All Blacks to Boycott RWC 2015?

First topic message reminder :

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20110928-301894.html

As he says, it would be the action of last resort - but if commercial arrangements stay the same as the current WC then it is exceedingly unlikely that New Zealand would participate.

While I have sympathies with countries losing money each of his potential solutions effectively means a loss to someone else:

1) Move the WC so a full Tri Nations can be played - note NH countries lose all their AIs all ready. This must mean moving it later, thus heavily impacting even further on the European season. They do not want to affect the Super XV by playing Tri-nations earlier, but do want to ride roughshod over the HC timetable.

2) Pay more to Tier 1 countries. This thus reduces the cash available for improving world wide rugby and is a narrow minded and short term view. The better the level of world wide rugby and it's exposure, the higher the TV and Commercial revenues and thus the money coming back to the Unions.

3) Relax the restrictions placed on the individual sponsors of countries (ie allow shirt sponsorship and other commercial activities for team sponsors rather than official IRB sponsors). This will obviousley reduce the value of the sponsoship package. It is however the best of the 3 solutions.


Any way, what do you think? Is mentioning this during a WC the right time? Should they have raised it earlier - seeing as they knew the arrangements in place for this WC?

As a side note - if the RFU had mentioned this and were mooting the possibility of boycotting a WC in NZ they would have been pilloried from every corner of the rugby globe. Will double standards be applied?

Otagolad,

Please stop dealing in facts. This argument is purely for wild speculation, made up statistics and misleading headlines.

I find it sad that so many people seem to be happy with the idea of one of the true heartland Unions potentiualy going bankrupt and no longer being able to enter the world cup as quite disturbing.
( Unless it was Wales)
Joking aside if you think that this issue doenst affect everyone in Union then youre bonkers.

Otagolad wrote:One further point - the game of rugby union may be on the verge of going massively global once it becomes an Olympic sport.

Lets see how that changes things in the USA when a gold medal is up for grabs and games are over in just 14 mins and are fast and free-flowing (unlike American football).

The downside to this is that like 20/20 in cricket we might see interest/money/players start to drift away from the 15 man version, which to me would be a massive issue. And don't simply say that's not going to happen - the IRB are currently persuing the growth of 7's as their major strategy to growing the game worldwide and see it as the perfect opportunity to crack the USA TV market. I have been living in the Caribbean for the last 5 years and it is quite clear from the increased televising of rugby (and 7's in particular) in the USA that the market is definitely growing.

Its not an unfair comparison between 20/20 and sevens. The only thing i will say on that is that 20/20 was created by the established nations to generate interest and income - it worked. On the other hand Sevens is being used as a tool to grow Rugby in new regions - there is no great desire or reliance upon it within the established unions so i don't see it ever overtaking 15's within those traditional rugby playing countries.

Otagolad thank you,for clarifying the situation many of us were not aware
of the ins and outs.
Send all best players to NH or Japan? brilliant turn THE best tournament in world rugby.To the level of the ITM.
What genius thought that one up.reducing them to having full sides only at RWCs.MAN what are you smoking or drinking?
Try developing your ownplayers more,and not poaching SH imports.
Cue South Sea islands Poaching thread again.
Wonder why you don`t win many RWCs?most of your bestplayers are ineligble.Top 14 thats 45% of players.There are more New Zealanders at this RWC playing for other sides than for them.

Yeah but the jokes on Tigers for signing Waldrom on the basis that he woudlnt be going to the WC

1. sponsership after the world cup ends is affected by results and performance during the world cup. Tier one nations all do very well out of that increased exposure during a world cup year at least every tier one nation except NZ it seems.

2, Rugby world cup gets 7 weeks of sponsership every four years, the unions have deals at all other times. The RWC is the main money generator for the IRB and funds investment in grass roots rugby.

3, They NZ govt benefit to the tune of 1.2 billion dollars, 15-20 million invested for nearly a 1000% return is a good investment.

