2023 (expanded) Rugby World Cup for South Africa

First topic message reminder :

doctor_grey wrote:

fa0019 wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

SecretFly wrote:JFK left a final directive just weeks before he was assassinated that impelled the CIA to stop at all cost South Africa having more than one hosting of a World Cup per 20 year period.

The CIA, feeling guilty about Oswald and all, are trying to keep to the promise.... for old time's sake.

That's the only connection I can find between JFK and this thread...from reading 700 autobiographical books by Kennedy's Women.

I have the same abridged version of JFK and his women, too.  I read the same thing.  Camelot (the JFK presidency) strictly prohibited SA from hosting more than one RWC.  Said  it would endanger world security.  I thought I read in the Snowdon leaks the CIA is keeping Zuma in charge because no one in his right mind would put a major competition in a country wohch woul elect him.  It is all a plot hatched over 40 years ago.

The final part makes more sense then him simply appealing to the electorate.

I always thought it was the Mafia who got him elected.  So the mafia was his electorate, no?  Just like FIFA.

standard policy of slandering your rivals as witches and getting lookalikes to feature in grainy video stings with prostitutes.

Still reeling from having your butt kicked in this discussion?

Well, you seem to have forgotten about All Blacks winger Mike Clamp, who made the claim himself before departing to France in 1987 - the Aucklanders were the only ones being 'looked after,'

You've also forgotten that Zinny's claim has been disproved, because the family farm and his provincial team were in different provinces, and in the amateur era you didn't get to 'choose' your provinces.

But if you want to think those Aucklanders were nice charming little choir boys who would never have dreamed of accepting so much as a cent for playing, while shamateur rugby was already in full swing in other parts of the world, go right ahead. They just suddenly became so much better than everyone else at provincial and national level that it bordered on the farcical, and yet there was nothing whatsoever to presage this development at juniors level - quite the opposite, in fact. & the regular test XV stuck with union through blind loyalty even as top players from other provinces joined the exodus to league.

I suppose you think Carl Lewis was an amateur too. That's what he claimed...

Without the juice, he probably was. Honest fella.... except for the juice.

Disproved in your head only. You are the only one who seems to think so, there isn't one person on here who thinks so. The only one who thinks you've disproved it is yourself.

"looked after".... yet you have no idea what that means.

Was it a monthly salary which players could pay their rent, kids schooling with?
Was it assistance for costs?
Was it a free car to go inbetween training?
Was it being fixed up with a nice employer which would happen in the UK; one that gave well paid jobs, time off etc?

Everything you say is hearsay. Players saying they want to be "fixed up". Players saying the want to be "looked after".

But there is no meat to the bones. Nothing.

Easy way to back up your stories Rowan, what newspaper did you write for and under what name. Are you the really Quentin the stalker?

Peace boys! Peace. I think everyone here is of a better class than to let this thread descend into anarchy

I'm still waiting for an apology over him misrepresenting what I said Fly. Given he's a journalist he should know the importance of not doing that, so he's fair game.

Rowanbi wrote:Still reeling from having your butt kicked in this discussion?

Well, you seem to have forgotten about All Blacks winger Mike Clamp, who made the claim himself before departing to France in 1987 - the Aucklanders were the only ones being 'looked after,'

You've also forgotten that Zinny's claim has been disproved, because the family farm and his provincial team were in different provinces, and in the amateur era you didn't get to 'choose' your provinces.

But if you want to think those Aucklanders were nice charming little choir boys who would never have dreamed of accepting so much as a cent for playing, while shamateur rugby was already in full swing in other parts of the world, go right ahead. They just suddenly became so much better than everyone else at provincial and national level that it bordered on the farcical, and yet there was nothing whatsoever to presage this development at juniors level - quite the opposite, in fact. & the regular test XV stuck with union through blind loyalty even as top players from other provinces joined the exodus to league.

I suppose you think Carl Lewis was an amateur too. That's what he claimed...

Rowan this where your cuteness with the facts starts to pizz people off.

You cant expect guys on here from the other side of the the world to know that Auckland city covers three provincial rugby Unions (North harbour, Auckland and Counties Manakau) of course you could choose your province, the restriction was that you had to play in the province/union in which your club was based.

