ENGLAND - Rugby World Cup 2015

[IHaveNoLegs]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tour...ts_en_8211.pdf
Read.
Old Traffords in goal areaa are shit and there is no disputing that; I just hope that something can be done about it. I'm just suggesting that any action taken on the ground to get it into shape for a possible 2018 FIFA World Cup may be done with the 2015 Rugby World Cup in mind.

[krudmonk]

It works for league.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by CorliCorso

England games would fill that, Scotland/Wales/Ireland games would get good crowds, but Italy v Tonga would get absolutely nowhere near, even when they give out swaths of free tickets.

Italy's games in the 2007 Rugby World Cup:

58,612 v New Zealand (Marseilles, capacity 60,000)
44,241 v Romania (Marseilles, capacity 60,000)
45,476 v Portugal (Parc des Princes, capacity 48,713)
34,701 v Scotland (St. Etienne, capacity 35,616)

Tonga's games in the 2007 Rugby World Cup:

25,000 v USA (Montpellier, capacity 32,900)
24,128 v Samoa (Montpellier, capacity 32,900)
40,069 v South Africa (Lens, capacity 41,233)
37,022 v England (Nantes, capacity 38,285)

I can see a hypothetical Italy v Tonga game close to filling any of the grounds bar Twickenham, Wembley or Old Trafford.

[flierfy]

Originally Posted by IHaveNoLegs

Old Traffords in goal areaa are shit and there is no disputing that; I just hope that something can be done about it. I'm just suggesting that any action taken on the ground to get it into shape for a possible 2018 FIFA World Cup may be done with the 2015 Rugby World Cup in mind.

Take it or leave it. These football grounds are fine as they are. If the pitch is too short for Rugby Union then the RFU has to look out for other stadiums.

[Pimpmaster]

i remember hearing somewhere the average attendances for the world cup in 2007 was somewhere around the 37,000 mark.

[Joop20]

Why is Bristol not included in this, while it is included in the 2018 WC bid with a new stadium? Get rid of Coventry and change it for Bristol!

[lpioe]

Originally Posted by Pimpmaster

i remember hearing somewhere the average attendances for the world cup in 2007 was somewhere around the 37,000 mark.

47'150 according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Rugby_World_Cup

More than FIFA WC 1998 (43,517)!

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Joop20

Why is Bristol not included in this, while it is included in the 2018 WC bid with a new stadium?

2018 is three years after 2015, and at the time the RFU put its bid together there was no guarantee there would actually be a new stadium in Bristol they could use.

Though such a stadium would make a great RWC venue, and there's nothing to say the final plans can't change.

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by MS20

Clearly someone talking out of their ****. Stadiums have a few rows empty to appease sponsors, so that the advertising gets maximum exposure on TV. What on earth does that have to do with FIFA World Cups? Who don't do what UEFA do? To suggest that they will "move" Old Trafford around is complete nonsense, unless you can find evidence to support your claims.

FIFA made Dortmund demolish its first few rows for the 2006 world cup, hence why its capacity dropped from 83,000 to 80,000.

So FIFA wil probably expect the same of all the English grounds, I say enough the rules are ludicrous!

Originally Posted by Joop20

Why is Bristol not included in this, while it is included in the 2018 WC bid with a new stadium? Get rid of Coventry and change it for Bristol!

Coventry is a big rugby city iirc, or it used to be.

Bristol isn't really as big a rugby city as people think, Bristol Rovers (the second football club of the city) are bigger than the local rugby club!

[kerouac1848]

It's funny that the Rugby WC will have 4 stadiums with a capacity over 70,000, yet England's WC bid for 2018/22 has only 2.....

I guess it is a shame that only 3 English grounds will actually be Rugby specific, but that is the reality of a game which has only had a national league structure since 1987 and been professional for about 15 years (not to mention the madness of running matches often at the same time as football ones)

I don't know whether Coventry is a bigger rugby city than Bristol, but the fact that its rugby club have never been part of league set-up must have damaged what popularity existed during the 70s and before. You also have to consider the proximity of Bath to Bristol which is undoubtedly a rugby union centre here (you might say Cardiff is close, but then so is Leicester Coventry). Anyway, Bristol is a far nicer city than Coventry whose city centre, sadly, is a monument to the worst of 1960s urban planning and design.