4, see point 2

5. yes I understood that when I read the article your point is?

6a win the world cup and your revenue will increase by far more than 12 million in the next year. Underperform and of course sponsers will be more interested in the Boks or whoever else has raised the profile of their brand by performing at teh global shopiece event for that sport. Wales in 03 Argentina in 07 amply demonstrate that success in the world cup brings sponsers and money in.

6b Other tier one nations can do it why cant you, Only scotland look set to make a loss from dampened exposure if they dont make the quarters. Wales made a profit in 99 from the world cup, our income increased by 25% after the performances in the 03 world cup. Maybe if you actually performed at teh most important competition in rugby your sponsership and marketing revenue would see that. Performance = exposure = increase revenue after the RWC ends. Choking = failure = decreased income after RWC ends. Wales in 07 demonstrates that.

6c, If you win the world cup this year you will generate far more that 15 million dollars a year on increased revenue generated simply because you are world champions. Of course if you blow it at home your going to lose money.

6d, I would suggest that the fifa model of corruption is not one that the Rugby world should either endorse or aspire too. Or does Tew really want to be rugbys sepp blatter

"MAN what are you smoking or drinking?"

If only we knew emack2, if only we knew!

Try using the return and space bar please, reading your post is harder than trying to decrypt the Enigma Code.

emack2 wrote:Otagolad thank you,for clarifying the situation many of us were not aware
of the ins and outs.
Send all best players to NH or Japan? brilliant turn THE best tournament in world rugby.To the level of the ITM.
What genius thought that one up.reducing them to having full sides only at RWCs.MAN what are you smoking or drinking?
Try developing your ownplayers more,and not poaching SH imports.
Cue South Sea islands Poaching thread again.
Wonder why you don`t win many RWCs?most of your bestplayers are ineligble.Top 14 thats 45% of players.There are more New Zealanders at this RWC playing for other sides than for them.

Or perhaps just join the real world and try running NZ rugby in the same way every other company/organisation is doing, i.e. by matching the costs it incurs to the revenues its capable of generating, not the other way round.

It sound's to me that the NZRU are getting ready to throw there toys out of the pram and avoid the 2015 RWC, if NZ do not win the 2011 RWC.

I do think that changes should be made before the next RWC, NO TEAM, shopuld have tp play 2 games in less than 6 days apart. Every team shopuld atleast have a full week resst between games.

I realy do not know why the Host team does not make a profit from the RWC, is this to do with bad management, ticket pricing, or is there another reason.

Think the NZ peso may have something to do with it.

it cant be bad management maj, even after building a stadium and saddling themselves with a massive capital debt wales managed to turn a profit. The WRU are not known for great management.

But months before the tournament kicked off, weren't they already expecting a loss with this tournament. I seem to remember reading that they knew they wouldn't make a profit. I'm not sure if any of the other host nations have ever incurred losses, or if indeed NZ did when hosting the first one, but if they knew PRE-tournament they would be making a loss, why comment on it now?

disneychilly wrote:Think the NZ peso may have something to do with it.

NZ peso is following a pretty convincing trend right now disney. In the last 10 years it's continued to improve against the British Rupiah from just over 4:1 to now less than 2:1 wholesale.

If anyone would be abandoning international sports on the basis of lacking a competitive currency, it might be the European teams.

majesticimperialman wrote:I realy do not know why the Host team does not make a profit from the RWC, is this to do with bad management, ticket pricing, or is there another reason.

Everyone conveniently forgets that the WC was awarded to NZ in 2005, 3 yrs later the biggest economic downturn since the late 1920’s swept the world. NZ was hit hard by this and with ticket prices set as they are, it is not surprising that there is a shortfall in revenue. I think the RWC organising committee should be congratulated for being almost assured of hitting their ticket sales target (they could surpass it).

