# ENGLAND - Rugby World Cup 2015



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

England will host the 8th Rugby World Cup in 2015. These are the confirmed venues that will be used. I will start with the largest ground and work my way down to the smallest. i will include pictures of any proposedd expansions or new stadiums aswell.

Wembley Stadium- 90,000 Seats
Twickenham Stadium- 82,000 Seats
Old Trafford Stadium- 76,212 Seats (expandable up to 96,000)
Millenium Stadium- 74,500 seats
Emirates Stadium- 60,355 seats
St James Park' - 52,387 seats (expandable up to 60,000)
Anfield Stadium (current)- 45,370 seats ( new stadium proposed 60,000 seats)
Elland Road Stadium- 39,401 seats (expandable to around 50,000 seats)
St Mary's Stadium- 32,659 seats (expandable to between 45 and 50k seats)
Ricoh Arena Stadium- 32, 609
Welford Road Stadium- 24,000 (currently finishing expansion to 30,000 seats)
Kingsolm Stadium- 16,500


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i will post pics when i know how to post them on here. any help would be apreciated


----------



## aaronaugi1 (Apr 23, 2008)

Would Wembley still be used considering there is already Twickenham in London? Moreover, Emirates and Wembley are traditionally football grounds, rather than used for rubgy. Would their be royalties and licensing issues with the FA and football clubs??


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

this is confirmed list on rfu, irb websites etc.

from football clubs point of view they will be getting a large fee from the RFU to host games there plus all the revunue from match day etc

i think that emirates will be named something else, due to sponsorship issues


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I'm interested to know how many of these grounds are sactioned for International Rugby Union?
I'm thinking of Old Trafford, St James Park, Elland Road, St Mary's and the current Anfield. I'm aware that Old Trafford and Elland Road have often been host to Rugby League Internationals but Rugby League seems to be more flexable in the depth of the in-goal area (endzone for North Americans). Some of the soccer grounds can ony offer 5m deep in-goal areas and little room from the dead ball line to the fence. Rugby Union requires an In-goal area of no less than 10m and a 6m deep perimeter to the fence. Now the RWC may be big but I doubt it is big enough to see Old Trafford rip up some seating on the ends to extend the length of the field.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

england played argentina at OT twice last season. i am not sure about the size of anfield, elland road etc but this is a confirmed list so iam sure that a rugby pitch will fit


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Well a lot of those grounds are familiar with kicking, but what about clapping?


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Good to see rugby building a legacy using 95% football grounds  Really shows just what kind of following the sport has. I would love it if this tournament meant that football benefits in the form of ground expansions.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> england played argentina at OT twice last season. i am not sure about the size of anfield, elland road etc but this is a confirmed list so iam sure that a rugby pitch will fit


I didn't know about the Arg vs Eng game at Old Trafford, very interesting. I just browsed for a pic. As you mentioned these stadiums have been confirmed by the RFU, no doubting that. I'm interested in finding out if the IRB have relaxed their regulations or that maybe work will be done in lengthening the fields and replacing the lost seating with foldable/retactable seating like in an indoor arena. It's not as if this is a one off, many of these ground host important Rugby League fixures, Rugby is just another revenue source and its good to be as flexible as possible.

As for the Arg vs Eng game. It was an Argentina home game in Manchester and maybe there are tiers of test match importance as to how rigidly the regulations must be followed. I just imagine that the World Cup would follow the highest standard of field regulations.

That ingoal could not be any more than 5m / 6m deep.









Rugby League at Old Trafford (again no more than 5m / 6m and looks like less than 2m to the fence which is dangerous.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i love rugby, football and cricket an equal amount but it is hardly fair to say that rugby has a poor following when it has only been a profesional sport since 1995. 


football has been proffesional for at least 50 years, more television money etc. 

there is 4 rugby grounds on there out of 11


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i think the IRB will have taken the size into consideratioin against the financial gain of playing at the bigger venues.

the IRB are going to make little or know profit in the quite small grounds for the world cup in new zealand next year


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

how do you post pics? sorry new to the forum


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> how do you post pics? sorry new to the forum


Copy the address / url of the pic you want. Then just above the typing space with the *B I U*, click on the yellow icon with the sun and mountains. Enter the pics address in there and there you go.



> i think the IRB will have taken the size into consideratioin against the financial gain of playing at the bigger venues.
> 
> the IRB are going to make little or know profit in the quite small grounds for the world cup in new zealand next year


Thats what I imagine. Still they will need to address some saftey issues at the shorter Soccer grounds. Note what happens at 4:20.


----------



## Ceefee (Sep 12, 2009)

nice list! england is very lucky to be chosen for soo many huge events! (jealous!!!) also random question is johnny walker still around? sorry as an Australian hes kinda my sworn enemy after 2003 WC. up there with flintoff after ashes lol. gonna be a good year or two. ashes and WC'11 watch out england!!!


----------



## Kazurro (Jan 23, 2005)

Harry1990 said:


> England will host the 8th Rugby World Cup in 2015. These are the confirmed venues that will be used. I will start with the largest ground and work my way down to the smallest. i will include pictures of any proposedd expansions or new stadiums aswell.
> 
> Wembley Stadium- 90,000 Seats
> Twickenham Stadium- 82,000 Seats
> ...


I thought Old Traffor Stadium had been stopped because Americans dont want to invest money on it.

Which are the rugby specific stadiums there? Welford Road, Kingsolm, Twickenham and?


----------



## Ozric (May 19, 2008)

Kazurro said:


> Which are the rugby specific stadiums there? Welford Road, Kingsolm, Twickenham and?


The Millenium Stadium?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Ceefee said:


> also random question is johnny walker still around?


Johnny Walker is alive and well and can be seen on scotch whisky bottles up and down the land.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Walbanger said:


> I'm interested to know how many of these grounds are sactioned for International Rugby Union?
> I'm thinking of Old Trafford, St James Park, Elland Road, St Mary's and the current Anfield. I'm aware that Old Trafford and Elland Road have often been host to Rugby League Internationals but Rugby League seems to be more flexable in the depth of the in-goal area (endzone for North Americans). Some of the soccer grounds can ony offer 5m deep in-goal areas and little room from the dead ball line to the fence. Rugby Union requires an In-goal area of no less than 10m and a 6m deep perimeter to the fence. Now the RWC may be big but I doubt it is big enough to see Old Trafford rip up some seating on the ends to extend the length of the field.


The pitch doesn't have to be exactly 100 metres long in rugby union, not even in internationals, just as close to it as conditions permit. Lots of smaller nations play internationals in soccer or athletics stadia, where a slightly shorter pitch is necessary.

Also, eight out of the twelve listed venues have staged rugby union before - only Elland Road, St. Mary's, St. James's and the Emirates haven't.



MS20 said:


> Good to see rugby building a legacy using 95% football grounds  Really shows just what kind of following the sport has. I would love it if this tournament meant that football benefits in the form of ground expansions.


Not sure what point you're trying to make - the Rugby World Cup has grown to such an extent that larger and larger stadia are required. Argentina v Namibia for example attracted over 55,000 fans in Marseilles. Are you suggesting club rugby grounds should be used instead? They're too small, and it would be pointless expanding them when larger stadia are available.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

The football grounds have to be used if they want it to be financially successful.

This also allows maximum exposure for the product.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Kazurro said:


> I thought Old Traffor Stadium had been stopped because Americans dont want to invest money on it.


Unless I'm mistaken, the expansion is merely conceptual; An indication of what its capacity could be. It's gained in hype recently as England is touted as a favorite to win the 2018 FIFA World Cup, in which case many expect ManU would use that opportunity to expand the ground, and in that event they might even expand in time for this event.

What I'm surprised about, though, is that I always see message boards using 96k but have yet to read about an official report saying that's what the figure would/could be. I strongly suspect it's a casual speculation not truly reflective of the design considerations at play for that end (ie: the rail line).


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Harry1990 said:


> Millenium Stadium- 74,500 seats


If they're doing this then why not also invite Murrayfield into the mix? Seriously, I get that the structural relationship between England and Wales is different from England and Scotland, but these seem as real semantics for what the organizers are otherwise trying to achieve. Heck, even the Rugby WC in France featured some games in Scotland! I say add Edinburgh and Murrayfield to the list - Historic rugby venue with strong local support that would ensure, most likely, this is the best Rugby WC ever or possible.

Or maybe that's my Scottish heritage talking... 



> St James Park' - 52,387 seats (expandable up to 60,000)
> Anfield Stadium (current)- 45,370 seats ( new stadium proposed 60,000 seats)
> Elland Road Stadium- 39,401 seats (expandable to around 50,000 seats)
> St Mary's Stadium- 32,659 seats (expandable to between 45 and 50k seats)


Somehow I don't see either Stanley Park (nee ~ Anfield) or St. James expansion being realized before this event, and I don't see St. Mary's being renovated unless they're also a late addition to a successful 2018 bid: That move doesn't seem worth it for just this event. 

Elland Road, however...? True, Leeds remains mired in League play but should at least be contending for Premiership play by then. Given that Elland Road would almost definitely be in line for use in 2018, and that the club could actually fill an enlarged venue, and especially considering the stadium could use some improvements I could definitely see Leeds and (sigh) Mr. Bates trying to maximize their drawing power for this event via a bigger Elland Road.


----------



## Highveld Lion (May 26, 2009)

Rugby is becoming more and more popular in England and if you look at the sucess of the 07 world cup in France, I think all stadiums will be filled to capacity including Old Trafford, or any other larges venues anywhere in the country.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

gunner jacket is right the numbers for expansion at old trafford are just the biggest they could be but it is very unlickley that OT will be that size for financial reason as there are houses behind the south stand that would have to be bought out as well as a railway line which makes it expensive.

an increase to about 82-85 is possible though by filling in the corners like before the 06 expansion


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i think the IRB have said they would consider upgrading St Mary's if they deem it necesary so southampton would not have to pay any money.


with the other grounds Elland Road, Anfield or stanley park etc they are on the list of proposed venues selected by the Fa to be chosen if England are succesful. so all expansions will have to be pay for by the clubs in question and the FA, but if England win the 2018 WC aswell it will be a good time to try and finish some expansion before 2015 WC so they can be tested.


----------



## piles (Oct 31, 2007)

So if Wembley is being used, would the final be held there instead of Twickenham? 
That would surely upset a lot of rugby tradionalists.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

^^ Twickenham will host the final


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

yes twickers will host the final and i believe the wembley will host both semi's and the 3/4th play of game. 

emirates and old trafford to host games in the 1/4 finals


----------



## CorliCorso (May 4, 2005)

Highveld Lion said:


> Rugby is becoming more and more popular in England and if you look at the sucess of the 07 world cup in France, I think all stadiums will be filled to capacity including Old Trafford, or any other larges venues anywhere in the country.


There's at least 6, potentially 9 stadiums on that list with a capacity of 50,000+. 

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.


----------



## Ceefee (Sep 12, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> Johnny Walker is alive and well and can be seen on scotch whisky bottles up and down the land.


hahahahaha opps i meant johnny wilkonson :lol:


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

I'm wondering with a couple of the football grounds being used for the 2015 world cup (e.g. Old Trafford as pointed out on the previous page) if they would be willing to remove the first several rows to allow for a larger (and safer) in goal area since they will probably have to do it for the 2018 FIFA world cup anyway, (if they win the rights).


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> I'm wondering with a couple of the football grounds being used for the 2015 world cup (e.g. Old Trafford as pointed out on the previous page) if they would be willing to remove the first several rows to allow for a larger (and safer) in goal area since they will probably have to do it for the 2018 FIFA world cup anyway, (if they win the rights).


Why would they do that? And why would they "probably" have to do it for the 2018 anyway?


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

Because the in goal areas in Old Trafford are far too small and too close to the fence. The stands are too close to the field to satisfy FIFA regulations.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

CorliCorso said:


> There's at least 6, potentially 9 stadiums on that list with a capacity of 50,000+.
> 
> 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.


yes but italy tonga would probably be played at one of the smaller rugby or championship level grounds, and have much cheaper tickets. would fill out every game if they are staged in apropaite grounds with resonable prices.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i can't see why they would need to rip out seats if england win 2018 world cup. OT, Emirates etc host over 300 games a year with premier league, european comps etc it means there grounds have to follow strict uefa and fifa guidlines


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

But major tournaments have different regulations; you'll notice in champions league games how several stadiums have their first 4 or so rows of seats empty. The in goals at Old Trafford are rubbish and surely something must be done about them if they want to host any world cup games. The lowest attendence at the 2007 World Cup was 25,000 and I'm sure the attendences will only grow over time; the 2015 list of venues has a nice balanence of large and smaller venues.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Its a shame they didn't put Bristol in the bid as that is a big Rugby city.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Harry1990 said:


> i will post pics when i know how to post them on here. any help would be apreciated


Thought i'll give you a hand 

Wembley Stadium- 90,000 Seats



















Twickenham Stadium- 82,000 Seats




















Old Trafford Stadium- 76,212 Seats (expandable up to 96,000)



















Millenium Stadium- 74,500 seats










Emirates Stadium- 60,355 seats



















St James Park' - 52,387 seats (expandable up to 60,000)










Anfield Stadium (current)- 45,370 seats ( new stadium proposed 60,000 seats)









OR









Elland Road Stadium- 39,401 seats (expandable to around 50,000 seats)










St Mary's Stadium- 32,659 seats (expandable to between 45 and 50k seats)










Ricoh Arena Stadium- 32, 609










Welford Road Stadium- 24,000 (currently finishing expansion to 30,000 seats)

















[/QUOTE]










Kingsolm Stadium- 16,500


----------



## piles (Oct 31, 2007)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> Welford Road Stadium- 24,000 (currently finishing expansion to 30,000 seats)


Definitely a unique looking stadium. Am unsure if I like it or not. Any shots of the interior?


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

piles said:


> Definitely a unique looking stadium. Am unsure if I like it or not. Any shots of the interior?


looks like that is an older render, this is how it will look (similar but scaled down a bit):



berkshire royal said:


> There is a lot more information (webcams, more renders, videos, latest photos etc.) at the clubs official web page. http://www.leicestertigers.com/redevelopment/index.php


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> But major tournaments have different regulations; you'll notice in champions league games how several stadiums have their first 4 or so rows of seats empty.


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.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

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 (Jun 14, 2007)

It works for league.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

CorliCorso said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2008)

IHaveNoLegs said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2009)

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


----------



## Joop20 (Jun 29, 2004)

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 (May 6, 2006)

Pimpmaster said:


> 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 (Sep 12, 2002)

Joop20 said:


> 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 (Jun 25, 2007)

MS20 said:


> 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! 



Joop20 said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2009)

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 (Jun 9, 2009)

> 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 (Apr 1, 2007)

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. :cheers:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

lpioe said:


> 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 (Jan 24, 2006)

kerouac1848 said:


> 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 (Jun 9, 2009)

^^
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 (Jan 24, 2006)

kerouac1848 said:


> 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!!:nuts: 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?hno: 

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.:yes:


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

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 (Jan 24, 2006)

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 (Jun 9, 2009)

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 (Sep 12, 2002)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> 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...


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

gavstar00 said:


> I agree with that point but is there a case missing out on a golden opportunity for developing rugby as a whole with this competition? I know its been said previously but I think the RFU really had a duty to look to developing club rugby grounds as a legacy from the tournament, a duty they look to have ignored in favour of making more money with less outlay in terms of money using existing, larger non rugby specific stadiums.


I totally agree that the World Cup is a golden opportunity for developing the game in England, but I _completely_ disagree that the most desirable legacy of the tournament is a handful of expanded Premiership stadia.

I'd much rather see a massively successful tournament akin to the last one, with plenty of new supporters through the turnstiles some of whom go on to get involved with their local clubs, and revenue ploughed back into grassroots clubs, schools etc.



> Granted you are never going to get 40-50k attendance at the likes of a Harlequins game for example, but surely temporary expansion of existing club rugby stadiums, including permanent corporate facilities should have seriously taken in account? At least that way, long term, you can bring more money into the sport (unfortunately a necessary evil nowadays) and develop the sport further as a whole in the country?


Expanding Premiership stadia is only really going to benefit Premiership clubs - increasing attendances year on year is a sign that the game is in a healthy state at the top level, but the increased gate receipts don't exactly filter down to the grassroots level.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Andy-i said:


> I'd also be highly dubious of the abilty of some teams in the championship to pull in crowds over 10K every week in the GP.


Half the GP clubs can't do that either, though Wasps would probably manage to average over 10k in a bigger stadium.

Bristol and Exeter would probably manage 10k crowds, and Nottingham would against Leicester, but none of the other clubs have a big enough ground...


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> Half the GP clubs can't do that either, though Wasps would probably manage to average over 10k in a bigger stadium.
> 
> Bristol and Exeter would probably manage 10k crowds, and Nottingham would against Leicester, but none of the other clubs have a big enough ground...


Your bang on charlie 

Only Bristol and Exeter have applied to be audited from promotion. Shows they are the only clubs that could actually cope in the GP.

We have the strange scenario that if someone gets lucky in the championship playoffs and either of those 2 dont win it there will no promotion and relegation from the GPhno:

It seems that Rugby is copying football with the gulf between the top flight and tiers below it getting bigger!


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

does anyone think that if a new bath stadium if completed in time for the rugby world cup than it should be used. i heard bath are going to build a 25k stadium.

would rather have a rugby mad town like bath involved than say coventry?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry1990 said:


> does anyone think that if a new bath stadium if completed in time for the rugby world cup than it should be used. i heard bath are going to build a 25k stadium.
> 
> would rather have a rugby mad town like bath involved than say coventry?


If Bath did have a new stadium up and running by 2015 (a big if!), I'd like to see it replacing Kingsholm on the roster.


----------



## Isaac Newell (May 17, 2004)

Coventry was always one of Rugby's bigger clubs to be honest.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> If Bath did have a new stadium up and running by 2015 (a big if!), I'd like to see it replacing Kingsholm on the roster.


I would love it for Bath to be a host city for the rugby world cup, fingers crossed they can sort out their stadium problems in time.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Kobo said:


> I would love it for Bath to be a host city for the rugby world cup, fingers crossed they can sort out their stadium problems in time.


Things have a much greater chance of happening now that Bath have a new billionaire owner, but I still wouldn't hold your breath... hno:


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Isaac Newell said:


> Coventry was always one of Rugby's bigger clubs to be honest.


Maybe a long time ago!

Last year they were went bust, were relegated from the championship (2nd tier of English rugby) and averaged crowds of 1218 in the reg season and 1322 in the relegation playoffs (which included their 2 closest neighbours)

They aren't a big club in any sense now.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

With England now out of the WC i thought i would remove the dust from this thread and get it started again? So what stadiums think should/could be included or changed for the 2015 wc? Any expansion rumours /news?


----------



## Darloeye (Jun 15, 2010)

Would be happy with two games in London, Wembley and Twickenham. Would like to see St james park or the stadium of light host a few games or my home town stadium Darlington Arena host some but can't see that happening but think Newcastle and/or Sunderland host games. Old Trafford should host games with Leeds too. Not really sure about the other stadiums just has long has all the games are played in England !


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

I'd like to see Brighton's new stadium included.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Darloeye said:


> Would be happy with two games in London, Wembley and Twickenham. Would like to see St james park or the stadium of light host a few games or my home town stadium Darlington Arena host some but can't see that happening but think Newcastle and/or Sunderland host games. Old Trafford should host games with Leeds too. Not really sure about the other stadiums just has long has all the games are played in England !