[kerouac1848]

but the fact that its rugby club have never been part of league set-up

I meant part of the top division, what is now called the Guinness Premiership

[RMB2007]

I'm pretty convinced that Bristol City F.C. will have their new stadium built before the Rugby World Cup, so hopefully the stadium could still be included.

[parcdesprinces]

Originally Posted by lpioe

More than FIFA WC 1998 (43,517)!

That's because rugby WC 2007 was played in 12 stadiums (including 2 outside France: Cardiff 72K & Edinburgh 68K)

[Its AlL gUUd]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

I guess it is a shame that only 3 English grounds will actually be Rugby specific, but that is the reality of a game which has only had a national league structure since 1987 and been professional for about 15 years (not to mention the madness of running matches often at the same time as football ones)

If you look at the last 2 World Cups there weren't many Rugby Specific Stadia used.

Most countries won't have many large Rugby specific stadia. Even Wales doesn't have one, the Millenium stadium is a multipurpose stadium. The largest seated Rugby specific stadium in the world i think is probably Twickenham (in terms of the sole sport being played there).

[kerouac1848]

Yeah I know, I just meant it would be ideal (but completely unrealistic presently) if, say, half were stadia actually owned or primary used by rugby clubs (could still be multi-purpose).

Thinking about this bid again, what is the Emirates doing there? Nothing against the place, but considering that Cardiff is hosting games why can't Murrayfield? (did so during the 2007 RWC). I mean, it’s bigger, primarily for rugby instead of another sport and is in a different city which happens to be the UK's second most visited after London (would also stop Newcastle looking too lonely up there ). I know it is probably down to sporting politics but still.

That’s it then, replace the Ricoh Arena and Emirates with Bristol's new ground and Murrayfield!

[Its AlL gUUd]

Originally Posted by kerouac1848

Thinking about this bid again, what is the Emirates doing there? Nothing against the place, but considering that Cardiff is hosting games why can't Murrayfield? (did so during the 2007 RWC). I mean, it’s bigger, primarily for rugby instead of another sport and is in a different city which happens to be the UK's second most visited after London (would also stop Newcastle looking too lonely up there ). I know it is probably down to sporting politics but still.

That’s it then, replace the Ricoh Arena and Emirates with Bristol's new ground and Murrayfield!

This is not a UK World Cup. The inclusion of Millenium Stadium is purely political. Murrayfield has been used in 1991,1999 and 2007 WC, basically it has been included in all northern hemisphere World Cups so far, does it not get boring using it so often? Its really annoying that a country like France had to use Millenium Stadium and Murrayfield (particularly when none of the countries share a border or are culturally similar) when they could host alone considering they hosted the Football World Cup in 1998. They only included the venues for the bidding process, they were up against England (who were looking to host alone) to host in 2007 but using these venues enabled them to secure the Welsh and Scottish votes and beat England to host the Cup. This really annoys me and makes the World Cup lose some of its uniqueness and spark when there are matches being played in 3 different countries as it doesn't have a proper host. it was ridiculous in 1999 when Wales was the official host nation, yet majority of the matches took place outside of the country. I understand that this was necessary in the early days of the tournament as it is still in its early stages with fewer participant countries then lets say Football but its not required anymore.

Both the 1991 and 1999 World cups were hosted in 6 different countires simultaneously!! if we want to share venues then it should be proper co-hosts like Korea Japan 2002 or Euro 2008 Austria Switzerland where venues are shared equally. It just feels like any future European based world cup will have to include the Millenium Stadium or Murrayfield or both (i expect Ireland to bid soon) for the bidding nation to be successful as they will be guaranteed the votes. I understand smaller nations may find it difficult to host alone but France and England?

i am glad tho that England have shown that they were determined to be proper hosts especially in 2007 but in 2015 alas the Millenium Stadium had to be used otherwise we would have lost votes to the Japan bid. England doesn't need the Millenium Stadium to host but had no choice but to include it. I have nothing against the MS but having it used so often like Murrayfield makes it lose some of the anticipation and isn't as special. These venues should be used sparingly.