It would affect any country really, but an isolated one like NZ would be hit harder. NZ is more reliant on the general public coming out and buying tickets, rather than overseas supporters. A continental WC can absorb more overseas ticket buyers if the local population does not buy them. Simple really. I’d bet the ratio of local to foreign ticket buyers is higher for this WC than any other.

That in itself contradicts the pre-tournament opinion that NZ would be an insular host.

SolvableKnave wrote:But months before the tournament kicked off, weren't they already expecting a loss with this tournament. I seem to remember reading that they knew they wouldn't make a profit. I'm not sure if any of the other host nations have ever incurred losses, or if indeed NZ did when hosting the first one, but if they knew PRE-tournament they would be making a loss, why comment on it now?

For the love of all that is holy, please could everyone stop confusing the point! It's nothing to do with loss incurred from hosting the tournament. It's everything to do with loss to the NZRFU from participating in the rugby world cup (whoever hosts it) due to loss of advertising, sponsorship and gate takings during the normally scheduled internationals.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

SolvableKnave wrote:But months before the tournament kicked off, weren't they already expecting a loss with this tournament. I seem to remember reading that they knew they wouldn't make a profit. I'm not sure if any of the other host nations have ever incurred losses, or if indeed NZ did when hosting the first one, but if they knew PRE-tournament they would be making a loss, why comment on it now?

For the love of all that is holy, please could everyone stop confusing the point! It's nothing to do with loss incurred from hosting the tournament. It's everything to do with loss to the NZRFU from participating in the rugby world cup (whoever hosts it) due to loss of advertising, sponsorship and gate takings during the normally scheduled internationals.

Ive answered that point many times in this thread.

But your points are largely wrong TO.

I especially had a chuckle at your claim that the IRB "funds grass roots rugby". No it doesn't.

Actually most of your points seem like thinly veiled attempts to have a pop at NZ in the patronising and condescending way that people who aren't as smart as they think they are generally do.

Aside from which if you can't separate the issues between the profit and loss of hosting the tournament and the profit and loss of the NZRFU then there is no point in even having the discussion with you. The NZRFU aren't talking about the tournament in NZ, they're talking about the tournament in England, so all of your points about what the NZRFU can or can't do are mostly irrelevant.

I have a question, of the $150m or so the rwc Ltd makes (according to Otagolad), where does it all go? I genuinely have no idea.

"The only thing i will say on that is that 20/20 was created by the established nations to generate interest and income - it worked"

but all the same it is working in promoting the game elsewhere,

The 20/20 world cup has the most amount of emerging teams- and a percentage of the revenues made goes back into help them out.

Mate if you think that then you really havent read what Im posting, Im certainly not having a pop at NZ the people or the team, Ive loved my time there I love your rugby.

IRB doesnt fund grass roots rugby? really? http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2023692.html

I have quite clearly indicated the differences in profits from hosting the tournaments, losses from direct revenues from 3 matches and increased revenues subsequent to world cups created by performance at that world cup.

This is the NZRU trying to get a bigger slice of the pie before the game goes viral, it is undeserved and to the detriment of the smaller nations. It is insulting to those tier 1 nations who accept the risk of failure at a world cup affecting their subsequent revenue in favour of growing the game.

The Rugby world would have been better suited to giving the 2011 world cup to a nation like Japan or russia to grow the sport and raise awareness in those markets the IRB have targetted for growth. It was given to NZ because they will not be able to cope with another world cup after this years event.

All successful tier one nations at a world cup see an increase in revenue after the world cup thats not incorrect. I have pointed to Wales whose financial accounts are freely available and Argentina as examples of that.

TycroesOsprey wrote:
IRB doesnt fund grass roots rugby? really? http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2023692.html

"The programme was the manifestation of a revised IRB Strategic Plan for the Game and was focused on high performance investment in around 20 targeted Unions."

Clearly our definitions of "grass roots rugby" are different.