St James Park is on the list, Sunderland is not. Old Trafford and Leeds are also on the list. 



RMB2007 said:


> I'd like to see Brighton's new stadium included.


St Marys is one of the proposed stadia. The better option for the south coast I would say :cheers:


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

I love brightons stadium too. I wish coventry was off and replaced by either a new bath stadium or like villa park. Cant understand why bristol isnt in the bid aswell


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Andy-i said:


> Your bang on charlie
> 
> Only Bristol and Exeter have applied to be audited from promotion. Shows they are the only clubs that could actually cope in the GP.
> 
> ...


the support for rugby drops off a cliff once you get past a dozen or so clubs.

IF they had any sense they'd expand the top tier to 14 or 16 clubs so they wouldn't have to relegate one viable club every year, to be replaced by the other one.


The fact is most football clubs in the country would struggle to be viable if they only played 11 league games each season. Without a big tv deal you can't run a professional sport on that kind of income.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Darloeye said:


> Would be happy with two games in London, Wembley and Twickenham. Would like to see St james park or the stadium of light host a few games or my home town stadium Darlington Arena host some but can't see that happening but think Newcastle and/or Sunderland host games. Old Trafford should host games with Leeds too. Not really sure about the other stadiums just has long has all the games are played in England !


Is the Darlington Arena still capped at 10K by the local council? It was something about there not being enough access IIRC. 

I guess Darlo don't need the extra capacity at the moment but I wonder how much money and work is required to improve the access to it.

As a FC Halifax town fan I know all about ambitious/dodgy (delete as applicable) owners! 
What's the feeling amongst the fans, about the condition Reynolds left the club in, with the stadium and what not?


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> the support for rugby drops off a cliff once you get past a dozen or so clubs.
> 
> IF they had any sense they'd expand the top tier to 14 or 16 clubs so they wouldn't have to relegate one viable club every year, to be replaced by the other one.
> 
> ...


Very true REV. The RFU massively overestimated the support/appeal of Club RU when they sold the old First division clubs the idea of the "Championship" A couple of years down the line and after some bankruptcies they have:


No sponsor (still)
No TV deal (Sky get it as part of the overall RFU deal and the clubs get a pittance from it) 
The B&I cup is a dead duck with no sponsorship or prize money and the clubs threatened to pull out unless the RFU paid their travel!
Only Bristol and Leeds are in any shape to be promoted and Leeds are a poor team with small crowds.
The average crowd this season is 1676 so with only 6 games a round you are talking about a league watched on average by less than 10K fans a week!
 
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see its not sustainable which is why nearly all the teams are semi-pro and dont have any wish to get promoted (due to the cost of meeting the premiership requirements which half the premiership don't meet anyway!!)


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Should they go to a periodic licensing system like Super League? People hate that because pro/rel is the custom in England but it does serve a purpose of providing stability to clubs like Wakefield and Salford.


----------



## lwa (Aug 2, 2010)

Apparently the WRU have today confirmed they will be hosting several games (as has been talked about, but not confirmed until now) in 2015. Meaning this will be the 4th European RWC, and the 4th at which Wales has hosted games (to England and Scotlands 3, and Ireland and Frances (?) 2).

Getting a joke now TBH - fair enough, Wales couldn't host it on their own and therefore needed help from some of England/Ireland/Scotland, but both England and France could EASILLY host it themselfs!



Also been announced that tier 1 nations (I.e. the 6 N's, and the new 4 Nations) have 'agreed in principal' to playing games midweek in 2015, meaning we should hopefully see a more balanced schedule that isn't unfair on the Tier 2 Nations (and the poor relations of the top tier - Scotland) like this year. However why do they have to agree to it? Why aren't the IRB just telling them how it is, and if the top sides don't like it, they don't have to come!



Lastly, does anyone know if/when the remaining phases of the Welford Road redevelopment are likely to be built? Looks like it will be a fantastic ground when finished - take it there is little chance of being finished for 2015 though?


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

I think wales is more about votes i believe it was arranged between the rfu and wru for welsh support for the england bid. I agree though apart from the celtic nations all of the other top ten should be able to host it on their own


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

vitaming said:


> I don't think Cardiff as a venue is a case of Wales selling their vote (again), England asked for use of the MS because it's the biggest venue close to the SW heartlands, and the pitch aside, *maybe the world's best rugby specific venue.*


I would say Twickenham is the best Rugby Specific Stadium. The Millenium Stadium is not rugby specific at all, it hosts football and other sports events.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Good Karma said:


> I would say Twickenham is the best Rugby Specific Stadium. The Millenium Stadium is not rugby specific at all, it hosts football and other sports events.


It depends what your definition of "rugby specific" is. Although the Millenium stadium hosts other sports, it's pitch dimensions were designed for Rugby.


----------



## sgroutage (Feb 25, 2011)

del


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Imo they should use villa park instead of coventry much bigger and better


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Or even molineux , st andrews or hawthorns


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

which one is bigger? Isnt Wembley better?


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

TEBC said:


> which one is bigger? Isnt Wembley better?


Although Wembley is occasionally used for rugby, it is primarily a football stadium. It was built and paid for by the English FA.

Twickenham is England's rugby home.

Wembley's capacity is 90,000. Twickenham's is 82,000.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Harry1990 said:


> Imo they should use villa park instead of coventry much bigger and better


Coventry's pitch dimensions might have had something to do with it. Visually, the seating bowl looks a lot more designed for Rugby than football. Notice the massive distance between the endline and the first row. Looks like about 13 metres at least. There won't be any complaints about the in-goal areas here


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

TEBC said:


> which one is bigger? Isnt Wembley better?


Wembley is big and commercially an extremely favourable venue. It will probably see a semi-final. Maybe even both. But there is no way that the final will be played anywhere but Twickenham. Twickenham is the home of the game after all.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

flierfy said:


> Wembley is big and commercially an extremely favourable venue. It will probably see a semi-final. Maybe even both. But there is no way that the final will be played anywhere but Twickenham. Twickenham is the home of the game after all.


It´s maybe the same as maracana for football?


----------



## 3SPIRES (Dec 14, 2006)

Harry1990 said:


> Imo they should use villa park instead of coventry much bigger and better


Has Villa Park ever staged a rugby match? I know that the Ricoh has staged Heineken Cup semi finals. Also what does it matter that Villa Park has 10,000 more seats, they would be lucky to even sell out the Ricoh to watch Tongo vs Namibia or whatever minor games it will stage.



Harry1990 said:


> Or even molineux , st andrews or hawthorns


The Ricoh is a bigger and better stadium than all of these three. Does St Andrews even have undersoil heating yet?


----------



## sgroutage (Feb 25, 2011)

del


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

TEBC said:


> It´s maybe the same as maracana for football?


Twickenham is to rugby what Wembley is to football; Wimbledon to tennis; Lords to cricket; and St Andrews to golf.

It is the home venue of the nation that gave the sport to the world.

The Maracana holds a different place place in the hearts and minds of anyone who loves football - it is the home venue of the greatest football playing nation on earth.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Has Villa Park ever staged a rugby match? I know that the Ricoh has staged Heineken Cup semi finals. Also what does it matter that Villa Park has 10,000 more seats, they would be lucky to even sell out the Ricoh to watch Tongo vs Namibia or whatever minor games it will stage.
> 
> 
> 
> The Ricoh is a bigger and better stadium than all of these three. Does St Andrews even have undersoil heating yet?


first of all calm yourself know need to to be so aggresive im not part of some anti-coventry mafia, it just my opinion that i prefer Villa Park etc to the ricoh obviously you being from coventry and im geussing being a CCFC fan your going to go there alot more than me and obviously any fan thinks there club ground is the nicest. its like i think White Hart Lane is the best place on earth (even if it is a run down 1899 building)

i was only making the point that in my opinion Villa Park, Molinuex, Hawthorns are more historic etc i don't dislike the Ricoh Arena, but im assuming the fact it has hosted rugby before means it got the nod who knows


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

3SPIRES said:


> Has Villa Park ever staged a rugby match? I know that the Ricoh has staged Heineken Cup semi finals. Also what does it matter that Villa Park has 10,000 more seats, they would be lucky to even sell out the Ricoh to watch Tongo vs Namibia or whatever minor games it will stage.
> 
> 
> 
> The Ricoh is a bigger and better stadium than all of these three. Does St Andrews even have undersoil heating yet?




what does size and undersoil heating have to do with making it a good stadium? is that how stadiums should be judged so you think the Stade De France is inferior to the Ricoh Arena cause it doesnt have undersoil heating?


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

sgroutage said:


> The best rugby specific stadium in the West Midlands - South West is easily Sixways in Worcester!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


would be interesting to see what this will look like as 20k ish capicity, judging by other rugby club ground devolpments should be interesting Thormond Park and Welford Road as well and the rugby league ground for the Salford City reds are so much better arcitecually than there football counterparts imo


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> would be interesting to see what this will look like as 20k ish capicity, judging by other rugby club ground devolpments should be interesting Thormond Park and Welford Road as well and the rugby league ground for the Salford City reds are so much better arcitecually than there football counterparts imo


The new Rotherham Utd ground is vastly superior to the Salford ground IMO. In fact i'd say St Helens new ground is better than Salford, and there is nothing Rugby specific in the Premiership that comes close to the AMEX.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Yer brightons ground is amazing i havent seen rotterhams ground tbh but ill take a look


----------



## k5villan (Mar 20, 2012)

re villa park - 

yes there has been rugby matches played there previously

there is planning in place to re-do the north stand, its the reason that we haven't got olympic football this summer whilst the smaller ricoh has, it's constantly being pushed back and messed about with thanks to the FFP rules and randy lerner seemingly not wanting to commit to it

or

we relayed the pitch last summer after take that played at a cost of £800,000, we have won the best prem pitch something like 3 times in the last 4 years so unless the rugby created the revenue to make it worthwhile (which at a guess it wont) the club has decided its not worth sacrificing another pitch for


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

^^

thanks for that. it seems years ago that Lerner mentioned the north stand expansion and nothing seems to have come of it as of yet? just checked the average attendance is down at 32k this season i was shocked initially but the fans obviously despise Mc Leish so it no surprise. 

i always thought they would try to get to the 55-60 k mark anyway, i dont believe for one moment a decent top 10 villa side wouldnt sell that out for most games in the league.


----------



## adeaide (Sep 16, 2008)

England (London , Wembley Stadium)












Wales (Cardiff , Millenium Stadium)














if you want to see Rugby World Cup Stadiums pictures , Please visit below URL.



http://cafe.daum.net/stade/Rugby_World_Cup_2003~2019

http://cafe.daum.net/stade/Rugby_World_Cup_1987~1999


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

apologises in advance for the bump  but alot of things have been coming out must be the end of the olympics i geuss, and with nearly a thousand days to go thought i would reopen my thread a little as the IRB have said England are on track to host a successful world cup in 2015

i believe that final venue selections are made, would love a new Bath Stadium included instead of Ricoh Arena, think venues get decided in the spring so i guess we are probably left with the venues we have at the moment. we also have to find out the pricing for tickets, and the draw dates for the group stage etc

one critisicm of the bid is that i understand using the very large capacity ground ie Old Trafford, SJP, Elland Road but i would have liked more rugby specific grounds apart from Welford Road and Kingsolm, mean bath or Northampton or Worcester etc could habve been used instead of coventry southampton etc

anyway only a thousand days and a bit to go and after a succesful olympics lets show the world that England is still an amazing Modern country that can host big events


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> apologises in advance for the bump  but alot of things have been coming out must be the end of the olympics i geuss, and with nearly a thousand days to go thought i would reopen my thread a little as the IRB have said England are on track to host a successful world cup in 2015
> 
> i believe that final venue selections are made, would love a new Bath Stadium included instead of Ricoh Arena, think venues get decided in the spring so i guess we are probably left with the venues we have at the moment. we also have to find out the pricing for tickets, and the draw dates for the group stage etc
> 
> ...


The problem is the Rugby grounds are way too small:

Bath (12300 and its a dump, the ground not the city!)
Northampton (13591)
Worcester (12068) 
could have been used instead of 
coventry (32609)
southampton (32689)

Unfortunately Rugby itself isn't big enough in England to host a profitable WC without using larger Footy stadiums or playing virtually all the games at Twickenham.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i know they arent big enough now but bath want a new ground with capicity in the 20-25 k range with a new owner last year, and i think Worcester can be expanded to a little over 20 k to and northampton have had plans to upgrade the last stand there although that keeps on getting blocked by northampton city council

i do agree with the need to use big stadiums and as a football fan too will be a great experince seeing England play at venues like Old Trafford, Anfield etc just hope the legacy of the World Cup is that club rigby really flourishes in England with an expanded premier league (stop relegation for 3 years promote the teams with grounds suitable for top flight Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds etc) and then fund the championship properly with the funds we get after 2015 to make sure that all teams in the championship can fufil premiership criteria so we dont have a repeat of the London Welsh situation

think a country thge side of England should have a premiership around the 15-20 team mark


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Harry1990 said:


> i know they arent big enough now but bath want a new ground with capicity in the 20-25 k range with a new owner last year, and i think Worcester can be expanded to a little over 20 k to and northampton have had plans to upgrade the last stand there although that keeps on getting blocked by northampton city council


I presume that the RFU would like to play the World Cup games in rugby grounds as well. The problem for them is that a World Cup needs to be played in finished stadiums and not in fancy proposals. So they had to resort to football grounds.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i dont have a problem per se with using football grounds but i thinks it just a shame that ffor some of the pool games featuring lesser lights of world rugby rugby specific ground couldnt have been used but i see on the other hand this could generate a substatial amount of money and interest for rugby in this country so all good i suppose


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

It's not quite that simple. As a requirement for hosting, the RFU had to contractually guarantee the IRB 80 million pounds in ticket revenue. The last 25 million pounds is guaranteed by the government but it would make for horrible optics to have to go cap in hand for the shortfall. The RFU is under immense pressure to make the 80 million pound target and can't afford to sacrifice capacity.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Does the rfu keep anytbing over the 80 million mark promised to the irb than ?


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> Does the rfu keep anytbing over the 80 million mark promised to the irb than ?


I think they do but as quoted above they are also liable for any shortfall, hence the use of larger football stadiums.

As for the your earlier quote, Bath have been exploring the option of a new stadium for years and whilst Northampton are due to start a small expansion soon, the Worcester plans are just plans at the moment.

The RFU have to start thinking about ticketing and need real capacity very soon rather than proposed capacity that may or may not happen.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> i know they arent big enough now but bath want a new ground with capicity in the 20-25 k range with a new owner last year, and i think Worcester can be expanded to a little over 20 k to and northampton have had plans to upgrade the last stand there although that keeps on getting blocked by northampton city council
> 
> i do agree with the need to use big stadiums and as a football fan too will be a great experince seeing England play at venues like Old Trafford, Anfield etc just hope the legacy of the World Cup is that club rigby really flourishes in England with an expanded premier league (stop relegation for 3 years promote the teams with grounds suitable for top flight Bristol, Newcastle, Leeds etc) and then fund the championship properly with the funds we get after 2015 to make sure that all teams in the championship can fufil premiership criteria so we dont have a repeat of the London Welsh situation
> 
> think a country thge side of England should have a premiership around the 15-20 team mark


15 may be doable but 20 is very ambitious. The average crowd in the Championship is less than 2000 and over half the teams are semi-pro and playing in very small grounds.
In terms of crowds, clubs and profile its smaller than the Blue Square conference. The RFU have never been able to find a sponsor for it.

As for London Welsh, what else could they do? There isn't the money in Club Rugby union to build lots of 10K grounds. 
It would be better to relax the stupid Premiership minimum standards criteria when lots of clubs in the premiership don't meet either primacy of tenure or get near a 10K average gate. I'd make it 6K.

It's interesting that of the 3 clubs you mention:

Bristol are tennants of Bristol Rovers FC
Newcastle sold their ground back to Northumbria University
Leeds RU are part of Leeds rugby group but they are very much secondary to the Rhinos.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Thats why imo 15 to start but to achieve this promotion would have to imo be suspended for a few seasons an the full time proffesional rugby clubs like leeds , bristol etc go up and then after all championship clubs are fully profesional you could reintroduce promotion /relegation on a 3 up 3 dowm system


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> Thats why imo 15 to start but to achieve this promotion would have to imo be suspended for a few seasons an the full time proffesional rugby clubs like leeds , bristol etc go up and then after all championship clubs are fully profesional you could reintroduce promotion /relegation on a 3 up 3 dowm system


Your overestimating the appeal of club rugby though. Once you promote those 3 you are left with the following teams:

Club Average gate 11/12 Capacity

Bedford 2641 7000 
Cornish Pirates 2248 3500
Doncaster 1388 3075
Jersey 2470* 4000
London Scottish 1273 4500
Moseley 826 3000
Nottingham 1266 19588**
Plymouth 1761 8500
Rotherham 1443 2500

* promoted this term so based on 1 match this season.
** Tennants of Notts County FC

None of those clubs have the money to build or expand to 10K and no real need. 6K would be fine.
Also funding in the Championship barely covers player cost let alone building new stadiums.

If want some real background on the Championship take a look here:
http://www.rolling-maul.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=1&title=the-championship


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

One other factor is that rugby teams only play once a week due to the recovery time required for a more physical sport.

They might only play 22 league games, but they also have to squeeze in 6 (minimum) Heineken cup matches and 4 (minimum) LV Cup games too.

That said, I do think expanding to perhaps 16 teams - over time, not in one go - would be a good way to go, allowing in teams who appear to have the support as well as the stadium.

I don't agree with the relaxing of the stadium size though, purely because a team playing out of 6000 capacity ground would struggle to field a competitive team.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Maybe instead of a fixed number for minimum capicity they could ascess promtion to the top flight on a case by case merit


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> One other factor is that rugby teams only play once a week due to the recovery time required for a more physical sport.
> 
> They might only play 22 league games, but they also have to squeeze in 6 (minimum) Heineken cup matches and 4 (minimum) LV Cup games too.
> 
> ...


10K is too big. These teams would need a 400-500% increase to fill it.

If you start at 6K then at least they have the potential to increase over time if they can stay in the Division. Ploughing masses of money into a 10K stadium followed by probable relegation and 2K crowds is financial suicide. Thats why so many clubs have to rent football grounds.

Also why 10K when some AP clubs dont get anywhere near 10K for home* fixtures. Last seasons AP home* gates for example:

Exeter 8325
Sale 7900
Wasps 6727
Saracens 6342
Newcastle 5311

* Twickenham games and loss leaders at Wembley skew gates massively


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

All the people complaining that too many soccer stadia are being used instead of club rugby ground would do well to remember the 2007 RWC - not a single traditional club ground used and superb attendances (and atmosphere) for all the games - the eight pool matches not involving a Tier 1 nation were:

45,000 for Canada v Fiji
35,526 for Portugal v Romania
34,500 for Fiji v Japan
34,124 for Samoa v USA
33,810 for Canada v Japan
32,549 for Georgia v Namibia
25,000 for Tonga v USA
24,128 for Samoa v Tonga

Personally I think they should remove Kingsholm from the bid as it's way too small - the tournament deserves to be on the biggest stage possible and as many people should have the opportunity to go as possible. I've promised to take my nephew to a game at St. James's Park - I'd be pissed off if they decided to play all the North East games at a "rugby" ground like Kingston Park instead, and tickets were too hard or expensive to buy...