I would prefer sole host nations if possible. Australia, SA and now New Zealand can all host by them selves so England and France should be able to. Lets face it England can host alone, heck they are bidding to host the Football World Cup in 2018!

However for the RWC in 2015 i can just about accept and find it understandable for using the Millenium Stadium rather then Murrayfield due to the closer, entwined political structure of England and Wales. Considering its just one stadium outside of England but more or less on the boder with our Welsh neighbours i don't have too many issues with it, it can be accepted and it is a great venue anyway.

Emirates will be used due to it actually being in the host nation; England and i support its inclusion since its a much nicer venue then Murrayfield anyway.

[kerouac1848]

Yes I know it isn't a UK WC. I understand what you are saying and, to tbh, I'm not that bothered about Murrayfield being used (Although I stand by the Bristol position especially if seen as a joint Bristol/bath venue). I do, though, have issues with London having 3 venues and it is the same with the 2018 bid (4 in this case, although I doubt that many will be used). It's too many for me. In a smaller country like NZ it is fair enough if one city has that many stadiums or more. But I don't think it is necessary in England with the stadia we will have by 2015.

[Its AlL gUUd]

London has so many world class stadia and since the RWC has much more relaxed rules im not surprised 3 stadia will be used considering they are 3 of the best stadiums in the country. With regards to the football world cup i think London will get 2 venues only. (tho i wouldn't be complaining if it was 3 )

[kerouac1848]

Yes, but its not just about using the best stadia though; its also showcasing the country. Otherwise Spurs new ground and the CofM would also get the nod ahead of places like Elland Road. A balance between quality and geographical spread. IMO 2 is enough for any city due to the fact we are have/will have enough cities that contain really good stadiums. England's (original) second city and (I think) 5th most visited city, are missing out despite the stadiums they have/will have by then.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by Its AlL gUUd

This is not a UK World Cup. The inclusion of Millenium Stadium is purely political. Murrayfield has been used in 1991,1999 and 2007 WC, basically it has been included in all northern hemisphere World Cups so far, does it not get boring using it so often? Its really annoying that a country like France had to use Millenium Stadium and Murrayfield (particularly when none of the countries share a border or are culturally similar) when they could host alone considering they hosted the Football World Cup in 1998. They only included the venues for the bidding process, they were up against England (who were looking to host alone) to host in 2007 but using these venues enabled them to secure the Welsh and Scottish votes and beat England to host the Cup. This really annoys me and makes the World Cup lose some of its uniqueness and spark when there are matches being played in 3 different countries as it doesn't have a proper host. it was ridiculous in 1999 when Wales was the official host nation, yet majority of the matches took place outside of the country. I understand that this was necessary in the early days of the tournament as it is still in its early stages with fewer participant countries then lets say Football but its not required anymore.

Very well said - you've expressed exactly how I feel about it.

I even posted on a rugby forum somewhere that the 2023 Rugby World Cup is likely to be held in South Africa, with 5 games in the Millennium Stadium, but some people didn't get the joke.

I would prefer sole host nations if possible. Australia, SA and now New Zealand can all host by them selves so England and France should be able to. Lets face it England can host alone, heck they are bidding to host the Football World Cup in 2018!

The Rugby World Cup has arguably already outgrown New Zealand - attendance will drop next year as the stadia simply aren't big enough. They even made a point of this in their bid, saying that if they didn't get it now they'd never get the chance again...

Australia, England, France, Italy, Japan and South Africa are all capable of hosting by themselves, and there's nothing to stop unions like Russia or the USA throwing their hat into the ring in the future...