ENGLAND - Rugby World Cup 2015

[js1000]

Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd

This would require further negotiations with Newcastle Utd and if they would allow further matches to be played at St James Park while the EPL season would be in full swing. It's not so easy as we would think unfortunately. Otherwise we would have many more matches in Newcastle and Manchester and rightly so.

I feel the organisers have really screwed up. They've clumsily assumed stadiums like Wembley, OT & subsequently the Etihad are fair game and that operators/clubs will be quite happy letting rugby games mess up their pitches because 'it's special to host World Cup matches' and everything else pales into insignificance.

They've gone to United and said "can we host 3 matches?" during Premier League & Champions League season which is madness. If they went to the local councils to gain support - and said "can we host 1 match at Old Trafford and City host 1 match at the Etihad as well so neither of you are disadvantaged?" then I reckon both clubs would have said yes.

Two renowned large capacity symbolic football stadiums outside London which would provide a real shot in the arm for the World Cup but the organisers were unreasonable.

The RWC is a long event in sporting terms and we face the very real prospect of the SE being desensitised to the fact England is hosting a Rugby World Cup because of how many matches there will be (i.e. high possibility of empty seats) while the rest of the country is not interested because it's not happening near them.

[Leedsrule]

Its not the organisers faults. I blame the clubs. I mean big deal if their pitches are slightly ruined, They would be able to make it better again (Reading, Swansea and hull all have decent pitches). I think the clubs just don't want to be part of it if it'll affect them at all, they need to stop being so fucking stingy and let them play a few games. Any football match played on a bad pitch is the same for both teams!

[Walbanger]

Originally Posted by js1000

I feel the organisers have really screwed up. They've clumsily assumed stadiums like Wembley, OT & subsequently the Etihad are fair game and that operators/clubs will be quite happy letting rugby games mess up their pitches because 'it's special to host World Cup matches' and everything else pales into insignificance.

It is special to host Rugby Worldcup matches and maybe Soccer clubs and their players should harden the fuck up.

I don't see what the issue is, Rugby League World Cup matches have been played at Old Trafford. Are the groundkeepers not worth their weight in salt?

[5portsF4n]

Originally Posted by Walbanger

It is special to host Rugby Worldcup matches and maybe Soccer clubs and their players should harden the fuck up.

I don't see what the issue is, Rugby League World Cup matches have been played at Old Trafford. Are the groundkeepers not worth their weight in salt?

What have the players got to do with the decisions made by clubs?

The matches played at rugby league World Cups have been finals. It will also host the final this year, along with the Super League final. The 2015 RWC was slated for 3 matches, along with the annual Super League final. United clearly felt that was too much in a short period of time.

[TEBC]

i´ll try to attend

[IHaveNoLegs]

I was under the impression that during the bidding process that the organisers had already signed some deals with the football clubs to be able to use their grounds. Knowing the schedule would turn out like this it was a mistake to give the World Cup to England.

[5portsF4n]

Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs

I was under the impression that during the bidding process that the organisers had already signed some deals with the football clubs to be able to use their grounds. Knowing the schedule would turn out like this it was a mistake to give the World Cup to England.

In the end though only one stadium reneged. If deals were in place, the majority still are. Not having Old Trafford shouldn't deter from what will be a fantastic WC.

[Walbanger]

Originally Posted by 5portsF4n

What have the players got to do with the decisions made by clubs?

The matches played at rugby league World Cups have been finals. It will also host the final this year, along with the Super League final. The 2015 RWC was slated for 3 matches, along with the annual Super League final. United clearly felt that was too much in a short period of time.

Well then who's really bitching about the state of the pitch after a mere 3 Rugby games?
Rugby and Soccer clubs share stadiums all around the world and the grounds are maintianed just fine.
There would be worse pitches in the league that's never seen a scrum.

[5portsF4n]

Originally Posted by Walbanger

Well then who's really bitching about the state of the pitch after a mere 3 Rugby games?
Rugby and Soccer clubs share stadiums all around the world and the grounds are maintianed just fine.
There would be worse pitches in the league that's never seen a scrum.

So you're of the opinion that United's players lobbied against it? Interesting conclusion.

The likelihood is that the clubs hierarchy made the decision that was in the best interest of their club.

Old Trafford is owned by Manchester United, meaning they have a say in what happens with their ground. Most soccer/rugby sharing is either owned by the soccer club or the city/private operator. If the city or private operator owns a stadium, they will try and accomodate as many matches as possible. United aren't in that position, and have every right to decline the offer to host matches.

If rugby wasn't so reliant on soccer in England to host a World Cup, it wouldn't be an issue. That said outside of one venue, the RWC will be held as planned, so its a minor annoyance more than anything.

[js1000]

Originally Posted by Leedsrule

Its not the organisers faults. I blame the clubs. I mean big deal if their pitches are slightly ruined, They would be able to make it better again (Reading, Swansea and hull all have decent pitches). I think the clubs just don't want to be part of it if it'll affect them at all, they need to stop being so fucking stingy and let them play a few games. Any football match played on a bad pitch is the same for both teams!

Originally Posted by Walbanger

It is special to host Rugby Worldcup matches and maybe Soccer clubs and their players should harden the fuck up.

I don't see what the issue is, Rugby League World Cup matches have been played at Old Trafford. Are the groundkeepers not worth their weight in salt?

It's easy to forget that the WC is in the middle of the football season.

So that rules out weekend matches at Etihad or Old Trafford - policing and transport would not be adequete if there was a football match at the other stadium. Matches can't be played on Tuesday or Wednesday if City and United are in the Champions League. And then you consider if WC matches were played on Monday/Thursday/Friday I don't think the football clubs would be happy to see their pitches in need of serious rest despite an upcoming game. So all round - it was always going to be difficult.

The organisers did not see it in this logical way - they just assumed the clubs would be happy hosting WC matches. A logical manner to go about would have been to get the local councils support - propose to City & United to host one match at each of the stadiums so neither club are at a loss. Then they have at least 2 out of the 3 originally proposed games at Old Trafford at big stadiums.