a party.
 
This isn't going to bolster the economy to any significant degree.


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 2:17pm
Originally posted by seanyshuffler seanyshuffler wrote:

 
What does the swell from the national interest mean?
 
The stakeholders that will benefit from this are the IRFU, the GAA, and the public in terms of morale and a party.
 
This isn't going to bolster the economy to any significant degree.

Those who will put their hands in their pockets on the backs of the tournament, who otherwise wouldn't give a red cent to rugby. Im not saying it will be to a benefit to a significant degree, but it will significantly mitigate the cost.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 2:57pm
Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:


Tickets will be subject to VAT. Jersey and memorabilia sales will be subject to VAT. The hospitality industry will pay over a significant amount in VAT. This is before you even factor in the swell which will come from the national interest, in the event the tournament is awarded to us.
Tickets will not be subject to vat, certainly not south of the border.
 
The point is will the rugby crowd simply replace the normal tourist crowd who will have been priced out? Then its not correct to say X thousand visitors


-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 2:59pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:


Tickets will not be subject to vat, certainly not south of the border.
 
The point is will the rugby crowd simply replace the normal tourist crowd who will have been priced out? Then its not correct to say X thousand visitors
[/QUOTE]

Why wouldn't they be? Like all tickets.

There is no reason to believe that "pricing out" will happen.


Posted By: roverstillidie
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 3:01pm
You clown. There is no VAT on sporting or event tickets, haven't been since the 30's

-------------
He is Karl Pilkington in the LOI section and Karl Marx outwith it


Posted By: Het-field
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

You clown. There is no VAT on sporting or event tickets, haven't been since the 30's

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/vat-treatment-right-of-admission.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vat/leaflets/vat-treatment-right-of-admission.html

Try this.


Posted By: seanyshuffler
Date Posted: 16 Nov 2016 at 3:06pm
Originally posted by roverstillidie roverstillidie wrote:

Originally posted by Het-field Het-field wrote:


Tickets will be subject to VAT. Jersey and memorabilia sales will be subject to VAT. The hospitality industry will pay over a significant amount in VAT. This is before you even factor in the swell which will come from the national interest, in the event the tournament is awarded to us.
Tickets will not be subject to vat, certainly not south of the border.
 
The point is will the rugby crowd simply replace the normal tourist crowd who will have been priced out? Then its not correct to say X thousand visitors
 
Exactly, if they say it'll generate 800,000 visitors this isn't going to be a net gain of 800k as no doubt some people who normally come during this period will be displaced just to cost and supply issues.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net