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

I wasnt complaining bout using football grounds as i said im excited about seeing rugby in historic and different venues just a shame rugby grounds are.t up to scratch yet hopefully interest in rugby grows after and grounds improve


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

For me, Harry is right. I understand the need to fill larger grounds for revenues sake, but I think they missed a trick here by not re/developing grounds that are used by rugby clubs. 

You talk about a legacy for a tournament, and the one thing that stands out is usually infrastructure that you've left behind. RWC in England will be low cost, and reap high revenues, but where is the legacy for the rugby clubs whose grounds need expansion or refurbishment?


----------



## Faustus (Nov 11, 2009)

As long as the maximum number of people get to see exciting matches in a comfortable environment, I don't care what venues they use. It's a rugby competition, not a build a white elephant competition.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> All the people complaining that too many soccer stadia are being used instead of club rugby ground would do well to remember the 2007 RWC - not a single traditional club ground used and superb attendances (and atmosphere) for all the games - the eight pool matches not involving a Tier 1 nation were:
> 
> 45,000 for Canada v Fiji
> 35,526 for Portugal v Romania
> ...





Harry1990 said:


> I wasnt complaining bout using football grounds as i said im excited about seeing rugby in historic and different venues just a shame rugby grounds are.t up to scratch yet hopefully interest in rugby grows after and grounds improve


I think most of us with a passing interest in Rugby Union know that like Cricket the Game's strength is in the International Test scene rather than Club/Franchise. Club support is almost irrelevent to National Support.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> I think most of us with a passing interest in Rugby Union know that like Cricket the Game's strength is in the International Test scene rather than Club/Franchise. Club support is almost irrelevent to National Support.


English and European club rugby scene has been and is growing. 

Rugby can have what football has, which is a strong club and international scene. It just needs time. Infrastructure improvements to club grounds for World Cups would speed up the process.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Andy-i said:


> 10K is too big. These teams would need a 400-500% increase to fill it.


Then don't let them in.



> If you start at 6K then at least they have the potential to increase over time if they can stay in the Division. Ploughing masses of money into a 10K stadium followed by probable relegation and 2K crowds is financial suicide.


Going the expansion route, there'd be no relegation.



> Also why 10K when some AP clubs dont get anywhere near 10K for home* fixtures. Last seasons AP home* gates for example:
> 
> Exeter 8325
> Sale 7900
> ...


They are average crowds. Crowds vary. The highest crowds for 2011 (can't find 2012 figures) were Exeter (10439), Sale (8649), Wasps (9206), Saracens (10439)


With 6000 seats, the odds are a team will _average_ more like 5000, and struggle to field a team that'd win more than 3 or 4 games a year.

You could maybe make a case for 8000, but allowing teams in to be whipping boys wouldn't really help sell the game. I can't imagine London Welsh fans will enjoy this season too much once the novelty wears off, and I was at their 3-40 defeat at Harlequins on Friday, and you could tell the home crowd didn't find it all that exciting either. Yes, running in six tries is nice, but it makes the game a bit flat when you sort of know the game is over after about 10 minutes.


The club game in England is growing. While it is true that much of the focus is on the internationals rather than the domestic game, I think that's much less true than in the past.

One dark cloud I think the game does have though is ticket pricing. Premiership rugby is not a cheap day out. They might be able to sell out, but does £28 for a terrace place at Northampton represent good value for money?

Harlequins do offer a number of £22 tickets, which is decent enough, but you notice they are very popular, selling out first, despite their less than ideal locations.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> I think most of us with a passing interest in Rugby Union know that like Cricket the Game's strength is in the International Test scene rather than Club/Franchise. Club support is almost irrelevent to National Support.


There is a big difference between the domestic game in cricket and rugby here. The former really is irrelevant but the latter isn't it.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Good differing opinion  one thing i like about rugby is tne national teams are still the pinnacle or rugby players but people must remeber pro rugby union is its infancy compared to football the football league was set up in the 1880's where as rugby union's league was only introduced in 1987 i think so it very harsh to compare the too


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Would keep larger venues just praying for an inyerest surge in rugby its a much cheaper sport to follow espevially for young family can get a St at quins for around 120 quid think it will take time but think rugby will get better and better in england as long as both clubs and rfu work together surely a strong club game benefits england in the future


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Then don't let them in.
> 
> 
> Going the expansion route, there'd be no relegation.
> ...


Fair enough but in that case, despite your claim that the game is growing, there'd actually be no point in promoting anyone bar Bristol.

If Leeds and Newcastle come up, the'd still be getting crowds in the 5-6K region, which in Leeds case make for a dire atmosphere with a 20K ground a quarter full. Leeds are actually playing some games away from Headlingley at smaller club grounds, as they now only get around 2K in the championship.

You could make a case for promoting Nottingham as they have a big ground in Notts Countys Meadow Lane but they get even smaller crowds than Newcastle or Leeds.

I actually think a 6-8K ground at least 80% full, will generate way more atmosphere than a 10-12K ground 40-50% full and give those teams a better chance of upsetting the bigger boys at home. 

Also when talking about the potential growth of club rugby in England, it shouldn't be forgotten that there are big clubs in the north playing in front of big crowds in big grounds.
They just happen to be playing another code!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Andy-i said:


> Fair enough but in that case, despite your claim that the game is growing, there'd actually be no point in promoting anyone bar Bristol.
> 
> If Leeds and Newcastle come up, the'd still be getting crowds in the 5-6K region, which in Leeds case make for a dire atmosphere with a 20K ground a quarter full. Leeds are actually playing some games away from Headlingley at smaller club grounds, as they now only get around 2K in the championship.


I agree. Crowds are growing, but the number of potential top sides isn't that high currently, but I think the likes of Exeter and Worcester weren't obvious candidates a few years back either.

I would actually favour having Leeds and Newcastle in, as there's a chance they could build and grow if they didn't get relegated every time they came up.




> Also when talking about the potential growth of club rugby in England, it shouldn't be forgotten that there are big clubs in the north playing in front of big crowds in big grounds.
> They just happen to be playing another code!


Aviva Premiership crowds are actually higher than rugby league, albeit with 2 fewer teams, and skewed to a degree by Leicester pulling in 24000 every game, but the fact that they are even comparable shows how the club game has grown. It has had a lot of catching up to do though, due to the governing body's complete aversion to leagues and the idea of the game being professional.


If you look at both codes though, one thing that does stand out is the high number of top sides from towns that either have no pro football club, or one one that plays low down in the leagues. If clubs do emerge as premiership candidates, they could well come from places like Bedford or Cornwall rather than places where they have to compete with football clubs for fans.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> I agree. Crowds are growing, but the number of potential top sides isn't that high currently, but I think the likes of Exeter and Worcester weren't obvious candidates a few years back either.
> 
> I would actually favour having Leeds and Newcastle in, as there's a chance they could build and grow if they didn't get relegated every time they came up.
> 
> ...


I wasn't comparing one with the other (there's not much in it tbf) but pointing out in the north of England, RU's potential for growth is affected by League as well as football.
Although widely played in the north of England, RU will always be the 3rd most popular spectator sport by a wide margin.


----------



## k5villan (Mar 20, 2012)

MS20 said:


> Rugby can have what football has, which is a strong club and international scene. It just needs time. Infrastructure improvements to club grounds for World Cups would speed up the process.


was thinking of respoding with this yesterday with the comment "rugby can only have what football has if the tv deal and red top coverage increases"

and then today i saw that BT has outbid sky for premiership games, could be a huge step forward


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Rev Stickleback said:


> If you look at both codes though, one thing that does stand out is the high number of top sides from towns that either have no pro football club, or one one that plays low down in the leagues. If clubs do emerge as premiership candidates, they could well come from places like Bedford or Cornwall rather than places where they have to compete with football clubs for fans.


True,

For Northampton*, Exeter*, Gloucester, Worcester and Bath you have St-Helens, Warrington, Castleford, Wakefield and Widnes

* they do have football league teams but they get smaller crowds than the rugby teams.

Interestingly, the 2 best supported teams in either code at their own grounds (no Twickenham, Wembley or Magic weekends) both have big football teams in the City/Town pulling in bigger crowds

Leicester Tigers 20705, Leicester City 23036 
Wigan Warriors 16043, Wigan Athletic 17992


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

MS20 said:


> You talk about a legacy for a tournament, and the one thing that stands out is usually infrastructure that you've left behind. RWC in England will be low cost, and reap high revenues, but where is the legacy for the rugby clubs whose grounds need expansion or refurbishment?


The legacy I'd like the 2015 Rugby World Cup to leave behind is increased exposure and participation, especially at school/mini/junior level and for girls.

A few clubs do need expanded/refurbished grounds, but a 20,000-seat Bath or Northampton stadium would still be a less attractive World Cup venue than an existing 30 to 40,000-seat soccer stadium.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Andy-i said:


> Interestingly, the 2 best supported teams in either code at their own grounds (no Twickenham, Wembley or Magic weekends) both have big football teams in the City/Town pulling in bigger crowds
> 
> Leicester Tigers 20705, Leicester City 23036
> Wigan Warriors 16043, Wigan Athletic 17992


Wigan have only recently passed Leeds Rhinos as the best-supported Super League team, but of course they also play second fiddle to a soccer team.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> A few clubs do need expanded/refurbished grounds, but a 20,000-seat Bath or Northampton stadium would still be a less attractive World Cup venue than an existing 30 to 40,000-seat soccer stadium.


Maybe, but this isn't the football world cup, so it may be better to hold some of the games between the lesser teams in smaller venues. Georgia v Fiji at Northampton would probably look rather better, even in a 15000 capacity venue, than the same match played at the Ricoh Arena. It would probably sell more tickets too.

Rugby Union could be a hard sell in the north of England, where many of the bigger grounds are, while there aren't that many big grounds in the south outside London.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

What are people opinion on having every england fixture at twickenham ? Does anyone think its a better idea to play the friendlies or even 3/4 games in the november friendlies around the country


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Twickenham's too much of a cash cow not to be used 90% of the time otherwise I'd agree. If Bristol had a new stadium, the odd game at Wembley and some up north in Rugby League territory.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Maybe, but this isn't the football world cup, so it may be better to hold some of the games between the lesser teams in smaller venues. Georgia v Fiji at Northampton would probably look rather better, even in a 15000 capacity venue, than the same match played at the Ricoh Arena. It would probably sell more tickets too.


I disagree. Only two games in 2007 had an attendance less than the capacity of the Ricoh Arena.



> Rugby Union could be a hard sell in the north of England, where many of the bigger grounds are, while there aren't that many big grounds in the south outside London.


Again I disagree. There are hundreds of clubs in the North, most with thriving junior sections - I expect Elland Road to be as good as sold out for its games, with the number of clubs in Leeds alone. Rugby union is far more weighted towards the south of the country in France than it is in England, yet games in Lens and Nantes were just as well patronised as others.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry1990 said:


> What are people opinion on having every england fixture at twickenham ? Does anyone think its a better idea to play the friendlies or even 3/4 games in the november friendlies around the country


I think it's unfortunate but understandable - Twickenham holds more than any stadium bar Wembley (and has more seats available if you exclude Club Wembley) and is owned by the RFU. For Six Nations matches or games against the SANZAR nations it would effectively be throwing money away to play somewhere else.

Scotland and Wales have a history of playing one game per autumn in a smaller soccer stadium (Wales less so nowadays) - maybe the Fiji match could have been shifted to the City of Manchester Stadium, but again this would probably mean a loss for the RFU.

Come the 2015 Rugby World Cup, this won't be a consideration as the cost of renting the soccer and rugby club stadia will be the same overall regardless of who plays in them, so the organisers are free to organise England games wherever they want (although Kingsholm or Welford Road would be idiotic).


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Harry1990 said:


> What are people opinion on having every england fixture at twickenham ? Does anyone think its a better idea to play the friendlies or even 3/4 games in the november friendlies around the country


English rugby is fortunate to have a real home. What purpose should it have to leave Twickenham? Even if it's just for one game, it is pointless.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> I disagree. Only two games in 2007 had an attendance less than the capacity of the Ricoh Arena.


it was 7, but that's splitting hairs. It just seems a little odd to (possibly) use four large northern football grounds, as well as possibly Southampton.

Being held during the football season could also prove to be a bit of a problem. It's not impossible to play football one day and rugby the next over a weekend, but it's not ideal either.

Hopefully I'll be proven completely wrong. After all, I was one of the many who thought there was no chance of a lot of the Olympics events coming anywhere near selling out.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

although i agree england is lucky to have twickenham as a home stadium , i went to my first game in 1995 aged 5 as England beat scotland to win the grand slam the ground has always had a place in my heart one of those special sports arenas like Lords or wimbledon. i would love rugby to become a true national sport maybe playing one autumn international or a friendly before a summer tour away from twickers in say elland road, anfield, st james park against say samoa, fiji, canada etc would be a good idea give northern fans a chance to see england play pack it out infront of 50 odd thousand fans better than 60 k in and 82 k stadium


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Is there a standard size for a world cup rugby pitch?

Would there be an issue with some football grounds not being able to fit one in?


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

I think that they are making exceptions for the world cup i believe when england played against argentina a few years back the pitch looked quite a bit smaller think the in goal area is a bit smaller anyway more than the actual try line to try line length


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

There's no standard size - Law 1.2 simply says:


1.2 REQUIRED DIMENSIONS FOR THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE

(a) Dimensions. The field of play does not exceed 100 metres in length and 70 metres in width. Each in-goal does not exceed 22 metres in length and 70 metres in width. 

(b) The length and breadth of the playing area are to be as near as possible to the dimensions indicated. All the areas are rectangular. 

(c) The distance from the goal line to the dead ball line should be not less than 10 metres where practicable. 


At soccer grounds it's rarely possible to fit the full 144 metres in length, so the in-goal areas are usually much shorter.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

lwa said:


> You don't even count Murrayfield as a rugby ground? Really? How exactly is it a multi-sport venue? Is it because of the useless running track?


Hearts played some European games there. And Murrayfield was named as one of the potential venues for celtic Euros bid. The SRU doesn't seem to mind a few games of football in their home.
Certainly, Murrayfield is almost exclusively a rugby ground. But almost exclusively is not exclusively. And where else can you draw the line between single-sport and multi-sport venues if not there.



lwa said:


> Except that it isn't, because aside from Welford Road none of these grounds are actually of much use in their current forms...


Welford Road and Twickenham.



lwa said:


> Not to mention that other countries (South Africa) are in a far better position. And French club rugby is just as 'well equpied' as the English are. Arguable more so.. (As I said earlier, half the Premiership grounds don't even meet their own minimum requirments!)


When I say that English rugby is well equipped with ground capacities then 80% of this statement is down to one particular ground alone. Premiership grounds are indeed rather underwhelming in size and stature. But as neither the FFR nor the SARU own a modern 82'000 seater. So, I still think that English rugby is better equipped overall.



lwa said:


> Granted, that would probably give you more seats than NZ could manage (NZ isn't the benchmark of a successful RWC though), but still leaves you 3-5 grounds and several hundred thousand seats short.


I'm well aware of the flaws in such a range of venues. And for that and other reasons the actual World Cup in England will feature some football stadiums as well as a stadium in Wales.



lwa said:


> Meanwhile, did France use a single venue in 2007 that wasn't union or publically owned?


Probably not. The 2007 World Cup wasn't played entirely in France though and is therefore no even comparison for an All-English World Cup.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

flierfy said:


> Hearts played some European games there. And Murrayfield was named as one of the potential venues for celtic Euros bid. The SRU doesn't seem to mind a few games of football in their home.
> Certainly, Murrayfield is almost exclusively a rugby ground. But almost exclusively is not exclusively. And where else can you draw the line between single-sport and multi-sport venues if not there.


Any stadium is potentially a multi-sport venue. Wembley has hosted soccer, rugby union, rugby league, gridiron and motorsports, Twickenham has hosted rugby union and rugby league, the Millennium Stadium has hosted soccer, rugby union, rugby league and speedway, Lord's has hosted cricket and archery, The Oval has hosted cricket and Aussie Rules, Old Trafford has hosted soccer, rugby league and rugby union, Welford Road has hosted rugby union, gridiron and rugby league, etc. etc. etc.



> Probably not. The 2007 World Cup wasn't played entirely in France though and is therefore no even comparison for an All-English World Cup.


The 2015 World Cup is unlikely to be played entirely in England, unfortunately.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

CharlieP said:


> Any stadium is potentially a multi-sport venue.


Potentially anyway, but even actually is virtually any stadium a multi-sport venue.
And as I've learnt that Rugby League has already been played at Twickenham I can removed it from the one-sport venue list as well.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

depends if you think Wales is a country or not I suppose, but i have no problem with the Millennium Stadium being used per se as long as it stays to just one outside of England, will be interesting to see the final list of grounds now, cant wait for that and the group draw, since the Olympic games ended the Rugby World Cup feels more real, as i think its the next big tournament the country hosts


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

one thing i do worry about is the train infrastructure in England, if only that high speed railway had been started 6 years ago we would be laughing now


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Harry1990 said:


> one thing i do worry about is the train infrastructure in England, if only that high speed railway had been started 6 years ago we would be laughing now


There's no other world cup host where you'd be able to get between the two most distant stadiums by train in a shorter time, I'd wager.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Harry1990 said:


> I think that they are making exceptions for the world cup i believe when england played against argentina a few years back the pitch looked quite a bit smaller think the in goal area is a bit smaller anyway more than the actual try line to try line length


In previous Test Matches both Argentina and Scotland have narrowed their pitches to 64m from the normal 68/70m without informing Australia in an effort to counter Australia's Outside Backs. Sneaky form, not in the spirit of the game but technically allowed.



CharlieP said:


> There's no standard size - Law 1.2 simply says:
> 
> 
> 1.2 REQUIRED DIMENSIONS FOR THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
> ...


Old Trafford is gonna need some padding along the end fences because of the tiny ingoal area and slop down at the end of the playing field. If the playing area is shrunk down to say 95m from 100m, it will be an interesting kicking game.

The flexibility of Pitch dimensions will make a North American World Cup easier to hold.


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

lwa said:


> Define 'non-rugby grounds'?
> 
> That said, some countries (France and South Africa spring to mind) could host a successful RWC without using a single venue entirely owned by a football association (actually, I will make that any sporting body) or one of it's clubs. England, at this moment in time, aren't one of them.


Of the 10 venues used for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, only 1 is owned by a sporting body. Loftus Versfeld is owned by the Blue Bulls Rugby Union, the other 9 are all owned by their city councils. So yes, SA could do it without stadiums owned by sports bodies.


----------



## thomasKing (Jun 5, 2008)

CharlieP said:


> Old Trafford will be one of the four main stadia in the current bid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From the plans I have seen, Old Trafford does not seem to be one of the four main stadiums in the sense that the knock-out phase will involve four stadiums but not old Trafford. The two semis and final will be at Twickenham and the four quarters will be one each for Twickenham, Cardiff, wembley and the olympic stadium. No club football ground appear scheduled beyond the group phase.

These may be only be preliminary plans but that fact alone, that the four main venues do not belong to football clubs, makes it quite clear that football clubs are not crucial and its certainly absurd to suggest the cup would be moved to south africa. In fact that logic would probably doom the chance of the cup reaching its financial targets as you are effectively telling the football clubs to set their own price. that will not come cheap.
I only suggested a non-football world cup because of very negative comments coming from the premier league, which I basically translate into meaning they want truckloads more money. There is no reason to bow to that. 