Your claims regarding Zinny are just laughable, the Brooke farm was at Puhoi, a rural area 50 k north of Auckland CBD, the nearest club is Mahurangi, which prior to the the formation of North Harbour was in the Northland rugby Union.
In your haste to try and construct something on which to base your antagonistic posts you have overlooked what had actually just occurred with the formation of the new North Harbour union. Mahurangi was brought into North harbour, ZinZan would have been about 19 years old. ZinZan went and joined marist in the Auckland area. some players stayed with their clubs and the clubs moved Provinces, well known examples would be Buck Shelford and Frano Botica.

Many players and coaches lived and worked in the Geographic bounds of one Rugby Union and played/coached for a club in another, sometimes only a kilometre down the road.

The same was occuring at the southern end of the city, players lived and worked in the Counties Manakau area, but played for clubs in the Auckland union area.

To make a finding that players were moving from one union to another just to get paid is somewhat reckless bearing in mind what else was going on at the time.

Meanwhile Buck and Frano will be very upset to learn that they could have moved to a club over the Bridge and become professionals.

I apologise to all others who had to read this boring post.

This would be the same Zinzan Brooke who had a stint in Italy in the early 1990s then? He'd earlier turned down NRL club Manly due to blind loyalty toward his adopted province, I suppose? One of the shamateur era's biggest super stars would've never dreamed of accepting even a cent for his services to the game, and was undoubtedly 100% amateur in Italy as well, slaving away on the farms between trainings and matches, of course    

Many players and coaches lived and worked in the Geographic bounds of one Rugby Union and played/coached for a club in another,

Yes, that's why it was known as the 'shamateur' era. It's taken a while, but you're slowly starting to catch on...

That you're a bit of wum you mean Quentin?

Rowanbi wrote:This would be the same Zinzan Brooke who had a stint in Italy in the early 1990s then? He'd earlier turned down NRL club Manly due to blind loyalty toward his adopted province, I suppose? One of the shamateur era's biggest super stars would've never dreamed of accepting even a cent for his services to the game, and was undoubtedly 100% amateur in Italy as well, slaving away on the farms between trainings and matches, of course    

Many players and coaches lived and worked in the Geographic bounds of one Rugby Union and played/coached for a club in another,

Yes, that's why it was known as the 'shamateur' era. It's taken a while, but you're slowly starting to catch on...

Everyone knows about Italy. Many players from the SH such as Lynagh, Kirwan, Botha, Campese, Mallett etc went. However the money in almost all cases wasn't enough to live on thereafter. It was a bonus and guys had to be careful because most of the time you couldn't simply leave your job for 6 months back home and then expect to pick it up when you returned. Guys who worked as builders, farm-hands, lumberjacks etc could, those who had professional jobs.. they wouldn't walk into a firm when they returned.

And I've said it many times. Campo is quoted in saying his price was £60k for the season, we know this because of the old Bath yarn from his meetup with the chairman post RWC91 folklore story. Big money right... well he was the world's best player at the time so don't believes others were close to those sums. How much was £60k a year in the early 90s? It was a decent wage probably similar to £120-150k today. But that was the very very best players, probably only half a dozen could command close to 50k and only a few actually took it up.

So perhaps 6 players could command a salary to live on and you couldn't do it all the time either. You can't play 6 months rugby SH, 6 months rugby NH for consecutive years because frankly your body will breakdown. You get no rest time, no recovery, no preseason. Winter tours with test teams also broke up seasons meaning players could only go from Dec onwards.

Oh and by the way... They still had jobs in Italy. They had to work and did work. They were fixed up in cushy jobs by the chairmans... but they still had jobs and still went to work. In addition, the clubs were still amateur, the clubs still trained as amateurs; every other day, in the evenings etc.

Italy was an amateur league, they paid players handsomely for the sport and the times sure (via contacts with businesses getting them easy jobs, perhaps subsidised by the club chairman's, perhaps not).

Yet again.... what you say can be broken down as thus

a) what you're saying is not new and people like myself have not only acknowledged it but mentioned it before you did.
b) it was only applicable to the very best individuals... literally those you could count on 2 hands (although I wonder how many fingers Rowanbi has to be honest?)
c) The players still had jobs and attended these jobs..
d) Clubs in Italy were still amateur, they trained as amateurs.
e) it is no evidence to say NZ rugby was professional.... because its a different country and only a few ABs actually took it up.