“This funding of £48 million is over and above the annual IRB expenditure in the form of annual Union grants, tournament funding and education and training programme expenditure. In total £153 million will be invested in the Game during the 2009-2012 period. It will be primarily financed from the £120 million surplus from Rugby World Cup but will require the IRB to draw over £30 million out of its reserves which highlights the IRB’s commitment to further developing the Game. “

clearly it is 105 million invested in rugby education and training funded by the surplus from the 2007 world cup.

You mean that didn't fund Wayne Barne's home in the Canary Islands?

Tier 2 and Tier 3 Investments

• When the high performance expenditure of £18.7 million is added to the tournament expenditure for these Unions of £12.9 million the combined expenditure of £31.6 million represents 66% of the overall expenditure.
• Funding for USA, Canada and Romania is increased. USA and Canada will receive £2.5 million over the four years. Romania will receive £2.1 million.
• Funding has also been increased for Japan, Fiji and Samoa to reflect the increased High Performance activities in these Unions. Japan and Fiji will receive £1.9 million. Samoa will receive £2.2 million which includes significant infrastructure investment.
• Tonga is maintained at mid-level funding of £1.05 million.
• There is additional spending at Tier 3 level. Georgia receives a substantial increase with funding of £1.7 million with a significant amount of front-loading to enable infrastructure development during 2009 and 2010.
• Portugal also sees some front-loading in year 1 to enable the development of High Performance infrastructure. It will receive £875,000 over the four years.
• New beneficiaries to the investment programme in Tier 3 are Russia £1.1 million, and Spain and Namibia who will both receive £420,000.

all funded by RWC

Ok All Blacks may be the biggest brand in rugby. However branding popularity is based on Winners. History matters little in sport in the long run. I think Tew is more worried about players leaving New Zealand and it impacting the long term success of New Zealand.

But even that said any side who admit pulling out of something to negotiate better teams shouldn't be negotiated with. Should they be paid more? Maybe. Do they have the right to make any sort of veiled threats? No.

They already get an equal share of funds from the IRB along with England, Wales, France, Ireland, South Africa & Australia. So effectively the likes of South Africa, Australia & New Zealand are already paid more then their NH rivals if you allow for currency conversions as the Euro and Pound are stronger than their SH rival currency. So calculating that IRB collect from tier 1 nations at a percentage of turnover will end up with NH sides paying significantly more into a kitty that then gets divided out.

Personally to counter this argument I would just turn around and say "Sure we'll pay you more per match but we will keep 100% of our Home World Cups and the 6 Nations". That would basically destroy SH Rugbys funding models and probably cause mass exoduses of their players.

That kind of mentality wouldnt benefit the growth of rugby.

Also on a side note do New Zealand fans believe their team has some kind of divine right of of passage? Sure they are the All Blacks, the No 1 side in World Rugby but would it really bring Rugby to it knees if they stopped participating? Not on your life.

Not unless your economies recover sharpish.

This will backfire brilliantly, I remember Aussie chief O'Neil threatening to pull Australia out of the world game if he didn't get his own way on the scrumaging rules... the IRB basically said "good bye and good luck"!

If New Zealand is losing money then they only have themselves to blame, they are paying to much in wages for their players, more than they can afford, you have to live to your means, and frankly if the French, Japanease and English clubs can offer more money to their players then they have to swallow it.

i am not going out of my way to upset any New Zealanders here, but quite frankly the money is in Europe, and we don't really need the 3 Nations teams, we are more than happy to carry on with the 6 Nations, RaboDirect, Guiness Premiership, Top 14 and Heinaken Cup without their competitions or nations.

This all boils down to the fact that they are not a massive country or a rich one and are being priced out of the market, and if they think threatening to take their ball home, will change the way global professional sport is run then they are deluded.

Not a eurocentric opinion at all there Alyn.

Good point Alyn.

Its worth noting that the Unions dont control the Clubs either. French Club sides are inflating the market with their budgets.