Your own calculations actually support the view that football grounds arent that important financially. Dont forget that the extra available tickets in football grounds will mainly be for minnow matches in the group phase and they will be by far the cheapest of the tournament and quite a few may not even be sold. And millions will be saved in rent to football clubs. As for the spread of the tournamnet, you would still be going to Leeds, and Exeter is hardly more London-centric than Southampton. 

You are right, though, that it would be more London/cardiff centric when it comes to the big games and that will hurt the tournament. Thats my point about Old Trafford being a big loss. Its big enough and good enough and with a perfect location quite centrally in the north. Very well suited, probably for England, Ireland and Wales playing group games there.


----------



## thomasKing (Jun 5, 2008)

Walbanger said:


> In previous Test Matches both Argentina and Scotland have narrowed their pitches to 64m from the normal 68/70m without informing Australia in an effort to counter Australia's Outside Backs. Sneaky form, not in the spirit of the game but technically allowed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I expect they will simply remove the first few rows of seats and probably cover the next few in padding of some sort. It wouldnt be a first. Until a few years ago, many english clubs couldnt actually use the first few rows of seats for Champions League football ( because of some regulations about height of advertising boards or something) and just covered them up, or even removed them as I think old Trafford did when they hosted the final


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

thomasKing said:


> I expect they will simply remove the first few rows of seats and probably cover the next few in padding of some sort.


I can't see that going down too well with the season ticket holders who have those seats, unless they can put them back quickly for any home league games during the world cup.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

thomasKing said:


> From the plans I have seen, Old Trafford does not seem to be one of the four main stadiums in the sense that the knock-out phase will involve four stadiums but not old Trafford. The two semis and final will be at Twickenham and the four quarters will be one each for Twickenham, Cardiff, wembley and the olympic stadium. No club football ground appear scheduled beyond the group phase.


Can you publish a link to these plans, or give more details? It's only very recently that the possibility of using the Olympic Stadium has been mooted, and having three quarter-finals, both semi-finals and the final in London sounds absolutely ridiculous.



> These may be only be preliminary plans but that fact alone, that the four main venues do not belong to football clubs, makes it quite clear that football clubs are not crucial and its certainly absurd to suggest the cup would be moved to south africa.


As I've already explained, that was a bit of hyperbole on my part and not any kind of prediction - it was easier to type that than a long-winded expression about how the bid process involved a certain number of medium-capacity stadia up and down the country and how shrinking the tournament to one with all the big games in London would stink of bait-and-switch to the unsuccessful bidders.



> Your own calculations actually support the view that football grounds arent that important financially. Dont forget that the extra available tickets in football grounds will mainly be for minnow matches in the group phase and they will be by far the cheapest of the tournament and quite a few may not even be sold. And millions will be saved in rent to football clubs. As for the spread of the tournamnet, you would still be going to Leeds, and Exeter is hardly more London-centric than Southampton.


Headingley Carnegie and Sandy Park are hardly adequate venues for a modern World Cup though - the former is mostly standing room and the latter has a capacity of 10,000.



> You are right, though, that it would be more London/cardiff centric when it comes to the big games and that will hurt the tournament. Thats my point about Old Trafford being a big loss. Its big enough and good enough and with a perfect location quite centrally in the north. Very well suited, probably for England, Ireland and Wales playing group games there.


Games involving England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Australia and New Zealand should, in my view, be in 40,000+ stadia - having all these games in London and Cardiff (and possibly Manchester) would spoil the tournament for me.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

thomasKing said:


> I expect they will simply remove the first few rows of seats and probably cover the next few in padding of some sort. It wouldnt be a first. Until a few years ago, many english clubs couldnt actually use the first few rows of seats for Champions League football ( because of some regulations about height of advertising boards or something) and just covered them up, or even removed them as I think old Trafford did when they hosted the final


What????

Old trafford has hosted dozens of RL matches (including test matches and Grand Finals) and at least a couple of RU test matches, without it being an issue before.

They wont remove seats, thats a ridiculous suggestion (not quite as ridiculous as having an English RWC entirely in London and Cardiff though). They will just have small in goal areas.

Also why do people keep saying the Olympic stadium will be hosting matches when the RWC committee have merely stated they are looking into its availability and there is nothing concrete in place.
No one knows if the Stadium conversion will be complete in 2015, let alone what the capacity of the stadium or who its main tenant will be.

This thread seems to of turned into some fantasy competition for people to dream up solutions to a non existent problem. The RWC organisers have been co-operating with the football ground owners from the beginning of the bid. Where is the documented proof that they have become uncooperative?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

From the mouth of Ross Young, chief executive of England Rugby 2015:



> "This debate has seen blogs on websites saying 'Why don't we just hold everything at the Olympic Stadium, Wembley and Twickenham?' Between those three venues, we have got plenty of capacity, but it is not the London 2015 World Cup.
> 
> "The whole point is that it is a tournament that gives access to rugby fans across England and we get the ability to recreate extra special rugby weekends in the likes of Newcastle and Manchester."


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Yeah, let everyone enjoy scrum resets.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

CharlieP said:


> Games involving England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Australia and New Zealand should, in my view, be in 40,000+ stadia - having all these games in London and Cardiff (and possibly Manchester) would spoil the tournament for me.


Did the circumstance that 6 out of 8 play-off matches were played at Eden Park spoil last years World Cup in New Zealand for you as well? The World Cup in France and Australia weren't much better in this regard. Concentrating the play-off matches in a few large stadiums seems to be a tradition already for Rugby World Cups. It is the most economical way anyway.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

flierfy said:


> Did the circumstance that 6 out of 8 play-off matches were played at Eden Park spoil last years World Cup in New Zealand for you as well? The World Cup in France and Australia weren't much better in this regard. Concentrating the play-off matches in a few large stadiums seems to be a tradition already for Rugby World Cups. It is the most economical way anyway.


I'm not talking about the play-offs (eight matches including the "bronze medal match"), I'm talking about the 40 games that happen before that. Some people seem to be suggesting using three large London stadia plus the Millennium Stadium for the big games, with club rugby grounds as filler for the minnows.

And yes, it was a great shame that Christchurch wasn't available for use in the quarter-finals.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> There will definately be some emptier games, some of the lesser known teams just won't attract the crowds so send them to Leicester or kingsholm or Southampton (or Brighton) and fill them


The most recent equivalent world cup was France 2007 which sold very well, and the Olympics showed the public appetite for big sports events. I think the tournament could sell very well, though unfortunately stadia being skewed towards London and the North and not the Midlands and South West will not help.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rascar said:


> The most recent equivalent world cup was France 2007 which sold very well


Precisely. The four games between the bottom two teams in each pool were pretty well attended in 2007 - we should be able to do just as well as the French public:

Pool A - USA v Tonga: 25,000 @ Montpellier (33,900)
Pool B - Canada v Japan: 33,810 @ Bordeaux (34,440)
Pool C - Romania v Portugal: 35,526 @ Toulouse (35,700)
Pool D - Georgia v Namibia: 32,549 @ Lens (41,400) 



> I think the tournament could sell very well, though unfortunately stadia being skewed towards London and the North and not the Midlands and South West will not help.


The stadia are "skewed" that way because that's where the large stadia are - Villa Park is the only 40,000+ stadium in the Midlands and there aren't any that hold more than 25,000 in the whole South West (which is why the Millennium Stadium is in the equation).


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

A couple of thoughts,

Wales and the MS:
I'm pretty sure the organisers have said that Wales wont play any group games in the MS, due to complaints from other unions, that they have always played games there during previous RWC's.

Olympic Stadium:
I think it may be dropped from the list, as it will probably still be undergoing reconstruction up until the RWC and it would be very risky to include a stadium that may not be ready. 
Also even if finished its capacity will be around 60K, not the 80K lots of people keep mentioning and it will be crap for watching Football or Rugby.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> The stadia are "skewed" that way because that's where the large stadia are - Villa Park is the only 40,000+ stadium in the Midlands and there aren't any that hold more than 25,000 in the whole South West (which is why the Millennium Stadium is in the equation).


Of course I appreciate that, it would just have been nice if a few other club grounds like Northampton and Exeter were used, despite their capacities. I hope Villa Park and Coventry get a reasonable number of games, they're not the most glamourous of stadia but they serve a larger more rugby orientated population than the likes of St James Park.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rascar said:


> Of course I appreciate that, it would just have been nice if a few other club grounds like Northampton and Exeter were used, despite their capacities.


I disagree. Using a 15,000 capacity (which both currently fall below) club ground would mean that either the locals who follow that club or fans who want to travel to England to follow their team can't get tickets. The club grounds are too small.



> I hope Villa Park and Coventry get a reasonable number of games, they're not the most glamourous of stadia but they serve a larger more rugby orientated population than the likes of St James Park.


What do you mean a "more rugby-orientated population"?


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Andy-i said:


> Olympic Stadium:
> I think it may be dropped from the list, as it will probably still be undergoing reconstruction up until the RWC and it would be very risky to include a stadium that may not be ready.
> Also even if finished its capacity will be around 60K, not the 80K lots of people keep mentioning and it will be crap for watching Football or Rugby.


I think it should be dropped - Twickenham and Wembley should be sufficient for London.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> What do you mean a "more rugby-orientated population"?


A bit too judgemental on my part perhaps, but domestic crowds and anecdotal evidence suggest there would be more demand for tickets in the Midlands than the North East. Also there are many more people within 2 hours drive.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Rascar said:


> A bit too judgemental on my part perhaps, but domestic crowds and anecdotal evidence suggest there would be more demand for tickets in the Midlands than the North East.


Only in that it has a larger population. I wouldn't say that the North East is any less "rugby country" than the West Midlands. Neither hold a candle to the East Midlands though, obviously.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Here is a newspaper article on what stadiums should be used:http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/feb/26/rugby-world-cup-grounds-fun-passion


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

And updates to these pools (Like have any others qualifuied yet?)

Pool A: Australia, England, Wales, Oceania 1, play-off winner
Pool B: South Africa, Samoa, Scotland, Asia 1, Americas 2
Pool C: New Zealand, Argentina, Tonga, Europe 1, Africa 1
Pool D: France, Ireland, Italy, Americas 1, Europe 

Its a shame the olympic stadium will be in the middle of renovation for the wc because i think thatd be a great use for it. But assuming it wont be used- 

*I think the venues should be:*

London
Wembley
Twickenham- Both these are obvious choices
Emirates Stadium- I could imagine it would be really good for rugby, and there is lots of space behind the goals so they wouldnt need a shortened try zone here.

South Coast
AMEX Stadium- After visiting it recently I think it would be a better option than the flat- pack st marys stadium.

South West
Kingsholm- Like said in the article, they need at least one proper club stadium.

Wales
Millenium- obviously.

Midlands
Arena MK- Upgraded to 32k ideally, seems a good choice to me.
Pride Park- Still not sure between this and coventry, but it seems good enough.

The North
Old Trafford- I dont like it, id rather see the city of manchester, but will surely be picked.
Elland Road

The Very North
St James Park- Should get the nod ahead of Stadium of light.

And if 12 are used then Villa Park or SOL should be used. Or maybe St marys.


Britain is small enough so the pools dont need to be regionalised, so I doubt there will be a northern pool, a london pool ect.

The big pool games should obviously be played at the larger venues, like this:

Australia v England: Twickenham
Wales v Australia: Old Trafford
England v Wales: Twickenham
Other England Games: St James' Park and Old Trafford
South Africa v Scotland: Wembley
Samoa v South Africa: Elland Road
Scotland v Samoa: St James' Park
New Zealand v Argentina: Emirates Stadium
Tonga v Argentina: AMEX Stadium
New Zealand v Tonga: Millenium Stadium
France v Ireland: Wembley
Ireland v Italy: Twickenham
Italy v France: Millenium Stadium

And all the smaller games shared between the others.
Then in the knockout rounds, Twickenham, Elland Road, The Millenium and ST James' Park should be used in the QFs, The Wembley and Twickenham in the semi final, and Twickenham for the Final (And maybe the 3rd place playoff, or maybe that should go to Wembley or Old Trafford, probably the latter).


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Pool A is so ridiculously hard, all while South Africa and New Zealand will piss fart their way through the group stages without having to pull their socks up.

Either the latter 2 will benefit from being relatively fresh for the quarter finals or the likes of Aus, Eng, Wales, Fra and Ire will be battle hardened and ready. 
If Australia remains anything like they currently are, they may find it hard to reach the knockout stages. The British and Irish Lions are going to eat the Wallabies a new arsehole this year.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Exeter's Sandy Park has been added to the long list, thanks to the uncertainty over what's happening to Ashton Gate in Bristol with the problems Bristol City have had in moving to a new stadium.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/21659189

Capacity is expected to be 12,000 by 2015, but to me that's way too small for a Rugby World Cup venue - 25,000 should be the minimum. It's a right quandary as the South West is a hotbed of rugby, but doesn't have any large venues.


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

*Plan to use Olympic Stadium at 2015 World Cup may lead to extended deadline for final submission of venues
*
Rugby World Cup organisers may be given more time to submit their final list of venues for the 2015 tournament if it means the Olympic Stadium being available, Telegraph Sport has learnt.









Iconic venue: having the Olympic Stadium as a 2015 World Cup ground would help organisers fulfil an £80 million revenue pledge Photo: EPA

By Ben Rumsby 4:40AM GMT 06 Mar 2013

The England 2015 board met on Tuesday to discuss a preferred list of stadiums and match schedule for rugby’s showpiece event, with the inclusion of the London 2012 stadium still not decided.

An 18-strong long list – 17 announced in October and one on Monday – was expected to be whittled down to 12 tournament venues in time for submission to the International Rugby Board in Dublin on March 15.

However, it is understood the IRB would consider waiting for final confirmation if organisers requested an extension to get the Olympic Stadium on board.

March 15 could come too soon for a deal to be done to include it, with West Ham co-chairman David Gold claiming on Monday that an agreement over his club’s anchor tenancy of the 80,000-seat arena would not be signed until at least the following day.

Confirmation of West Ham’s relocation would allow plans to be cemented for a three-year, £190 million redevelopment of the venue, which would need to be paused in 2015 for rugby to be played there.

The London Legacy Development Corporation, which owns the stadium, England 2015 and the IRB are all extremely eager to find a way to include the iconic arena on the final list for the World Cup, not least because organisers need to sell as many tickets as possible to fulfil an £80 million revenue pledge.

Construction schedules agreed between the LLDC and West Ham could ultimately determine the viability of staging the tournament in Stratford in 2015.

The stadium would need to be in the kind of shape to host matches of an international standard, such as ensuring the provision of corporate hospitality.

A public announcement on the World Cup match schedule and venues had been expected by the end of the month and it remains to be seen if any extension granted by the IRB would mean a delay.

Organisers on Tuesday refused to comment on the outcome of their board meeting and it is understood all potential venues had already been sent emails denying any final decision had been taken.

However, the addition of Exeter’s Sandy Park to the long list on Monday is understood to be with its likely inclusion in mind at the expense of Bristol City’s Ashton Gate.

The Telegraph


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

If exter are going to be chosen couldnt the RFU fully fund the expansion to 20k instead of Exeter's current plans to a stand at a time, they say its going to be 12k at the time


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry1990 said:


> If exter are going to be chosen couldnt the RFU fully fund the expansion to 20k instead of Exeter's current plans to a stand at a time, they say its going to be 12k at the time


Why should the RFU pay to develop one particular club's ground? Or, put another way, why should one particular club have its development funded by the RFU, when all other clubs have to put their hands in their own pockets?


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Because they have asked exeter to provide there ground at last minute incase bristol become unavailable , why should exeter be entitled for help in expanding there ground


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

copa olympic said:


> *Plan to use Olympic Stadium at 2015 World Cup may lead to extended deadline for final submission of venues
> *
> Rugby World Cup organisers may be given more time to submit their final list of venues for the 2015 tournament if it means the Olympic Stadium being available, Telegraph Sport has learnt.
> 
> ...


Cant see it happening, this story gets recycled every now and then. West Ham arn't due to move in until the start of the 2016/17 season and the RWC is being held in Sep/Oct of 2015.

Its highly unlikely it will ready 8 months early and there is no way on earth they will delay the start of the conversion until after the RWC.

Its not really needed anyway, as they already have Twickenham and Wembley, which are much bigger as the OS is going to be 60K, not 80K post reconfiguration.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry1990 said:


> Because they have asked exeter to provide there ground at last minute incase bristol become unavailable , why should exeter be entitled for help in expanding there ground


I can't tell what you're trying to say there, and not just because of the spelling mistakes. hno:


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

i was in lecture and trying not to get caught typing a message, basically i said that the RFU has asked exeter to step in as a contingency incase Bristol cannot be used. Exeter are currently doing a peicemeal upgrade of Sandy Park with i think 3 stands being upgraded for a final capacity of 20,000ish seats. Surely if it gets chosen the RFU could step in and provide finance to build the full expansion to 20k by 2015, Id imagine they recoup there money in the long run through tickets in the Tournament


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Harry1990 said:


> i was in lecture and trying not to get caught typing a message, basically i said that the RFU has asked exeter to step in as a contingency incase Bristol cannot be used. Exeter are currently doing a peicemeal upgrade of Sandy Park with i think 3 stands being upgraded for a final capacity of 20,000ish seats. Surely if it gets chosen the RFU could step in and provide finance to build the full expansion to 20k by 2015, Id imagine they recoup there money in the long run through tickets in the Tournament


The RFU haven't "asked exeter to step in as a contingency incase Bristol cannot be used", the Rugby World Cup organising committee (not the same thing!) have added Sandy Park to the long list of venues before finally announcing the final list this year, two years before the World Cup. You're spinning it as though Exeter are having their arms twisted to do the organisers a massive favour, when they applied to be a host venue in the first place!

Exeter are doing a staged upgrade because (a) their crowds need to grow first (they're not filling Sandy Park consistently at the moment) and (b) they need to continue playing while development continues. Having a capacity of 4,000 next season because there's building work on three sides would affect their revenue and ability to do business.

Increasing from 10,744 to 20,600 will cost *a lot* of money (Exeter are hoping to get finance to fund this) - there's no way that the cost would be met by the ticket sales from two or three pool matches, even though they would be sold out.

There's also my original point that RFU money shouldn't be used to give a professional club a massive leg-up - doing so would piss off a lot of grassroots clubs, not just the rest of the Premiership...


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The revenue promises were the reason England won the bid in the first place. If we'd proposed upgrading Rugby grounds I dont think we'd be hosting in 2015. So a bit of a Catch 22.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

I think southampton were told the rfu maybe able to provide help.if they were to expand st marys. If OT is dropped and city of manchester is expanded provided they use twickenham wembley and the OS is kept at 80k than it should be the same amount of available tickets


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Do you really think they would have sold out OT for most matches anyway? You could maybe play one england group stage match there, and it would sell out, but in any other game you wouldnt get close to 75k.
> 
> I still think they can put the 4 england pool matches in twickenham (Opening match presumably), Wembley, City of Manchester Stadium and maybe the Olympic Stadium or St James Park.


I expect that every match involving one of the top tier nations will be a dead-certain sell-out at any ground even against a lesser nation. Last year Britain sold out the Olympic handball tournament after all. That makes me sure that people will flock to the games of this World Cup and that all tickets will be sold.