Rowanbi wrote:This would be the same Zinzan Brooke who had a stint in Italy in the early 1990s then? He'd earlier turned down NRL club Manly due to blind loyalty toward his adopted province, I suppose? One of the shamateur era's biggest super stars would've never dreamed of accepting even a cent for his services to the game, and was undoubtedly 100% amateur in Italy as well, slaving away on the farms between trainings and matches, of course    

Many players and coaches lived and worked in the Geographic bounds of one Rugby Union and played/coached for a club in another,

Yes, that's why it was known as the 'shamateur' era. It's taken a while, but you're slowly starting to catch on...

Reading is not one of your strong points then?

So weather and geography will not be factors, I have been told repeatedly during this discussion. But World Rugby has just released its hosting criteria, and it indeed mentions weather & geography:

- An environment and climate suited to top-level sport in a geography that allows maximum fan mobility.

Sucks for SA, greater skin cancer risk.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sucks for SA, greater skin cancer risk.

Whilst I know what you're saying weather wise... Ireland is a top 10 nation and Italy a top 20 nation for skin cancer rates... although that probably has something to do with the genetic makeup of the indigneous populations.

Bull... Ireland, you mean the Sahara of the north!

Yes and something to do with tracking etc. Weather in SA puts people at greater risk though, something to consider if the weather is considered.

Ha, too many considers!

Hmm...Irish people - unfortunately - pick up their top ten rating when they go to places like South Africa and Italy for holidays.... not under our fluffy cloud summers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes and something to do with tracking etc. Weather in SA puts people at greater risk though, something to consider if the weather is considered.

Lets be honest though... skin cancer... fans ain't going to get skin cancer because of a 4 week trip to SA, or anywhere. Maybe if they went out in 50c heat every day with no coverage. SA during Sept-Nov is reasonably warm but not dangerous warm. Summer is Dec-Feb.

Weather is playing conditions.

They ain't going for it anyway so non-starter

SecretFly wrote:Hmm...Irish people - unfortunately - pick up their top ten rating when they go to places like South Africa and Italy for holidays.... not under our fluffy cloud summers.

Would help if baby oil wasn't your overwhelming first choice of protection mind.

There's the risk fa, it only takes once to forget to wear that sun cream. #cancerawareness.

fa0019 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Hmm...Irish people - unfortunately - pick up their top ten rating when they go to places like South Africa and Italy for holidays.... not under our fluffy cloud summers.

Would help if baby oil wasn't your overwhelming first choice of protection mind.

Jesus, you've observed a lot of Irish people on beaches, fa....closely, it seems. Naughty, naughty

Rowanbi wrote:

There's one that fa missed...

My Irish mate from uni is from Mayo from memory. I recall our surprise when when we went on holiday in the med with the boys that he wouldn't put any sun cream on (given he was pale pale skin and ginger).
His idea was thus, day 1 - red, day 2 - deep red.. by day 5 he is so burnt he's almost a bronze type which looks similar to a decent tan.

day 6 top up with cooking oil....

SecretFly wrote:day 6 top up with cooking oil....

I was with two guys - one Irish, one English - who did that for a bet.

The results weren't pretty.

What will be interesting is when the RWC will be held by the time 2023 rolls around.

If the SANZAAR get their way on the global schedule then the RWC would likely start in October and run into November. That would change the temperature gauge a fair bit for places like Ireland, France or Italy. Although the November internationals continue to run each year without any complaints that I'm aware of.

Pot Hale wrote:What will be interesting is when the RWC will be held by the time 2023 rolls around.

If the SANZAAR get their way on the global schedule then the RWC would likely start in October and run into November.  That would change the temperature gauge a fair bit for places like Ireland, France or Italy.  Although the November internationals continue to run each year without any complaints that I'm aware of.

Cape Town's average rainfall at that time of year is 18.7 inches, where as Dublin's is 28.85. Also, there is a 40% chance of rainfall in Cape Town but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature in Cape Town will be 18 degrees, compared to 8 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about two in Dublin.

So perfect rugby weather either way.

Yeh, although I think the conditions in South Africa would undoubtedly be more conducive to open, running rugby, such as we saw in 95. The fans would certainly find it a lot more comfortable too.