The only reason Welsh and Irish sides poach top end All Blacks is due to the Foreigner limits imposed by their Unions. Its not like they will be competiting of your D. Carters and R. McCaws.

Scotland and Italy are no threat and even English Premier sides are limited with their spends. If anything England bring in more non capped SH talent than ever which is a indicator that they our being outpriced by the French as well.

Either way if New Zealand ever dared to boycott a WC I hope the IRB would ban them from all International Rugby participation.

Is that just because you'd have an outside chance of improving your win/loss ratio if they did?

Tew and O'Neill are simply having to own up to a few home truths in that with their Unions wanting to control/own the elite players their financial model is not sustainable.
It has always been a complete fallacy that rugby is not affordable in these countries. The Oz / Nz fans have been told that the current model is the only way but there are plenty of people or corporates that would own a Npc or S15 side. However the blazers in these two unions would lose their power and it could be argued that the players loyalty would be to their club rather than Club Oz or AB. This would also mean players that don't or qualify for other test sides could compete for top tier professional contracts in Oz and Nz and bring variety to the top sides.
Simply put, the IRB should call their bluff and the Sanzar model, started by Oz will have to change to a bottom up model rather than top down which will always be financially sustainable.

emack2 wrote:All Blacks 6 RWC`s to date won 1,final won,semi-final 3,only side todate won all there group games.
THE most successful overall RWC side.

False. The Boks & Aus in addition to having won the tournament twice compared to NZ's once (giving them a 50% & 33% tournament win rate compared to NZ's 17%) also have a higher match win rate (86% & 85% compared to NZ's 83%).

But having attended fewer tournaments Gelodge...hence not having reached as many semi-finals.

I think there's a severe flaw in the idea myself.

If NZ boycott the 2015 WC who are they going to play?

They state the bulk of the loss is from a shortened 3N, this would still be the case unless SA & AUS boycott it too - I can't see that happening.

They'd have nobody to play against, still suffer from the loss of 3N revenue, suffer from a dip in sponsorship - they wouldn't get the same money for shirt sponsorship if it weren't broadcast to 2 billion people worldwide every 4 years - and just generally suffer from poor publicity.

I've not heard anything more dense and ill thought out in a long time, talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face, why not just take your face off at the neck?

They'd play a tri-nations the second and thrid best teams in the world : New Zealand B and New Zealand C

Simple.

So you're suggesting that winning less of their matches and fewer of the tournaments they entered makes NZ a more successful WC team?

Not at all. The post claimed that NZ rarely made a semi-final. I was refuting that by pointing out that NZ have made more semi-finals than any other team.

TheGreyGhost wrote:They'd play a tri-nations the second and thrid best teams in the world : New Zealand B and New Zealand C

Simple.

Now come off it TGG, this will never happen, you know it, I know it and anyone with half a brain knows.... just take my word for it, OK?

NZ will not boycott the WC for commercial reasons, but they are apparently happy to "threaten" to boycott it whilst it's been played in their own country with the world and it's press in full attendance. The fact that this article has been written to coincide with the current WC and thereby gain maximum exposure from the very thing they are threatening to ignore, shows a distinct lack of respect, it's classless and about as cynical as England defending their own 22.

There are ways and means of stating a case, and whilst I empathise with the NZRFU's position and agree it is an issue that needs further consideration, the timing and manner of the threat is both ridiculous and vexatious, it's hardly likely to win a vote of sympathy is it?

I've long said that the RWC may not exist in a few years time. I suspect NZ's sentiments are just the tip of the ice berg.

This is why it is vitally important that we don't allow this rickshaw competition to devalue the legimate traditions of the game any more than it already has.

I don't think there's anything cynical about the timing at all, it's just an appropriate moment to voice the concern.

It's too big to just not exist TGG, but it does need a shake up.