Old Trafford would have been one of the four large grounds where these top matches should have been played and where the RWCL would have earned the money they need. This opportunity seems to be gone now. And even an enlarged Eastlands can't adequately replace the capacity of Old Trafford.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

flierfy said:


> I expect that every match involving one of the top tier nations will be a dead-certain sell-out at any ground even against a lesser nation. Last year Britain sold out the Olympic handball tournament after all. That makes me sure that people will flock to the games of this World Cup and that all tickets will be sold.


Yeah, they sold out 8k or whatever seats to olympic handball, but that dosent mean egrets fill a 70k venue for rugby matches with rubbish teams. The olympic football didnt sell out, I expect the attendances at the RWC to be only slightly more than the olympic football attendances. Youre right, all the big matches will sell out, and even the bad matches will get decent crowds but not enough to fill 50k+ stadiums like OT or Wembley.


----------



## Stadiumbadass (Sep 25, 2012)

Leedsrule said:


> Yeah, they sold out 8k or whatever seats to olympic handball, but that dosent mean egrets fill a 70k venue for rugby matches with rubbish teams. The olympic football didnt sell out, I expect the attendances at the RWC to be only slightly more than the olympic football attendances. Youre right, all the big matches will sell out, and even the bad matches will get decent crowds but not enough to fill 50k+ stadiums like OT or Wembley.


Logic says that they would have scheduled the top teams in a big stadium like Old Trafford, besides they were only looking to play 2/3 games there anyway as others have mentioned. Probably would have been a quarter final/semi final and 1 or two big matches.

I'm pretty sure a match involving anyone of Wales, Ireland, England, NZ, Australia would have sold out at Old Trafford. 
Argentina, France, South Africa, Scotland and Italy 50k at least.

Wembley will only been used for quater/semi finals and few big games which will be pretty much near if not sold out.

International rugby union is a big attraction.


----------



## copa olympic (Jul 9, 2012)

*2015 Rugby World Cup can only persuade Manchester City to host one game
*
Problems continued to mount for 2015 Rugby World Cup organisers on Wednesday night with Manchester City prepared to host only one of the fixtures snubbed by arch-rivals Manchester United and the Government hinting it would reject England 2015’s request to have touting at the tournament made illegal.

By Ben Rumsby11:59PM BST 03 Apr 2013

Telegraph Sport has learnt that Manchester City are in negotiations with England 2015 over staging just one of the tournament’s 48 matches, raising questions over the commitment to bring the game’s biggest event to all corners of the country and outside its traditional heartlands.

United confirmed on Tuesday that they did not want to be considered to host even one fixture, having decided that to do so would risk damaging the Old Trafford pitch.

That dealt a blow to organisers’ hopes of selling the 2.9 million tickets required to fulfil the £80 million revenue pledge made to the International Rugby Board.

And there was more bad news on the ticket front on Wednesday when the Government confirmed it was set to reject England 2015’s request to have touting at the tournament made illegal. Ticket touting was outlawed at last year’s Olympics, but that was part of the guarantee every host government has to give to the International Olympic Committee.

The IRB asked for no such guarantee, having also failed to request exemption from the UK’s 50 per cent tax rate for foreign players at the tournament. 

Sports minister Hugh Robertson said: “To pass any sort of primary legislation you have to prove that it is absolutely necessary, you just can’t pass laws on the off chance.

“Once you have done it for rugby, probably every other single large sports event will want it and every other music event. It also means significant demands on the police.

“There is quite a basket of issues. It is not as simple as a one-off application for a Rugby World Cup.”

Selling football tickets in a public place is illegal under a 1994 law brought in after the Hillsborough disaster but they can be legally resold above face value on secondary ticket sites.

England 2015 vowed to continue to push for a change to the law to take in the World Cup, with a spokesman saying: “We believe there is a very strong case for legislation to regulate the secondary ticket market for the Rugby World Cup in 2015.”

The spokesman also played down the impact of United’s last-minute withdrawal from the long list to host games for the tournament, adding: “We are confident we’ll deliver the optimum schedule for the tournament in a range of venues throughout the country. We are on track, and will announce the selected venues and publish the schedule shortly.”

It is understood England 2015 will not ask the IRB for more time to submit its final list of venues, having already been granted an extension to the March 15 deadline.

That was to give organisers every opportunity to agree a deal for the Olympic Stadium to be included, something that appears even more imperative following the snub by United, with the 75,000-seat Old Trafford having been earmarked for at least three matches.

With the 48,000-capacity Etihad taking just one fixture, England 2015 must decide whether it can afford to maintain the number of games it had originally planned to stage in the North by using grounds such as St James’ Park, the Stadium of Light and Elland Road.

The only venues in the country bigger than Old Trafford are all in London or Wales, in the shape of Twickenham, Wembley and the Millennium Stadium.

The Telegraph


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Leedsrule said:


> Yeah, they sold out 8k or whatever seats to olympic handball, but that dosent mean egrets fill a 70k venue for rugby matches with rubbish teams. The olympic football didnt sell out, I expect the attendances at the RWC to be only slightly more than the olympic football attendances. Youre right, all the big matches will sell out, and even the bad matches will get decent crowds but not enough to fill 50k+ stadiums like OT or Wembley.


Olympic football did sell well because it is a second rate tournament of youth teams merely for men and womens football isn't particularly popular in Britain it seems.
This will be different when the best rugby teams in the world come to England in 2015.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

flierfy said:


> Olympic football did sell well because it is a second rate tournament of youth teams merely for men and womens football isn't particularly popular in Britain it seems.
> This will be different when the best rugby teams in the world come to England in 2015.


I would honestly love to see packed out stadiums in the RWC, but I just cant see it happening. We are just too much of a footballing nation. I think most sports fans around the country would rather see an Olympic football match than a NZ vs Romaina RWC pool match. But anyway, lets wait and see. It'll probaboly be one of those things that gets more popular as the tournament goes on, there will be lots of empty seats at the start but a few weeks in more people will start to take an interest.


Thats a shame about the City of manchester, that they can only use it for one match, is there no way they can negociate more? And are they upgrading arena MK for the RWC? If so, is it just to 32,000 by putting seats in the second tier or to 55k by building a 3rd tier?


----------



## dadangraker (Apr 3, 2013)

anfield (ʃƪ˘ڡ˘)


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

dadangraker said:


> anfield (ʃƪ˘ڡ˘)


Liverpool already said no.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> I would honestly love to see packed out stadiums in the RWC, but I just cant see it happening. We are just too much of a footballing nation. I think most sports fans around the country would rather see an Olympic football match than a NZ vs Romaina RWC pool match. But anyway, lets wait and see. It'll probaboly be one of those things that gets more popular as the tournament goes on, there will be lots of empty seats at the start but a few weeks in more people will start to take an interest.
> 
> 
> *Thats a shame about the City of manchester, that they can only use it for one match, is there no way they can negociate more?* And are they upgrading arena MK for the RWC? If so, is it just to 32,000 by putting seats in the second tier or to 55k by building a 3rd tier?


They've got the same problem as Utd in that they'd expect to be in the champions League, so will have a heavy match schedule in Sep/Oct.


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

It's a shame for the City of Manchester in general. I'm sure Manchester City Council are unhappy with the decision taken by their clubs. Manchester is an international city, a sporting city which has made great strides on the international stage and should be hosting more sporting events especially considering this is the 3rd biggest sporting event in the world and a City like Manchester will only be represented once.

On the positive side as a Londoner there may be more matches here for me to go to though I would prefer it to be more spread out throughout the country. No doubt many will again complain London is getting preferential treatment when obviously this is not the case and is more out of necessity rather then choice. It's the people of Manchester I feel sorry for.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> It's a shame for the City of Manchester in general. I'm sure Manchester City Council are unhappy with the decision taken by their clubs. Manchester is an international city, a sporting city which has made great strides on the international stage and should be hosting more sporting events especially considering this is the 3rd biggest sporting event in the world and a City like Manchester will only be represented once.
> 
> On the positive side as a Londoner there may be more matches here for me to go to though I would prefer it to be more spread out throughout the country. No doubt many will again complain London is getting preferential treatment when obviously this is not the case and is more out of necessity rather then choice. It's the people of Manchester I feel sorry for.


IIRC Manchester council own the City of Manchester stadium, City just pay rent. Do they not have any say in it?


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> IIRC Manchester council own the City of Manchester stadium, City just pay rent. Do they not have any say in it?


NO

City operate the Stadium and are 100% responsible for the day to day running. 
As for paying rent, Its not simple. Its not like me or you renting a property. City don't pay a fixed rent.

They pay the council £2m a year from naming rights income.
They pay a %age of any gate over the 35K of Maine Road.

The council may own the Stadium (until City buy it off them, which has been mooted) but its effectively City's as they incur all costs like relaying the pitch etc.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Ok, fair enough. But they're not going to buy it, I know that, because of something to do with the money going into the community or something- I can't remember? But anyway, I know they will not buy it off the council, but I thought the council still had the power to allow RWC games, for example, to be held there.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Ok, fair enough. But they're not going to buy it, I know that, because of something to do with the money going into the community or something- I can't remember? But anyway, I know they will not buy it off the council, but I thought the council still had the power to allow RWC games, for example, to be held there.


They dont. City wont commit to more than 1 game due to concerns about the pitch (fair enough as Rugby Union games tend to destroy nice footy pitches) and their expected schedule.

As for buying it, I think your right that the council may prefer the long term guaranteed income (around £4-5M a year) to a one-time cash payment.

If the expansion goes ahead, that may change as City may not want to expand it without a purchase option. Only the club and the Council would know the details of such a plan.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Leedsrule said:


> Ok, fair enough. *But they're not going to buy it, I know that, because of something to do with the money going into the community or something- I can't remember?* But anyway, I know they will not buy it off the council, but I thought the council still had the power to allow RWC games, for example, to be held there.


I guess you mean this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/manchester-city-council-stadium-naming-rights

"The council's income from the stadium goes into other sports facilities on the site, according to the original agreement with Sport England, which provided £90m in lottery funds to build the stadium. A Sport England spokesman confirmed the newly renegotiated rental arrangements had been independently assessed as fair value by the financial consultants KPMG."


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

From The Breakdown (a weekly email newsletter from The Guardian):



> The Lions squad announcement next week is one reason why Rugby World Cup has delayed its announcement about the grounds that will be used in 2015 and the fixture schedule. It wants a clear run in terms of publicity and it will not get it *until at least the second week of next month*.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Andy-i said:


> They dont. City wont commit to more than 1 game due to concerns about the pitch (fair enough as Rugby Union games tend to destroy nice footy pitches) and their expected schedule.


I only just spotted your comment - are the Madejski, Adams Park, Kassam and Meadow Lane notorious in soccer circles for having terrible playing surfaces?


----------



## opusdei (Apr 14, 2013)

Brazil must beat Uruguay, Chile and the loser of USA x Canada. Is very, very difficult, but not impossible.

The qualifier system is unfair, only the champion and the host country should have a guaranteed place. And one more spot to Americas.


----------



## vitaming (Oct 5, 2011)

> Brazil must beat Uruguay, Chile and the loser of USA x Canada. Is very, very difficult, but not impossible.


Not quite. Yes, they must win qualifiers in Chile this week and Uruguay next week.

However, there's still a back door into the World Cup if they can't beat the US or Canada. They'd go into a four-team playoff with the other 'continental' runners-up. 

Brazil (or Chile, Uruguay) would play Asia 1 (Korea or Hong Kong) in one semifinal. The winner of that would play the winner of Africa 1 (Namibia or Zimbabwe) versus Europe 3 (likely Russia) for the right to go to England.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

opusdei said:


> The qualifier system is unfair, only the champion and the host country should have a guaranteed place.


For the 1999 Rugby World Cup, only the hosts Wales and the top three from 1995 (SA, NZ and France) qualified directly. The other five quarter-finalists from 1995 had to go through qualifying, and racked up scores like:

England 110-0 Netherlands
Scotland 85-3 Spain
Scotland 85-11 Portugal
Australia 74-0 Tonga
Ireland 70-0 Georgia
Australia 66-20 Fiji

After that the IRB quickly dropped the idea of having losing quarter-finalists qualify for the next tournament.


----------



## opusdei (Apr 14, 2013)

vitaming said:


> Not quite. Yes, they must win qualifiers in Chile this week and Uruguay next week.
> 
> However, there's still a back door into the World Cup if they can't beat the US or Canada. They'd go into a four-team playoff with the other 'continental' runners-up.
> 
> Brazil (or Chile, Uruguay) would play Asia 1 (Korea or Hong Kong) in one semifinal. The winner of that would play the winner of Africa 1 (Namibia or Zimbabwe) versus Europe 3 (likely Russia) for the right to go to England.


Go Tupis!


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

CharlieP said:


> I only just spotted your comment - are the Madejski, Adams Park, Kassam and Meadow Lane notorious in soccer circles for having terrible playing surfaces?


Yes to varying degrees. Meadow Lane is without doubt the worst.

I'd suggest you check the fans forums of those clubs to gauge the opinion of fans as to the pitch damage caused by full on RU scrums.


----------



## plasticterminator (Jul 23, 2007)

Andy-i said:


> Yes to varying degrees. Meadow Lane is without doubt the worst.
> 
> I'd suggest you check the fans forums of those clubs to gauge the opinion of fans as to the pitch damage caused by full on RU scrums.


The dual usage issue on natural pitches is not complex. If all pitches were poor that had such use we could deduce that such a thing is bad there is no solution and so on. However and its a huge however they are not, not only that, some surfaces with dual use are better than those with single use. We can therefore assume such variables as rescources, club mentalities, pitch construction, stadium environment, weather patterns, use plan and most importantly above all others-ability and decision making of maintenance operative responsible for pitch.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 17, 2010)

Brazil lost yesterday to Chile (22-38), but still have mathematical chances. If Uruguay beat Chile and Brazil beat Uruguay, it will be decided in difference of points for and aggainst. But it is quite unfair that Brazil never plays home in a championship like this. CONSUR has a lot of political bias.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Andy-i said:


> Yes to varying degrees. Meadow Lane is without doubt the worst.
> 
> I'd suggest you check the fans forums of those clubs to gauge the opinion of fans as to the pitch damage caused by full on RU scrums.


It can be dealt with. In the first few years at Reading it was awful.

For a few years after that it would be bad if there was a game after a prolonged period of rain.

For the last few years though, there's been no problem at. In fact the pitch now is better than it was before the rugby club joined.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Apparently the venues and fixture list will be announced at Twickenham today. Watch this space.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/news/newsid=2066509.html#rwc+2015+venues+schedule+announced


13 match venues confirmed to host one of the world’s largest sporting events
Balanced Rugby World Cup 2015 match schedule
Tournament vision celebrates Rugby and its unique values
10 English cities plus Cardiff will host 48 matches

England Rugby 2015 (ER 2015) and Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) today announced the full list of match venues and published the match schedule for Rugby World Cup 2015.

The 13 match venues and host cities selected are: Twickenham Stadium (London), Wembley Stadium (London), Olympic Stadium (London), Millennium Stadium (Cardiff), Manchester City Stadium (Manchester), St James’ Park (Newcastle), Elland Road (Leeds), Leicester City Stadium (Leicester), Villa Park (Birmingham), Kingsholm Stadium (Gloucester), stadiummk (Milton Keynes), Brighton Community Stadium (Brighton) and Sandy Park (Exeter).

Taking the Game to 10 cities across the country enables tournament organiser England Rugby 2015 to showcase the Game to a large audience across the length and breadth of the country. The match schedule will see 25 matches played in dedicated Rugby venues, seven in multi-event stadia and 16 in football venues. This blend of stadia will provide a variety of Rugby World Cup match day experiences and more than two million opportunities for fans to engage with one of the world’s most recognisable major sports events.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL RUGBY WORLD CUP 2015 MATCH SCHEDULE >>

The tournament will open at Twickenham Stadium on Friday, September 18, 2015, where England will face Oceania 1, confirmed at the close of the qualification process in 2014. In addition to a selection of pool matches, Twickenham Stadium will also host two quarter-finals, the semi-finals and the Final on October 31. Two quarter-finals will also be played in Cardiff at the Millennium Stadium and the Bronze Final will be hosted at the Olympic Stadium.

Confirmation of the match venues and match schedule follows approval from the Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) Board and an extensive and thorough evaluation process, undertaken by England Rugby 2015 in collaboration with tournament owners RWCL, Host Broadcaster ITV and commercial stakeholders.

The 13 match venues selected from the long list of 17 named in October 2012, plus Sandy Park added last month and the Manchester City Stadium which replaces Old Trafford, took into account geographical spread, sporting and facilities criteria, support from host cities, and capacity requirements to deliver the best possible platform for a fully engaging world-class tournament for fans and teams.

England Rugby 2015 also launched the vision for Rugby World Cup 2015 today outlining the tournament as a celebration of Rugby and its unique values, exciting and inspiring our nation and the world to play and support the Game.

England Rugby 2015 Chief Executive Debbie Jevans said: “The world can now start planning for Rugby World Cup 2015. Today, we’ve brought the tournament to life, announcing the match venues and the full match schedule. In less than two and a half years time, we will be welcoming the world to England and to a celebration of Rugby, played in a range of atmospheric stadiums right across the country.”

“Rugby has so much to offer – and over the next two and a half years, we will be working hard with RWCL to deliver a tournament which celebrates the unique values of Rugby and excites and inspires the nation and the world to play and support the Game. The countdown to 2015 begins in earnest today and we look forward to welcoming the world to England in 2015.”

“We are very grateful to all the cities and venues who have been part of the selection process for Rugby World Cup 2015. The support and interest shown by Coventry, Bristol, Derby, Southampton and Sunderland has been excellent and, whilst they have not been selected to host, we will continue to build upon the relationships forged throughout this process to ensure that these cities will still play a part in this truly nationwide tournament.”

RWCL Chairman Bernard Lapasset said: “The delivery of the match schedule and match venues in collaboration with England Rugby 2015 is an important milestone for what promises to be a truly spectacular Rugby World Cup. Through this rigorous process we have been able to develop solid foundations for the best tournament experience for all participating teams, the host nation and the global Rugby community.”

“We have also worked hard with all stakeholders to deliver a match schedule that is fair and balanced for all teams and that will provide the stage for the world’s finest players from 20 nations to perform to the best of their ability during a six-week festival of world class Rugby.”

“Rugby World Cup 2015 is about opportunity. It is the promise of more than two million opportunities to engage with one of the world’s biggest major sports events. It is the opportunity to engage new fans the length and breadth of the country and to grow Rugby around the world in order that more men, women and children may experience the sport and its character-building values. It is set to be an exceptional event for the teams, the fans, the host nation, and the continued development of Rugby worldwide.”

Minister for Sport and Tourism Hugh Robertson said: “Rugby World Cup in 2015 is another great global sports event coming to the UK. It has the full backing of Government and will be fantastic for Rugby in this country, encouraging more people to get involved. There is also a great tourism opportunity to make the most of with matches being played across the country.”