It's not working in it's current format, it's not achieving the RFU's stated objectives, and if teams like NZ are struggling to justify the competition it's a poor indictment to say the least.

Personally, I think a statement of this nature would hold far more water if it were made after NZ had won the final - perhaps they didn't want to take any chances?

Personally, I think a statement of this nature would hold far more water if it were made after NZ had won the final - perhaps they didn't want to take any chances? .

........................................................................................................................
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT NEW ZEALAND WILL WIN THE RUGBY WORLD CUP.

They dont have a very good record over the last 24 years of winning the Rugby World Cup. Now do they?

"and if teams like NZ are struggling to justify the competition it's a poor indictment to say the least."

every other nation in it has no problem justifying it..New zealand are the team that need to shake up the act- Are we really going to believe that they are treated poorly!- they have been given the world cup- which is gonna bring massive money into the economy- at a time when its needed most- forget about 20 or so mill that it costs the govt if they do run a loss- that is insignificant

"I've long said that the RWC may not exist in a few years time. I suspect NZ's sentiments are just the tip of the ice berg.

This is why it is vitally important that we don't allow this rickshaw competition to devalue the legimate traditions of the game any more than it already has.

I don't think there's anything cynical about the timing at all, it's just an appropriate moment to voice the concern"

ermm cant agree with any of that. If NZ go or stay- there is no way on planet earth that the RWC is going anywhere. And if they did go they will be back sharpish, if they didnt NZ over time would fall from grace in a big way.

i dont understand how backwards you can be if you think that making rugby more accesable to the masses isnt a good idea- yeah teathing problems may occur as they do with everything- but a world cup is waht rugby needs and will never evert loose- Are you really trying to say that you only care about playing the tri nations!! against 2 teams-- Its almost as bad as a yanky 'world series'.

offcourse its not the time to voice concern-- voice it once the important stuff is out the way(after the world cup) and if NZ can win they have much more bargaining power

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not at all. The post claimed that NZ rarely made a semi-final. I was refuting that by pointing out that NZ have made more semi-finals than any other team.

My post quoted and was in reference to emack2's comment though, "THE most successful overall RWC side".

Incidentally, you're not quite right about the SFs, France have made the same number. You could have 'no one has made more SFs than NZ'.

Tier 2 and Tier 3 Investments

• When the high performance expenditure of £18.7 million is added to the tournament expenditure for these Unions of £12.9 million the combined expenditure of £31.6 million represents 66% of the overall expenditure.
• Funding for USA, Canada and Romania is increased. USA and Canada will receive £2.5 million over the four years. Romania will receive £2.1 million.
• Funding has also been increased for Japan, Fiji and Samoa to reflect the increased High Performance activities in these Unions. Japan and Fiji will receive £1.9 million. Samoa will receive £2.2 million which includes significant infrastructure investment.
• Tonga is maintained at mid-level funding of £1.05 million.
• There is additional spending at Tier 3 level. Georgia receives a substantial increase with funding of £1.7 million with a significant amount of front-loading to enable infrastructure development during 2009 and 2010.
• Portugal also sees some front-loading in year 1 to enable the development of High Performance infrastructure. It will receive £875,000 over the four years.
• New beneficiaries to the investment programme in Tier 3 are Russia £1.1 million, and Spain and Namibia who will both receive £420,000.

all funded by RWC

the fact that the all blacks are getting a £100,000 bonus if they win suggest NZ cant be losing money if they are willing to pay out £3million in bonus' to players?

gelodge wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not at all. The post claimed that NZ rarely made a semi-final. I was refuting that by pointing out that NZ have made more semi-finals than any other team.

My post quoted and was in reference to emack2's comment though, "THE most successful overall RWC side".

Incidentally, you're not quite right about the SFs, France have made the same number. You could have 'no one has made more SFs than NZ'.

you have...87 to 03. 5/6. 2/6 finals. 1 win. ouch.