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

PDF of the venues and fixtures

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mm/Doc...azone/02/06/65/07/rwc-2015-match-schedule.pdf


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/mm/Doc...azone/02/06/65/07/rwc-2015-match-schedule.pdf

Match times are set to London time, click here to switch to your local time.
A 
18/09 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Oceania 1	Twickenham
20/09 - 00:00	Wales	
0 - 0	
Play-Off Winner	Millennium Stadium
23/09 - 00:00	Australia	
0 - 0	
Oceania 1	Millennium Stadium
26/09 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Wales	Twickenham
27/09 - 00:00	Australia	
0 - 0	
Play-Off Winner	Villa Park
01/10 - 00:00	Wales	
0 - 0	
Oceania 1	Millennium Stadium
03/10 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Australia	Twickenham
06/10 - 00:00	Oceania 1	
0 - 0	
Play-Off Winner	Stadiummk
10/10 - 00:00	Australia	
0 - 0	
Wales	Twickenham
10/10 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Play-Off Winner	City of Manchester Stadium
B 
19/09 - 00:00	South Africa	
0 - 0	
Asia 1	Brighton Community Stadium
20/09 - 00:00	Samoa	
0 - 0	
Americas 2	Brighton Community Stadium
23/09 - 00:00	Scotland	
0 - 0	
Asia 1	Kingsholm
26/09 - 00:00	South Africa	
0 - 0	
Samoa	Villa Park
27/09 - 00:00	Scotland	
0 - 0	
Americas 2	Elland Road
03/10 - 00:00	Samoa	
0 - 0	
Asia 1	Stadiummk
03/10 - 00:00	South Africa	
0 - 0	
Scotland	St James Park
07/10 - 00:00	South Africa	
0 - 0	
Americas 2	Olympic Stadium
10/10 - 00:00	Samoa	
0 - 0	
Scotland	St James Park
11/10 - 00:00	Americas 2	
0 - 0	
Asia 1	Kingsholm
C 
19/09 - 00:00	Tonga	
0 - 0	
Europe 1	Kingsholm
20/09 - 00:00	New Zealand	
0 - 0	
Argentina	Wembley Stadium
24/09 - 00:00	New Zealand	
0 - 0	
Africa 1	Olympic Stadium
25/09 - 00:00	Argentina	
0 - 0	
Europe 1	Kingsholm
29/09 - 00:00	Tonga	
0 - 0	
Africa 1	Sandy Park Stadium
02/10 - 00:00	New Zealand	
0 - 0	
Europe 1	Millennium Stadium
04/10 - 00:00	Argentina	
0 - 0	
Tonga	Leicester City Stadium
07/10 - 00:00	Africa 1	
0 - 0	
Europe 1	Sandy Park Stadium
09/10 - 00:00	New Zealand	
0 - 0	
Tonga	St James Park
11/10 - 00:00	Argentina	
0 - 0	
Africa 1	Leicester City Stadium
D 
19/09 - 00:00	France	
0 - 0	
Italy	Twickenham
19/09 - 00:00	Ireland	
0 - 0	
Americas 1	Millennium Stadium
23/09 - 00:00	France	
0 - 0	
Europe 2	Olympic Stadium
26/09 - 00:00	Italy	
0 - 0	
Americas 1	Elland Road
27/09 - 00:00	Ireland	
0 - 0	
Europe 2	Wembley Stadium
01/10 - 00:00	France	
0 - 0	
Americas 1	Stadiummk
04/10 - 00:00	Ireland	
0 - 0	
Italy	Olympic Stadium
06/10 - 00:00	Americas 1	
0 - 0	
Europe 2	Leicester City Stadium
11/10 - 00:00	France	
0 - 0	
Ireland	Millennium Stadium


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Final 
31/10 - 00:00	Winner SF1	
0 - 0	
Winner SF2	Twickenham
3rd Place Play-Off 
30/10 - 00:00	Loser SF1	
0 - 0	
Loser SF2	Olympic Stadium
Semi Finals 
25/10 - 00:00	Winner QF3	
0 - 0	
Winner QF4	Twickenham
24/10 - 00:00	Winner QF1	
0 - 0	
Winner QF2	Twickenham
Quarter Finals 
18/10 - 00:00	Winner Pool D	
0 - 0	
Runner-up Pool C	Millennium Stadium
18/10 - 00:00	Winner Pool A	
0 - 0	
Runner-up Pool B	Twickenham
17/10 - 00:00	Winner Pool C	
0 - 0	
Runner-up Pool D	Millennium Stadium
17/10 - 00:00	Winner Pool B	
0 - 0	
Runner-up Pool A	Twickenham


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

So England's Group Games are :

England 
18/09 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Oceania 1	Twickenham
26/09 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Wales	Twickenham
03/10 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Australia	Twickenham
10/10 - 00:00	England	
0 - 0	
Play-Off Winner	City of Manchester Stadium


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Nice copying and pasting there. This is the match schedule when you take a minute to format it slightly better:

Fri	18 Sep -	England v Oceania 1, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat	19 Sep -	South Africa v Asia 1, Pool B, Brighton Community Stadium
Sat	19 Sep -	Tonga v Europe 1, Pool C, Kingsholm
Sat	19 Sep -	France v Italy, Pool D, Twickenham
Sat	19 Sep -	Ireland v Americas 1, Pool D, Millennium Stadium
Sun	20 Sep -	Wales v Play Off Winner, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Sun	20 Sep -	Samoa v Americas 2, Pool B, Brighton Community Stadium
Sun	20 Sep -	New Zealand v Argentina, Pool C, Wembley Stadium
Wed	23 Sep -	Australia v Oceania 1, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Wed	23 Sep -	Scotland v Asia 1, Pool B, Kingsholm
Wed	23 Sep -	France v Europe 2, Pool D, Olympic Stadium
Thu	24 Sep -	New Zealand v Africa 1, Pool C, Olympic Stadium
Fri	25 Sep -	Argentina v Europe 1, Pool C, Kingsholm
Sat	26 Sep -	England v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat	26 Sep -	South Africa v Samoa, Pool B, Villa Park
Sat	26 Sep -	Italy v Americas 1, Pool D, Elland Road
Sun	27 Sep -	Australia v Play Off Winner, Pool A, Villa Park
Sun	27 Sep -	Scotland v Americas 2, Pool B, Elland Road
Sun	27 Sep -	Ireland v Europe 2, Pool D, Wembley Stadium
Tue	29 Sep -	Tonga v Africa 1, Pool C, Sandy Park
Thu	01 Oct -	Wales v Oceania 1, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Thu	01 Oct -	France v Americas 1, Pool D, Stadiummk
Fri	02 Oct -	New Zealand v Europe 1, Pool C, Millennium Stadium
Sat	03 Oct -	England v Australia, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat	03 Oct -	Samoa v Asia 1, Pool B, Stadiummk
Sat	03 Oct -	South Africa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park
Sun	04 Oct -	Argentina v Tonga, Pool C, Leicester City Stadium
Sun	04 Oct -	Ireland v Italy, Pool D, Olympic Stadium
Tue	06 Oct -	Oceania 1 v Play Off Winner, Pool A, Stadiummk
Tue	06 Oct -	Americas 1 v Europe 2, Pool D, Leicester City Stadium
Wed	07 Oct -	South Africa v Americas 2, Pool B, Olympic Stadium
Wed	07 Oct -	Africa 1 v Europe 1, Pool C, Sandy Park
Fri	09 Oct -	New Zealand v Tonga, Pool C, St James Park
Sat	10 Oct -	Australia v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat	10 Oct -	England v Play Off Winner, Pool A, City of Manchester Stadium
Sat	10 Oct -	Samoa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park
Sun	11 Oct -	Americas 2 v Asia 1, Pool B, Kingsholm
Sun	11 Oct -	Argentina v Africa 1, Pool C, Leicester City Stadium
Sun	11 Oct -	France v Ireland, Pool D, Millennium Stadium
Sun	11 Oct -	Italy v Europe 2, Pool D, Sandy Park


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

"Interesting" choice of match venues there. It's a shame Wembley only has two games, neither of which is likely to fill it - France v Ireland or Australia v Wales could have been better choices in my opinion.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Also, Scotland v Asia 1(Japan) would fill Kingsholm twice over. Never mind, time to start planning the mother of all road trips.


----------



## lwa (Aug 2, 2010)

CharlieP said:


> "Interesting" choice of match venues there. It's a shame Wembley only has two games, neither of which is likely to fill it - France v Ireland or Australia v Wales could have been better choices in my opinion.


Selfishly quite happy with that - only concern is getting tickets for Kingsholm (quite fancy both Scotland v Japan and Argentina v Georgia/Romania there)

2 saturdays in Newcastle are easy enough from Glasgow (might try and do NZ v Tonga night before the second), and can do a week-long trip for the other 2 (some possibilities to take in other games).


Or, given how shite we are these days, I might avoid the Scotland games and just go to some games as a neutral...


Agree it's a shame Wembley only has 2 games (was always going to be so though), but sure Ireland will fill it. Think NZ might too (though, as I quite fancy that game, I hope only just so!)


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

lwa said:


> Selfishly quite happy with that - only concern is getting tickets for Kingsholm (quite fancy both Scotland v Japan and Argentina v Georgia/Romania there)


Indeed. I can't fathom all the moaning that "it should be played at rugby grounds!" - the same people would then be moaning that they couldn't get in for love nor money...

I'm looking at going to at least one Newcastle game (I have rugby-mad family in Northumberland), one or both at Elland Road, and possibly to the Olympic Stadium with Norfolk family (though there's only one weekend game there) and maybe even Brighton if my sister's family fancy the trip from Dorset.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

CharlieP said:


> Nice copying and pasting there. This is the match schedule when you take a minute to format it slightly better:
> 
> Fri	18 Sep -	England v Oceania 1, Pool A, Twickenham
> Sat	19 Sep -	South Africa v Asia 1, Pool B, Brighton Community Stadium
> ...


thanks for organizing it date order, didnt have time due to manic university preparation for a speech infront of 200 people at 4pm, hopefully i pass better find a job anyway as still be a student by the time 2015 rolls round and wanna go to every game possible  quite a few games easily accessible from uni in London too happy times


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

By team:

*Argentina:*
Sun 20 Sep - New Zealand v Argentina, Pool C, Wembley Stadium
Fri 25 Sep - Argentina v Europe 1, Pool C, Kingsholm
Sun 04 Oct - Argentina v Tonga, Pool C, Leicester City Stadium
Sun 11 Oct - Argentina v Africa 1, Pool C, Leicester City Stadium

*Australia:*
Wed 23 Sep - Australia v Oceania 1, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Sun 27 Sep - Australia v Play-Off Winner, Pool A, Villa Park
Sat 03 Oct - England v Australia, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat 10 Oct - Australia v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham

*England:*
Fri 18 Sep - England v Oceania 1, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat 26 Sep - England v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat 03 Oct - England v Australia, Pool A, Twickenham
Sat 10 Oct - England v Play-Off Winner, Pool A, City of Manchester Stadium

*France:*
Sat 19 Sep - France v Italy, Pool D, Twickenham
Wed 23 Sep - France v Europe 2, Pool D, Olympic Stadium
Thu 01 Oct - France v Americas 1, Pool D, Stadium:mk
Sun 11 Oct - France v Ireland, Pool D, Millennium Stadium

*Ireland:*
Sat 19 Sep - Ireland v Americas 1, Pool D, Millennium Stadium
Sun 27 Sep - Ireland v Europe 2, Pool D, Wembley Stadium
Sun 04 Oct - Ireland v Italy, Pool D, Olympic Stadium
Sun 11 Oct - France v Ireland, Pool D, Millennium Stadium

*Italy:*
Sat 19 Sep - France v Italy, Pool D, Twickenham
Sat 26 Sep - Italy v Americas 1, Pool D, Elland Road
Sun 04 Oct - Ireland v Italy, Pool D, Olympic Stadium
Sun 11 Oct - Italy v Europe 2, Pool D, Sandy Park

*New Zealand:*
Sun 20 Sep - New Zealand v Argentina, Pool C, Wembley Stadium
Thu 24 Sep - New Zealand v Africa 1, Pool C, Olympic Stadium
Fri 02 Oct - New Zealand v Europe 1, Pool C, Millennium Stadium
Fri 09 Oct - New Zealand v Tonga, Pool C, St James Park

*Samoa:*
Sun 20 Sep - Samoa v Americas 2, Pool B, Brighton Community Stadium
Sat 26 Sep - South Africa v Samoa, Pool B, Villa Park
Sat 03 Oct - Samoa v Asia 1, Pool B, Stadium:mk
Sat 10 Oct - Samoa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park

*Scotland:*
Wed 23 Sep - Scotland v Asia 1, Pool B, Kingsholm
Sun 27 Sep - Scotland v Americas 2, Pool B, Elland Road
Sat 03 Oct - South Africa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park
Sat 10 Oct - Samoa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park

*South Africa:*
Sat 19 Sep - South Africa v Asia 1, Pool B, Brighton Community Stadium
Sat 26 Sep - South Africa v Samoa, Pool B, Villa Park
Sat 03 Oct - South Africa v Scotland, Pool B, St James Park
Wed 07 Oct - South Africa v Americas 2, Pool B, Olympic Stadium

*Tonga:*
Sat 19 Sep - Tonga v Europe 1, Pool C, Kingsholm
Tue 29 Sep - Tonga v Africa 1, Pool C, Sandy Park
Sun 04 Oct - Argentina v Tonga, Pool C, Leicester City Stadium
Fri 09 Oct - New Zealand v Tonga, Pool C, St James Park

*Wales:*
Sun 20 Sep - Wales v Play-Off Winner, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Sat 26 Sep - England v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham
Thu 01 Oct - Wales v Oceania 1, Pool A, Millennium Stadium
Sat 10 Oct - Australia v Wales, Pool A, Twickenham


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Walbanger said:


> I didn't know about the Arg vs Eng game at Old Trafford, very interesting. I just browsed for a pic. As you mentioned these stadiums have been confirmed by the RFU, no doubting that. I'm interested in finding out if the IRB have relaxed their regulations or that maybe work will be done in lengthening the fields and replacing the lost seating with foldable/retactable seating like in an indoor arena. It's not as if this is a one off, many of these ground host important Rugby League fixures, Rugby is just another revenue source and its good to be as flexible as possible.
> 
> As for the Arg vs Eng game. It was an Argentina home game in Manchester and maybe there are tiers of test match importance as to how rigidly the regulations must be followed. I just imagine that the World Cup would follow the highest standard of field regulations.
> 
> ...


Quoting myself here from 3 years ago.
If any of you caught the Rugby League WC Final, you may agree with me.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2013)

As I said in the other thread, the SL GF has been played at Old Trafford for some time. I'm sure the slippery pitch didn't help, but you'd think they'd have figured something out by now. 

I guess its a good thing the RUWC isn't being hosted at Old Trafford in the end.


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Wallbanger,

Of the football grounds being used, some have already hosted Union (Stadium MK and Leicester) and League (Etihad and Elland Rd) or Both (Wembley) fixtures without problems.

Others such as St James park, Villa park and the Amex probably wont host Rugby again.

The Football clubs aren't going to go to the great expense and trouble of installing retractable seating for the sake of a couple of Rugby matches.

As for Old Trafford, it's made worse by the pitch being raised but its been like that for years now, and the RFL put up with it for the Grand Final.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2013)

I think you're being generous. Apart from Wembley, the other 7 soccer grounds being used may never see a rugby game again after 2015. Agree that retractable seating is a non-starter.


----------



## jts1882 (Jul 15, 2012)

Harry1990 said:


> is this about the Wigan Rl vs Bath Rugby in the mid nineties? i have heard stories that the league score was embarrassing one sided to Wigan and the union score was fairly close, but than quite a few rugby league players are bumbling idiots when they play union which i find quite strange they must have similar skill sets. How the RFU or Sarries didnt get Sam Tomkins and got joel ill never know Sam Tomkins would be amazing when your that good an athlete he would have adopted him at 12/13 with Tualagi and we would have been World Champions in 2 years time no worries



The league game was 82-6 but was played only 5 days after Bath beat Leicester in a cup final so Bath had little time to prepare. The union game was closer but still a comfortable win for Bath (44-19).

It's interesting to note some of the Wigan players. Scott Quinnell and Va'aiga Tuigamala started and ended in union. Several others later switched to union, including Henry Paul, Andy Farrell and, notably, Jason Robinson.

I wonder how a similar series would do now. The union game has become closer to league in some respects, especially defence, while the scrum is still a different beast, so it might favour union now.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

> Football is the world's number one sport and the football world cup is the world's number one sport event. The desire to attend football world cup matches doesn't necessarily translate of a proportional fashion into desire to attend rugby union


While undoubtedly football is light years ahead in terms of popularity, this gap is not entirely reflected in the two world cups. Many football fans put club above country, which would be unusual for rugby fans. Also there is a strong tradition in rugby of touring fans, both within Europe and from the southern hemisphere. Simply put the Rugby WC is more important to the rugby world than the football WC is to the football world. 

Of course none of this is proof that the casual non-rugby fan will get behind the games, though there is some precedent, the 2007 rugby WC in France actually got a higher attendance per game than the 1998 football WC.



> The rugby league world cup currently in progress in England now certainly isn't filling the venues, it too has its own logic.


Without wanting to start a League vs Union debate, the Rugby league world cup is not a credible comparator to the Union world cup, and received a fraction of the coverage. The fact that the crowds weren't embarrassing is evidence that the British public will support international tournaments.



> if venues are assigned to matches according to the interest they are expected to generate, that's a sound practice.


 They very much are, looking at the fixture list, although there look to be a few odd choices for Wembley and the Millennium stadium in order to get overall numbers up and compensate for having games at traditional rugby grounds.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2013)

Rascar said:


> While undoubtedly football is light years ahead in terms of popularity, this gap is not entirely reflected in the two world cups. Many football fans put club above country, which would be unusual for rugby fans. Also there is a strong tradition in rugby of touring fans, both within Europe and from the southern hemisphere. Simply put the Rugby WC is more important to the rugby world than the football WC is to the football world.


I don't agree. Take a look at the TV ratings for national teams around the world, particularly during major tournaments. They are astronomical, and no other sport really comes close. 

I get the sense that people look at England and come to the conclusion thats the case every else. 

Even in England in 2010 the game against Germany had 18 million viewers, with a peak of 19.5 million. 

Germany also had its highest ever rated program in the 2010 World Cup with 31 million tuning into semi final against Spain. 

And I've just picked out two countries with the strongest leagues in the world. In most others the prominence of the national teams is much higher, and dwarfs the importance of the club game.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ Yes, but in the context of hosting a RWC in England Rascar's points make sense. I was supporting the idea that each sport has its own logic and drawing direct proportionalities from one sports event to another in terms of public success is flawed; and it's true that rugby union's logic is one where the national teams gather a disproportionate interest from the fans of the sport, to a degree that is probably unequaled in other major sports.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2013)

Yeah I still don't agree. On one level I understand what you're saying, relative to their sports the international game in rugby union is bigger. That's a shallow argument though. In a straight comparison, it's not really a contest. 

He says that the RUWC is more important to the rugby world than a soccer world cup is to the soccer world. And yet, evidence isn't quite black and white as that. The apathy in the UK (which is a bit overblown) is not reflective of the stature of the international game elsewhere, and that myth needs to be put to rest. 

Here in the states Fox Sports and Univision are paying $1 billion for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. American networks paying $500m for one WC shows that the gap is far bigger than Rascar seems to think. That's in a country that is not seen as a soccer loving nation. 

With all due respect I don't think the entire RUWC rights come close to what our broadcasters here are paying for one tournament alone, without taking into the figures from the rest of the world. Figures which seem to represent a high degree of interest in the international game. For me that renders "relativity" as a fairly useless argument.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2013)

alexandru.mircea said:


> a disproportionate interest from the fans of the sport, to a degree that is probably unequaled in other major sports.


As someone who follows both rugby union and cricket, I can assure you the latter equals, if not betters, it. 

I don't wish to derail this thread with non-rugby nonsense, so I'll leave my arguments there. We'll agree to disagree :cheers:


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

5portsF4n said:


> Yeah I still don't agree. On one level I understand what you're saying, relative to their sports the international game in rugby union is bigger. That's a shallow argument though. In a straight comparison, it's not really a contest.
> 
> He says that the RUWC is more important to the rugby world than a soccer world cup is to the soccer world. And yet, evidence isn't quite black and white as that. The apathy in the UK (which is a bit overblown) is not reflective of the stature of the international game elsewhere, and that myth needs to be put to rest.
> 
> ...


Your point is correct. The RWC is a massive event in itself (crowds etc) which has taken place in Rugby countries so far. However in terms of Global interest outside the traditional counties, its not there and compared to the Football world cup its very small.

The 2003 final had a global audience of 33 million according to independent auditors but over 90% of that audience was from the founding union countries.
The 3.6 billion cumulative audience bandied about by the IRB and RU journo's is PR bollox. All sporting bodies do it. 

This is reflected in the broadcast and sponsorship revenues they generate: 

The 2007 RWC was worth £82M to the TV companies:
http://www.irb.com/mm/document/newsmedia/0/090904webfinancingtheglobalgame_8964.pdf

The 2006 FIFA World cup was worth £1,118M (CHF1,660M)
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/51/52/65/2006_fifa_ar_en_1766.pdf


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Walbanger said:


> Quoting myself here from 3 years ago.
> If any of you caught the Rugby League WC Final, you may agree with me.


Yeah I kind of agree. Watching the final I was getting worried each time the players closed in on the ingoal. Although the Super League Grand Final takes place there every year it does seem like a tight squeeze. Maybe it's a good thing after all that Old Trafford isn't hosting any matches at The RUWC.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Rascar said:


> Without wanting to start a League vs Union debate, the Rugby league world cup is not a credible comparator to the Union world cup, and received a fraction of the coverage. The fact that the crowds weren't embarrassing is evidence that the British public will support international tournaments.


Because League is better  It was a real shame that the Rugby League got so little coverage or publicity, I think the BBC were pretty harsh to show the autumn internationals ahead of some big RLWC games. Attendances weren't that bad considering that there was very little publicity for it at all. 

The prices and stuff for it really weren't that bad at all. I paid like £20 for this seat: http://tinypic.com/m/hs0poi/3 for the semi finals. That's miles better than the Union WC! Unfortunately that's the only game I could make, because I live down south and there were no other games held down here. 



Its AlL gUUd said:


> Yeah I kind of agree. Watching the final I was getting worried each time the players closed in on the ingoal. Although the Super League Grand Final takes place there every year it does seem like a tight squeeze. Maybe it's a good thing after all that Old Trafford isn't hosting any matches at The RUWC.


It was terrible. I want to say it shouldn't have been allowed but there isn't really an alternative venue. Maybe they can hold similar events at the COMS when it's been expanded. But i'm sure they could have found a way to make the goal areas bigger at OT.


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

5portsF4n said:


> Yeah I still don't agree. On one level I understand what you're saying, relative to their sports the international game in rugby union is bigger. That's a shallow argument though. In a straight comparison, it's not really a contest.
> 
> He says that the RUWC is more important to the rugby world than a soccer world cup is to the soccer world. And yet, evidence isn't quite black and white as that. The apathy in the UK (which is a bit overblown) is not reflective of the stature of the international game elsewhere, and that myth needs to be put to rest.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, I was thinking about "bums on seats" and the demand for tickets. I have no doubt that FIFA wc tv revenues take a dump on IRB wc tv revenues.

Maybe I was a bit hasty in the club versus country claim, though I would still say that relatively the rugby wc is a lot more important to its sport and generally very well supported, hence to the untrained eye it has the appearance of being in the same league as the football WC (sans viewing figures).


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

jts1882 said:


> The league game was 82-6 but was played only 5 days after Bath beat Leicester in a cup final so Bath had little time to prepare. The union game was closer but still a comfortable win for Bath (44-19).
> 
> It's interesting to note some of the Wigan players. Scott Quinnell and Va'aiga Tuigamala started and ended in union. Several others later switched to union, including Henry Paul, Andy Farrell and, notably, Jason Robinson.
> 
> I wonder how a similar series would do now. The union game has become closer to league in some respects, especially defence, while the scrum is still a different beast, so it might favour union now.


There was talk a few years back of playing a hybrid game at the Emirates few years back between Leeds Rhinos and Leicester Tigers or Sarries or Quins where you would play union in your half and league in the opposition half but don't think anything will happen with that would be interesting to see.

Id like to see England play each other tbh with how ineffective our backs were most of 6nations and in the autumn internationals add in the hideous bad luck of the injury list we currently have could see it being a bit embarrassing unless the union team just use scrums and lineouts and get Farrell to kick penalities


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

5portsF4n said:


> As someone who follows both rugby union and cricket, I can assure you the latter equals, if not betters, it.
> 
> I don't wish to derail this thread with non-rugby nonsense, so I'll leave my arguments there. We'll agree to disagree :cheers:


Yeah I said "major" sports.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Leedsrule said:


> Because League is better  It was a real shame that the Rugby League got so little coverage or publicity, I think the BBC were pretty harsh to show the autumn internationals ahead of some big RLWC games. Attendances weren't that bad considering that there was very little publicity for it at all.
> 
> The prices and stuff for it really weren't that bad at all. I paid like £20 for this seat: http://tinypic.com/m/hs0poi/3 for the semi finals. That's miles better than the Union WC! Unfortunately that's the only game I could make, because I live down south and there were no other games held down here.
> 
> ...


i think its quite funny how some people in the north criticize the Union world cup having most of its venues in the south or midlands in 2015 whereas the League world cup had only 1 venue in the south so hardly fair to criticize when in fact the union world cup will have 3 venues in the north of England, and the midland is in easy access


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Rascar said:


> Without wanting to start a League vs Union debate, the Rugby league world cup is not a credible comparator to the Union world cup, and received a fraction of the coverage.* The fact that the crowds weren't embarrassing is evidence that the British public will support international tournaments*.


In fact it was the most successful Rugby League World Cup ever (though that wasn't difficult to achieve). And the final was a world record attendance for an international rugby league match. Which does get to show that we should be able to get good attendances for the World Cup. I'm just glad they added the Olympic Stadium to the list of venues, would be easier for me to get to a game .


----------



## EdooGdl (Aug 28, 2009)

edit. wrong thread


----------



## Andy-i (Nov 25, 2009)

Andy-i said:


> Wallbanger,
> 
> Of the football grounds being used, some have already hosted Union (Stadium MK and Leicester) and League (Etihad and Elland Rd) or Both (Wembley) fixtures without problems.
> 
> ...


Man city are actually putting 3 more rows of seats around pitch as part of the Etihad upgrade, so the stands will be even closer to the pitch. However, it will give the RWC organisers another 2000 tickets for the England game there.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Oh, and I get to find out on Saturday (I account for 12 of those 5 million applications - hopefully I'll get something!)...


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

CharlieP said:


> It's not 950,000 tickets sold so far - it's 1.29 million tickets sold in the UK so far


My mistake, so over half the tickets are already accounted for.

I think the Millennium stadium will do better than in 2007, with English fans who have missed out but still want to be part of the event crossing the Severn.

I don't think there will be any bad crowds, but if any games are to have banks of empty seats it will be the Millennium.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

It's slightly disappointing that there are "significant numbers" of tickets available in Birmingham, Leicester, Leeds and Newcastle - it's already a very southern-heavy tournament as it is.

If I was in charge I'd have had England v Wales as the opening match, and moved England v Fiji to Newcastle.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Apparently in the region of 100,000 tickets will be put back on sale next month, and this could include England matches if, for example, the Fiji and Uruguay unions didn't sell their full quota:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...to-buy-tickets-for-next-years-tournament.html


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

I went for a game each at Twickenham, Wembley and the Olympic Stadium.

No joy on either front. Oh well.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

I only won one out of six (though they count that as 'successful'), France v Romania at the Olympic Stadium. Hopefully some decent ones will still be available.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

I got five out of six. 

France v Romania at Olympic Stadium
Scotland v USA at Elland Road
Canada v Romania at Leicester City Stadium
South Africa v USA at Olympic Stadium
Argentina v Namibia at Leicester City Stadium

I missed out first time on France v Romania, but because I selected "Increase My Chances" I got Category C tickets. I only missed out on Italy v Canada at Elland Road.


----------



## TOON FAN (Apr 28, 2010)

A Rugby World Cup sign on the Tyne Bridge, Newcastle was officially unveiled tonight, as part of the New Years Eve celebrations, by England head coach Stuart Lancaster.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Nice continuation from the Olympic display, but this brand doesn't exactly have the beauty or the impact of those 5 rings does it!


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 17, 2010)

I don't get why they're still using the IRB brand when they changed everything already to World Rugby. How awkward is that...


----------



## sbnufc (May 30, 2014)

How do I get tickets for this? (the games at St James' Park)


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

sbnufc said:


> How do I get tickets for this? (the games at St James' Park)


you will need to register on the official site https://tickets.rugbyworldcup.com/ all games have now gone onto general sale. I took a quick look for you and only 1 of the 3 games being played at SJP are still available, with very limited number available for the Scotland vs Samoa game with tickets priced between £115 and £150. Not sure how far you are prepared to travel but there are games available at Leicester or Leeds which are slightly cheaper.

Hope this helped


----------



## sbnufc (May 30, 2014)

Harry1990 said:


> you will need to register on the official site https://tickets.rugbyworldcup.com/ all games have now gone onto general sale. I took a quick look for you and only 1 of the 3 games being played at SJP are still available, with very limited number available for the Scotland vs Samoa game with tickets priced between £115 and £150. Not sure how far you are prepared to travel but there are games available at Leicester or Leeds which are slightly cheaper.
> 
> Hope this helped


Oh, damn I'm a bit late then :lol: I'll have a look, thanks!


----------



## slavoski (Feb 6, 2011)

cant wait


----------



## sbnufc (May 30, 2014)

Dont suppose there's anywhere else I can buy tickets (at actual sale price)?

I'm really annoyed that I missed the deadline, and all that's left on general sale is no good for me :gaah: Probably a once in a lifetime event - in my city - and I'll miss it because I didnt even know tickets were on sale yet, never mind sold out


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Its ridiculous. I did know when the deadline was and applied for 7 games (none of them particularly big games, mostly pool games in London, MK, Brighton and Birmingham, no England games either) and i won 1 game, to see France v Romania at the Olympic Stadium. When they went on sale at the next phase, the only tickets left were category B or A, and i'm not paying £150 to watch Nambia v Samoa ffs.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> I don't get why they're still using the IRB brand when they changed everything already to World Rugby. How awkward is that...


Because it would be even more awkward to change mid-stream, when so much has been already been manufactured (posters, clothing, etc.) with the current logo.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Leedsrule said:


> Its ridiculous. I did know when the deadline was and applied for 7 games (none of them particularly big games, mostly pool games in London, MK, Brighton and Birmingham, no England games either) and i won 1 game, to see France v Romania at the Olympic Stadium. When they went on sale at the next phase, the only tickets left were category B or A, and i'm not paying £150 to watch Nambia v Samoa ffs.


That's shitty luck. I applied for 6 and got 5.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

sbnufc said:


> Dont suppose there's anywhere else I can buy tickets (at actual sale price)?
> 
> I'm really annoyed that I missed the deadline, and all that's left on general sale is no good for me :gaah: Probably a once in a lifetime event - in my city - and I'll miss it because I didnt even know tickets were on sale yet, never mind sold out


Just keep an eye on the official site. Some tickets will be returned for sale (either by individuals, overseas unions or tour/hospitality companies).


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

Is there going to be an official avenue for people to sell their tickets? 

It was a problem at the last world cup when plenty of English & Australians were unable to onsell tickets for one of the semi finals and the result was thousands of empty seatsm


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

crazydude said:


> Does anyone have the pitch dimensions? Many English soccer stadiums have seats very near to the pitch, and that can't leave much space for run off and in goal areas.


After watching an interview with the Aston Villa groundsman, the pitches are 95m x 68m.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

crazydude said:


> Does anyone have the pitch dimensions? Many English soccer stadiums have seats very near to the pitch, and that can't leave much space for run off and in goal areas.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> London Olympic Stadium
> 
> France V Romania
> 
> ...



Gorgeous picture. Now, that's what you call "legacy mode" for an Olympic Stadium.


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

Red85 said:


>


That's the maximam size, which would be prefered for internationals. Very few grounds have 22m in goal areas though. The English club football grounds are too small though. Thus the smaller pitches.


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

ory26 said:


> Beijing 2008 was by far, the best overall opening ceremony. 2012 was a good show, no more.


Beijing's opening ceremony was perfect...too perfect.


----------



## SteveCourty (Mar 14, 2013)

eomer said:


> Beijing's opening ceremony was perfect...too perfect.


Half of what we saw of the Beijing opening ceremony wasn't real, they had tonnes of special effects for the fireworks and stuff for TV


----------



## SteveCourty (Mar 14, 2013)

crazydude said:


> Does anyone have the pitch dimensions? Many English soccer stadiums have seats very near to the pitch, and that can't leave much space for run off and in goal areas.


All the football pitches are different sizes in England but smaller than a rugby pitch with little space on the sides and ends due to the way stands are built so fans are close to the pitch


----------



## jts1882 (Jul 15, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> In Brazil, the sport is growing by the minute. Teams sprouting everywhere, new championships every year, in 2011 they made a market research which appointed rugby the fastest growing sport in Brazilian soil and recently the Brazilian rugby confederation was appointed the most professional and competent one among all sport confederations here.
> 
> Brazil has a project of qualifying for the 2019 WC, which I find very difficult. But the evolution of the national team is very apparent.
> 
> Oh, and the medias here are covering the WC like no other RWC ever. Still shy, but making noise, nonetheless...


Uruguay seems to qualify for nearly every world cup, so they would be the obvious target. The qualification is complicated, with many repêchages, so there may be easier routes. 

P.S. Is the rugby more popular in the South near Uruguay and Argentina?


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Looked like Leeds' Elland Road pitch was recently relayed. It was giving way in the scrums. Groundskeeper must have been tearing his hair out.


----------



## lwa (Aug 2, 2010)

jts1882 said:


> Uruguay seems to qualify for nearly every world cup, so they would be the obvious target. The qualification is complicated, with many repêchages, so there may be easier routes.
> 
> P.S. Is the rugby more popular in the South near Uruguay and Argentina?


Uruguay are competing in their first tournament for 12 years this time (think it's only their 3rd in total?). For some reason south america is lumped in with north america for qualifying and so isn't guaranteed any places. 

However, Brazil will play in a new '6 nations' tournament from next year alongside 4 RWC sides (Argentina, Uruguay, USA and Canada) and Chile. That gives them a great opportunity to develop, and there is every chance that will be used as RWC qualifying in the future…

Oh, and whilst the format is likely to remain the same in 2019, there are rumours it will increase to a 24 team tournament 4 years later.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Congrats Wales! (what a game they played) :cheers:


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

parcdesprinces said:


> Congrats Wales! (what a game they played) :cheers:


They were average, but unfortunately so were England. England are nothing special with this selection, Burgess offers nothing other than crash ball and a suspect defence but anyway let's hope this is the end for Lancaster.


----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)




----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)

parcdesprinces said:


> Congrats Wales! (what a game they played) :cheers:


At least one royal was happy at the result...


----------



## Its AlL gUUd (Jan 24, 2006)

Congratulations to Wales, that was a hell of a win and well fought. The spirit of the Welsh team was clear to see. Will be very interesting how the pool ends up. Pressure on England now and to a lesser extent Australia. England will now be hoping Wales beat the Aussies. 

P.S Thought Villa Park did an amazing job at hosting its first match yesterday.


----------



## k5villan (Mar 20, 2012)

Why if you don't mind me asking?

Saw that we'd given the whole place a clean, we'd put some new play safe rubber stuff around the pitch, all the lampposts around the stadium had flags, they stuck some manifestations about the place

Where was you sat? If it was the trinity it's a great stand, if it was the holte you could have had a drink in the holte suite which always looks a bit exclusive so people avoid it but it's £3 entry I think and a brilliant fan zone

The strange thing for me was the organisers sent people in via junction 7 of the m6, it's piss poor that spaghetti is still being worked on but even so it's still a much better option for getting to VP


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Its AlL gUUd said:


> England will now be hoping Wales beat the Aussies.


I'd prefer us to beat Australia well and Australia to beat Wales without either side getting a bonus point - that would mean we could still top Pool A.

Either way, if we lose to Australia we're out... unless Fiji beat Wales on Thursday!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

A fired up England will belt Australia


----------



## Semolina Pilchard (Aug 30, 2015)

lwa said:


> Uruguay are competing in their first tournament for 12 years this time (think it's only their 3rd in total?). For some reason south america is lumped in with north america for qualifying and so isn't guaranteed any places.
> 
> However, Brazil will play in a new '6 nations' tournament from next year alongside 4 RWC sides (Argentina, Uruguay, USA and Canada) and Chile. That gives them a great opportunity to develop, and there is every chance that will be used as RWC qualifying in the future…
> 
> Oh, and whilst the format is likely to remain the same in 2019, there are rumours it will increase to a 24 team tournament 4 years later.


It's already too big a tournament, there are not enough good sides to justify it (all right, Japan, I know). The main problem this causes, since rugby players need so long to recover between each match, is that the whole thing just goes on far too long, 7 weeks or something. THE World Cup is over inside a month, the Olympics is done in 2 weeks. Have 16 teams and cut it down by at least 10 days. Too long.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

89,267 for Ireland Romania sets a new record.


----------



## Darude Sandstorm (Jun 18, 2015)

Was never more wounded about a result than Saturday. Congrats Wales on showing more heart and desire, even then i still and will not ever understand the tactical collapse of England. I think we can down the Aussies. We are the Land of Hope (and Glory, but in Saturday's case, definitely not)


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Once again I was cought offside by the scheduling, I knew Ireland - Romania was the third and last match on Sunday so I waited patiently for the late evening slot. :lol: My fault, I know, but still...


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Semolina Pilchard said:


> It's already too big a tournament, there are not enough good sides to justify it (all right, Japan, I know). The main problem this causes, since rugby players need so long to recover between each match, is that the whole thing just goes on far too long, 7 weeks or something. THE World Cup is over inside a month, the Olympics is done in 2 weeks. *Have 16 teams and cut it down by at least 10 days.* Too long.


It's really not as simple as that. 16-team World Cups were all in the amateur era, and involved playing all the pool games in the space of 11 days (opening game on a Thursday then 7 on Fri/Sat, 8 on Tue/Wed, 8 on Sat/Sun). With the exception of SA and Aus, teams in 1995 basically had a 4 day turnaround followed by another 4 day turnaround - completely unrealistic in the professional era.