TheGreyGhost wrote:They'd play a tri-nations the second and thrid best teams in the world : New Zealand B and New Zealand C

Simple.

GG - is your real name Jed Thian?

supporters of Tews stance in this thread have said.

1 Every tier 1 nation stands to lose out from participating in teh world cup.
2. The IRB dont invest in grass roots rugby
3. The world cup wont exist soon.
4. claim to make a loss from the revenues of three missed matches but no acknowledgement of increased sponsership and marketing after the world cup ends
5. The all blacks are the most successful rugby team in the world cup
6. without the all blacks US sponsers will not be interested in the world cup
7 My personal favorite, that tourists would have gone to NZ anyway and the world cup wont boost numbers in teh long term.

Yet when faced with facts from the IRB on funding or from publicly available information about other unions financial results or press releases from the BBC or NZ press, the statements above and those made by Tew are shown to be simply false.

Greed is good? nope. The All Blacks bigger than the rest of the rugby world? nope.

NZ as a country and the NZ union gain massively from this world cup. Its about time some people acknowledged that the rest of the Rugby World didnt have to give it to them, we could have given it to someone like Japan or Russia made a lot more money for the IRB and consequently World Rugby as a whole. Instead it was given to NZ because they will not be able to host future world cups because of the size and scope such competitions will have. Yeah really the world cup isnt gonna be around much longer

I was taught as a child to say thanks when given a favour or gift, yet NZRFU are throwing a 1.2 billion dollar gift back in the faces of the rest of the Rugby World and demanding more. WTF

TycroesOsprey wrote:7 My personal favorite, that tourists would have gone to NZ anyway and the world cup wont boost numbers in teh long term.

This is just a well accepted fact, which is normally conveniently ignored by those who should know better when pitching for tournaments.

The same thing applies to the London Olympics. Many of the same people who will visit London during the Olympics would have visited anyway, they just choose to visit en-masse rather than in a more dispersed manner. Watch the news and pay attention to visitor number statistics and reports about tourism revenues. You'll see for yourself it's a fact.

The problem is the visitor revenue doesn't really scale to accomodate it, you end up with less money from each individual because the facilities just don't exist to provide to their demands. Things get sold out. Minus the price of attempting to temporarily increase capacities (mis-sold as "investment") and you see the net impact is actually negative.

Not to mention the disruption to locals while the "investment" is taking place, and the cost of disposing of the white elephants afterwards.

NZ were savvy in building the temporary Eden Park expansion and not pumping hundreds of millions into a leaky waterfront stadium, not matter how unsexy it is.

Australia have now supported the New Zealand stand,the NH has long had all the wealth.The SH the players $100,000 per man win bonus if they win the RWC.how much were England on 2003.
When two of the worlds top 3 sides are saying it ,maybe something is wrong.
Like it or not the All Blacks are THE most successful team in or out of RWC on games won/lost.
The NZ government pay RWC costs.not Nzrfu.

"Many of the same people who will visit London during the Olympics would have visited anyway"

how many is many- all or only many!

the fact that you are saying many means that you are actaully admiting that more will vist the country where the sporting event is held-- why are you doing this to yourself?

also

Tourism will be boosted massively- traders will make a mint. Residnetial owners will be making bundles by renting out there apartments for 5 plus times what they pay anyway and are spending some of that money in hotels elsewhere away from the oylimpics.

sporting events bring money, massive money into the economy- not just directly (you know the money from tourism that was earned in another country which boost the import/export balance sheet), also they provide happiness and elation which also aids the economy. They create masses of jobs for building constructors during the run up, the businesses pay back tax on profits to the govt, the workers get more work, more people are employed, the workesr in he area spend more money. You seem to think there is a cost involved in running a WC or oympics- yes there is pal and of course they is- but that money is givenback to business/industry in your country in the run up and during!! it is an economy boost! and a massive one

i could keep going and going- but thats a start. You may get there eventually grey