You could stretch them out to something like a 5 day then 6 day turnaround as a bare minimum, but then you'd have more games on weekdays than at weekends, which would make for a much, much poorer spectator experience, for those wanting to travel to games or watch them on TV. Or you could just play at Fridays/weekends, but that would make the tournament feel a lot more stop/start than it currently is, and would only make it a week shorter.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Semolina Pilchard said:


> It's already too big a tournament, there are not enough good sides to justify it (all right, Japan, I know). The main problem this causes, since rugby players need so long to recover between each match, is that the whole thing just goes on far too long, 7 weeks or something. THE World Cup is over inside a month, the Olympics is done in 2 weeks. Have 16 teams and cut it down by at least 10 days. Too long.


When the tournament was first expanded to 20 they used 5 groups of 4 instead of 4 groups of 5. Only 3 of the 5 2nd place teams advanced but it shortened the tournament and allowed for a full week of rest between matches. I prefer that format because it put pressure on teams to win their group as 2nd place did not guarantee advancement.

As for the competitiveness, the gap is still large but the margins of victory have come down this tournament. On sunday the yanks were leading Scotland by 7 at the half and on Saturday Italy were very fortunate to squeak past Canada. Don't just take it from me, read the match reports and statistics. 

I think rugby has a different burden than football with its world cup. For better or worse, the IRB needs to use the tournament as a vehicle to grow the sport beyond its handful of heartlands. It's a fair counterbalance to the ring fenced annual clique competitions (6 nations, rugby championship) that steadfastly refuse to institute a meritocratic competition structure. That's the single biggest inhibitor of the game's growth but that's a rant for another day.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

JYDA said:


> When the tournament was first expanded to 20 they used 5 groups of 4 instead of 4 groups of 5. Only 3 of the 5 2nd place teams advanced but it shortened the tournament and allowed for a full week of rest between matches. I prefer that format because it put pressure on teams to win their group as 2nd place did not guarantee advancement.


The problem with that format is that the second-placed teams (and best third-placed team) had to play an extra game, putting them at a real disadvantage.

Logistically, I'd like to see a 24-team tournament run like the 1986 to 1994 soccer World Cups - the pool stage could be reduced in length but without some teams having the ridiculous four day turnaround. There isn't the depth of talent right now though - if RWC 2015 was 24 teams, we'd have Russia, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong and probably Spain playing as well.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Surroundings of Sandy Park yesterday, nice!


----------



## jts1882 (Jul 15, 2012)

JYDA said:


> When the tournament was first expanded to 20 they used 5 groups of 4 instead of 4 groups of 5. Only 3 of the 5 2nd place teams advanced but it shortened the tournament and allowed for a full week of rest between matches. I prefer that format because it put pressure on teams to win their group as 2nd place did not guarantee advancement.
> 
> *As for the competitiveness, the gap is still large but the margins of victory have come down this tournament. On sunday the yanks were leading Scotland by 7 at the half and on Saturday Italy were very fortunate to squeak past Canada. Don't just take it from me, read the match reports and statistics. *
> 
> I think rugby has a different burden than football with its world cup. For better or worse, the IRB needs to use the tournament as a vehicle to grow the sport beyond its handful of heartlands. It's a fair counterbalance to the ring fenced annual clique competitions (6 nations, rugby championship) that steadfastly refuse to institute a meritocratic competition structure. That's the single biggest inhibitor of the game's growth but that's a rant for another day.


I think this has been the striking aspect of this world cup. Japan was the dramatic example, but the performances of Georgia, Namibia, Canada and the USA show that there are a number of nations improving. 



CharlieP said:


> The problem with that format is that the second-placed teams (and best third-placed team) had to play an extra game, putting them at a real disadvantage.
> 
> Logistically, I'd like to see a 24-team tournament run like the 1986 to 1994 soccer World Cups - the pool stage could be reduced in length but without some teams having the ridiculous four day turnaround. There isn't the depth of talent right now though - if RWC 2015 was 24 teams, we'd have Russia, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong and probably Spain playing as well.


There haven't been any blow-outs in this world cup so perhaps there is room for more of the weaker teams. As just mentioned there are a number of teams improving and their development needs a guarantee of playing world cups. South America could do with another team so rugby is encouraged in Chile and Brasil. Europe also as with Georgia and Romania becoming established nations there needs to be better prospects for newcomers.

I think different arguments apply to football and rugby world cups. Football has many showcase events so the world cup is the pinnacle, something that shouldn't be diluted. The world cup is the only global showcase in rugby, in the sense it is widely covered and people can say perhaps we can participate one day. Expanding world cup participation, even if it means a slightly longer tournament, will ultimately benefit the whole game.

The risk of dilution and blow-outs is real, but this world cup suggests the dangers are receding. We aren't seeing 140 point games, there aren't games where we worry about the safety of inexperienced props. This world cup suggests that the game is ready to expand.

Besides, we need a chance for a best 3rd place team. hno:


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Just as a thought exercise, I "redrew" the World Cup with 24 teams, based on the rankings on 3 December 2012, but replacing Belgium (23) with Chile (25) to avoid having too many European teams.

*Pool A*

France (4)
Scotland (12)
Fiji (13)
Romania (19)

*Pool B*

England (5)
Argentina (8)
Georgia (17)
Uruguay (22)

*Pool C*

Ireland (6)
Wales (9)
Canada (14)
Namibia (24)

*Pool D*

South Africa (2)
Italy (10)
Japan (15)
Chile (25)

*Pool E*

Australia (3)
Samoa (7)
Spain (18)
Portugal (21)

*Pool F*

New Zealand (1)
Tonga (11)
USA (16)
Russia (20)

The most obvious downside is that there are suddenly just four games between Tier 1 nations, rather than the eight at this World Cup. Still some interesting fixtures though.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Commiserations England, that was clinical of Australia. I didn't see that coming.


----------



## vitacit (Feb 8, 2008)

being from totally non-rugby country (slovakia), i've found this sport absolutely stunning ! i still don't get rules very well, but newspapers and websites inform about rugby world cup, still more and more people discuss about rugby (even on the football websites)))...), if possible i watch streamed games on the web. incredibly great sport !


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

vitacit said:


> being from totally non-rugby country (slovakia), i've found this sport absolutely stunning !


Great: more ands more countries are interested about Rugby.
Last week in London I crossed a young guy wearing a "Czesh Rugby" jersey...


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

What a shame for the english team! I was looking for the past wc and looks like england never one against 1st tier nations at twickham in the rwcs.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

CharlieP said:


> Just as a thought exercise, I "redrew" the World Cup with 24 teams, based on the rankings on 3 December 2012, but replacing Belgium (23) with Chile (25) to avoid having too many European teams.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If they expend to 24 the idea is to have 4 groups of six teams


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

There is no reason for a wc with only 16 teams since we already has six nations and the rugby championship


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

TEBC said:


> If they expend to 24 the idea is to have 4 groups of six teams


That would mean the semi-finalists all playing eight games - the tournament would go on for ages! Six groups of four would keep it at a maximum of seven games as now, and would prevent a minnow like Chile having to play three Tier 1 nations.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

TEBC said:


> What a shame for the english team! I was looking for the past wc and looks like england never one against 1st tier nations at twickham in the rwcs.


England beat Italy at Twickenham in 1991 and 1999. But they lost to New Zealand in 1991 and 1999 and to Australia in 1991 (final) and 2015.


----------



## vitacit (Feb 8, 2008)

*...*

man, i guess i found another love of my life - rugby)))) now i just need to get deeper into the rules to understand more. when england played against australia me and my two pals were sitting in the pub for a beer and talked the barman to switch to channel for AUS-ENG. at the end even the people who had no idea about rugby commented actions, you could hear screams, support... great !
i've been into american football for many years and on sundary morning watchen final game of australian football between hawthorn and west coast. another great athletic sport without any simulation or stupid discussion with referees. that's what i love on those sports. 



eomer said:


> Great: more ands more countries are interested about Rugby.
> Last week in London I crossed a young guy wearing a "Czesh Rugby" jersey...


----------



## Rascar (Mar 13, 2012)

TEBC said:


> If they expend to 24 the idea is to have 4 groups of six teams


That is good, if you go to 4 team pools that means the "minnow" nations only have 3 guaranteed games each, which would be a shame, as these nations are given very little competition with tier 1 nations between WCs.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

vitacit said:


> man, i guess i found another love of my life - rugby)))) now i just need to get deeper into the rules to understand more. when england played against australia me and my two pals were sitting in the pub for a beer and talked the barman to switch to channel for AUS-ENG. at the end even the people who had no idea about rugby commented actions, you could hear screams, support... great !
> i've been into american football for many years and on sundary morning watchen *final game of australian football between hawthorn and west coast*. another great athletic sport without any simulation or stupid discussion with referees. that's what i love on those sports.


 This has left me in a deep depression. Not fun when your team plays its worst game of the year in the Final. F-king hate Hawthorn 

The National Rugby League (NRL) Final on Sunday was a classic for the ages.
*North Queensland won their first Premiership by beating 6 times Premiers Brisbane* by a field goal in overtime. They leveled scores by scoring a try in the last second of regulation but missed the conversion, thus the "Golden Point" extra time, which I believe is the first time that has happened in the NRL.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Nice to see every match pretty much sold out. Hope England will continue to do so after this trauma for them.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Red85 said:


> Nice to see every match pretty much sold out. Hope England will continue to do so after this trauma for them.


As tickets have been sold months in advance I don't see a reason why crowds wouldn't fill the grounds. It is the TV viewing figures which may take a hit. This will certainly be the case if France don't make it past the quaterfinals.


----------



## TOON FAN (Apr 28, 2010)

Photos and video from the Rugby World Cup pool match held at St James Park between New Zealand and Tonga. More will follow later as I pretend to be from North of the border at todays Scotland v Samoa match.


----------



## TOON FAN (Apr 28, 2010)

Photos and video from todays Scotland v Samoa match at St James Park. The invasion of Scots to Newcastle made the atmosphere amazing!


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

Great game today in Cardiff Milenium Stadium. Ireland was better despite the injuries of their two best players: Sexton and O'Connel. But Madigan and Anderson did the job.
Now, France will play NewZealand while Ireland will play Argentina...may the best win but I won't bet one Euro on France.
Congrats to Irishs: they desserve the victory.

Final Draw:
- Australia vs Scotland
- Ireland vs Argentina
- New-Zaeland Vs France
- South Africa vs Wales


----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)

I'm predicting that it will be all four southern hemisphere teams in the semi's. Ireland is the best northern team but I don't think they will win against Argentina.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

The irish fans were f***ing electric today!! bravo


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

JYDA said:


> The irish fans were f***ing electric today!! bravo


As ever.
If Ireland play's, 95% of the seats are occupied by the Irish. 
A little bit of :cheers: and a little bit of :drunk:, will make 'm go :banana:

Rugby or football, doesn't matter, it's always a party with those. Lovely to see. 

Still hoping for a All Black - Green final


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

carnifex2005 said:


> I'm predicting that it will be all four southern hemisphere teams in the semi's. Ireland is the best northern team but I don't think they will win against Argentina.


Head says South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland and Australia. Heart says Wales, France, Ireland and Australia.


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

Japan won a sad trophy: the first team that won 3 games and failed to qualify. That's due to lack of bonus points and maybe to a bad calendar: Japan plaid is second match against Scotland (who plaid it's First one) less than 4 days after historical win against south-africa.


----------



## afonso_bh (Feb 28, 2007)

I'm going with Australia, Argentina, France and Wales (if they can finish tries).


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Boris keeping Rugby in the spotlight during this down week, and doing his best to destroy Anglo-Japanese relations:


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

LOL...not wrong but...


----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)

carnifex2005 said:


> I'm predicting that it will be all four southern hemisphere teams in the semi's. Ireland is the best northern team but I don't think they will win against Argentina.


I'm going to toot my own horn here. Funny that by far the closest match out of all of them was the Scotland/Australia match. Couldn't believe that last minute penalty given to the Aussies.

Here are all the highlights of this weekend's matches.

I'm calling for a NZ/Argentina final.


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

What a f...referee can do to **** the last Northern team.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

What, no mention of the 3 incorrect Penalties that Craig Joubert called against the Wallabies (specifically Scott Sio) for 'collapsing the Scrum'?
WP Nel habitualy bored in at a 30 degre angle and got away with it, in the process injuring Scott Sio by the dangerous play.
Scotland landed 3 penalty Goals from those poor calls which gave them 9 points.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Walbanger said:


> What, no mention of the 3 incorrect Penalties that Craig Joubert called against the Wallabies (specifically Scott Sio) for 'collapsing the Scrum'?
> WP Nel habitualy bored in at a 30 degre angle and got away with it, in the process injuring Scott Sio by the dangerous play.
> Scotland landed 3 penalty Goals from those poor calls which gave them 9 points.


Yellow wasn't a yellow. Resluting in 10 points in those 10 minutes sin bin. Plus the 3 penaltypoints in the dying seconds is 13.
13-9 = 4 so Scotland in the Semi. Whats your point?


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^^ The yellow was Harsh but justifiable to the letter of the law.
You can't declare Australia wouldn't have scored with Scotland at 15 men or 14 men.
Even with no yellow card and just an Australian scrum feed for knock-on, the Wallabies would still have been in a potent attacking position and they didn't seem to have a problem scoring tries against a full 15 Scots with 4/5.
The sin-binnin certainly had absolutely no bearing on the penalty goal kick in the at time.

The 3 penalties awarded to Scotland were of great importance to the rhythm of the game, set Scotland up for its second half assault and left Scott Sio injured because Joubert didn't control of the situation, Nel should have been carded. 

Watching the replays of the last penalty, it looks tough but still a correct decision as the ball is lost forward by Scotland no7, hits Nick Phipps and immediately ricochets into Scotland no20 then again forward to Jon Welsh. What is utterly inconclusive from the angles I've seen (as it seems to be suggested) is if it hit Nick Phipps again off no20 to Jon Welsh, thus it would have just been a scrum for the first knock-on still leaving Australia in attacking position with a just under a minute left, still plenty of time.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ There seems to be a consensus that the last penalty decision was wrong, a Guardian article signed Guardian Sport (hence representing the view of everybody there) even has a quote from the Australian player who last touched the ball admitting to it (therefore the decision was wrong).


----------



## afonso_bh (Feb 28, 2007)

After the last WC final I thought Joubert wasn't going to referee any other important match, but there he was and once again doing his thing. 

He already had robbed Wales a win against Australia by not giving them a penalty-try. And I don't care if Wales wasn't good enough to get a try with 2 plus men (it's hard doing so when the other team are making penalties after penalties to try and stop the try). Joubert should've awarded a penalty-try. But apparently giving a penalty-try against NZ and Australia is the only thing that can make you never referee another important game.

Joubert robbed us a great semifinals between two deserving teams: Argentina and Scotland.

At least South Africa and Argentina are more than capable of beating NZ and Australia.


----------



## thomasKing (Jun 5, 2008)

TEBC said:


> If they expend to 24 the idea is to have 4 groups of six teams


We really need to remember, that its not volleyball they are playing out there. More games mean more injuries. Look at Ireland. a great win against France but it cost them three key players before their QF and this was nothing compared to Wales who were fielding little more than a reserve side in their narrow loss.

The tournament is already too tough. 7 games in less than 7 weeks. The 6N requires 5 matches over the same time. 

Expand the number of teams, not games.


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

RWC2015 is over...and all the world knows that "_Rugby is a simple game. 30 men chase a ball for 80 minutes and at the end, the All Blacks win._"


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Seems to have been the best World Cup so far, on the pitch at least. The extraordinary final must have surely won a huge lot of fans - I can certainly vouch for my mother in law, she now can't stop banging on about that last try and about Dan Carter.

Looking forward to the next Super Rugby season with its new Argentine and Japanese franchises, and I can only hope European rugby authorities can think up respective measures that the game changes for the better in Europe too (change in style of play for the big nations, embracing of the up and coming nations etc.).


----------



## afonso_bh (Feb 28, 2007)

Could've been better if it was Wales-New Zeland in one semi and Argentina-Scotland at the other. Joubert made his presence known again.


----------



## Alix_D (Apr 7, 2008)

Would have been better still if the hosts got to participate....



Oh.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Alix_D said:


> Would have been better still if the hosts got to participate....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.


^^

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Alix_D said:


> Would have been better still if the hosts got to participate....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.


:troll:
:lol:


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

I forgot to congratulate England for this successfull Rugby World Cup. Of course, I'm not talking about the English squad and it's results but about hosting and hospitality. Great atmosphere in great stadiums and fan zones especialy in London and Cardiff but not only: St James Park, for exemple, was awesome too. Transportations to venues (and back) where efficient with signs in main stations (St Pancrass, Victoria, Padington, Liverpool Street, Marylebone) and volunters where very kind and nice. RWC2015 broke record of attendance (Japon won't get it in 2019) and it's well desserve. I wish England could host FIFA World Cup 2022...

TV technicians did a great job with famous TMO and high frequency pictures. 

Only one bad thing: the final should have been played at 20:00 instead of 16:00 (3:00 in Australia, 5:00 in New Zeland) like most of other major games.

What I say doesn't means that former hosts did it badly (for exemple: New Zealand, that is a smal country, hosted well in 2011 too with less) but that England did his best with all available stuffs.


----------



## afonso_bh (Feb 28, 2007)

You're right. Now we need the football World Cup to be played in England. Imagine the atmosphere. I just hope that when they host, most stadiums still resemble english stadiums: charming, elegant. 

England can't lose its identity.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

eomer said:


> Only one bad thing: the final should have been played at 20:00 instead of 16:00 (3:00 in Australia, 5:00 in New Zeland) like most of other major games.


If it had been at 20:00 it would have (a) clashed with a lot of Halloween parties and (b) gone on to nearly midnight including presentations etc. had extra time been needed. Hardly family-friendly for UK viewers.


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

afonso_bh said:


> You're right. Now we need the football World Cup to be played in England. Imagine the atmosphere. I just hope that when they host, most stadiums still resemble english stadiums: charming, elegant.
> 
> England can't lose its identity.


Most English stadiums would need rows of seats to be removed. The stands are way too close to the pitch by FIFA standards.


----------



## Alix_D (Apr 7, 2008)

^ Eh? Mostly they aren't, and we have stadia coming out our arses. London could probably hold a world cup by itself within a few years. 



afonso_bh said:


> You're right. Now we need the football World Cup to be played in England. Imagine the atmosphere. I just hope that when they host, most stadiums still resemble english stadiums: charming, elegant.
> 
> England can't lose its identity.


Well don't blame us for not hosting it, we did our bit by preparing the best bid. It was the failure to correctly seal the brown envelopes that let us down :bash:


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

Alix_D said:


> ^ Eh? Mostly they aren't, and we have stadia coming out our arses. London could probably hold a world cup by itself within a few years.


England has tons of stadiums, but most club grounds have the first row of seats right next to the goal. That's why for RWC they had to make the pitches smaller, just to fit in the available space. FIFA likes open space around the playing area.


----------



## ben77 (Sep 1, 2006)

Nice that the rugby world cup made such a huge profit at the expense of the fan who paid extortionate prices for their tickets. Apart from that it was great..


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

ben77 said:


> Nice that the rugby world cup made such a huge profit at the expense of the fan who paid extortionate prices for their tickets. Apart from that it was great..


I paid £145 to see six games (two Cat C, the rest Cat D). I consider that a bit of a bargain.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

crazydude said:


> Most English stadiums would need rows of seats to be removed. The stands are way too close to the pitch by FIFA standards.


Curitiba wasn't so problematic during the '14 tournament... 

fifa knows by itself that that would be ridiculous and way off limits. Imagine Old Trafford and Anfield with the first 10 rows empty:bash:


----------