Doubt it, groundkeepers produce excellent pitches here as you know and finding it comfortable; don't understand your point.

And you still owe me an apology Quentin.

Two weeks ago watched the Blues play the Lions at Ellis Park, absolutely pizzed down.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Two weeks ago watched the Blues  play the Lions at Ellis Park, absolutely pizzed down.

Great, let's settle the issue with a personal anecdote that flies in the face of general statistics and trends.

In fact, there is a 35% chance of rainfall in Jo'burg during October but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature will be 18 degrees in Joburg, compared to 11 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about three in Dublin. In November Joburg's average temperature increases to 19 with 11 sunshine hours. Dublin's average temperature, on the other hand, drops to 8 with two hours of sunshine.

And Quentin? Apology as well please.

Rowanbi wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Two weeks ago watched the Blues  play the Lions at Ellis Park, absolutely pizzed down.

Great, let's settle the issue with a personal anecdote that flies in the face of general statistics and trends.

In fact, there is a 35% chance of rainfall in Jo'burg during October but about a 60% chance of rainfall in Dublin. The average temperature will be 18 degrees in Joburg, compared to 11 degrees in Dublin, and the average sunshine hours will be over 10 compared to about three in Dublin. In November Joburg's average temperature increases to 19 with 11 sunshine hours. Dublin's average temperature, on the other hand, drops to 8 with two hours of sunshine.

Silly me, I didnt realise that the wet stuff bucketing down from the sky was sunshine.

Silly me,

First intelligent thing you've written so far.

No, your personal anecdote doesn't override general statistics that show beyond any doubt whatsoever that the weather conditions will be vastly superior in South Africa to Ireland during World Cup time, increasingly so as the tournament progresses, and with approximately five times as much average sunshine hours.

As a journalist Quentin I thought you'd want to put the record straight yet you seem to want to mislead.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Argentina is set to bid for 2027, apparently, having been given full government backing. My guess is that if a European nation gets 2023, it'll come down to either Argentina or SA (provided they're allowed to bid) for 2027. However, if the South African government can be persuaded to change its stance in time for the 2023 bid to ahead (still quite possible), I think they'll get to host it and Argentina might have to wait till 2031. Interesting Argentina is also bidding for the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Uruguay as a co-host. I certainly don't see them getting both. It'll have to be one or the other, surely.

It's also worthwhile considering that many of the high-profile matches might be played in the late afternoon early evening 4pm- 8pm to facilitate TV audiences, so in an October/Nov RWC I don't think sunshine/daylight is going to be as relevant for games, since sun sets between 6-7pm so floodlights would have to be used. For example, the sun would set at 18.24 in Jo'burg on 28 October, 18.01 in Dublin, 18.38 in Paris, and 18.10 in Rome. Sun rises earliest in Jo-Burg - around 5.30am around 2 hours ahead of European cities which is why it has longer daylight hours - varying between 9.5 - 12.5 hours during October for the four cities.

Alternatively, if it was September/Oct, then say mid September sunsets (daylight) would be Dublin 19.40 (12.5 hours), Johannesburg 18.00 (12 hours), Paris 20.00 (12.5 hours), Rome 19.20 (12.5 hours).

Some stats that have been published on visitor numbers for RWC 2015.

The number of international visitors who went to games for RWC 2015 is estimated at 406,000. Of those, this splits into Rest of UK (96,000), Europe - e.g. Ireland, France, Romania, Georgia (188,000), Australasia (39,000) North America (38,000), S America (22,000), Asia (14,000) and Africa (10,000).

It is still warmer in South Africa in September than it is in Ireland, and there are still about twice as many sunshine hours on average - eight compared to four. & there is still only a 40% chance of rain in Cape Town, compared to 60% in Dublin.

You'd actually have to go to the middle of the Northern Hemisphere summer and the middle of the Southern Hemisphere winter to find a point at which Ireland's average monthly temperature is actually a degree or two higher than Cape Town's. But even there there is still one more hour of sunshine on average in SA,, six compared to five, and the chances of rainfall remain at 40% to 60%.

So no wonder my Irish colleagues are always moaning about the cold and rain 'back home,' and thanking their lucky stars they live in a place where the sun actually shines on a regular basis and it's not always raining outside.

Rowanbi wrote:It is still warmer in South Africa in September than it is in Ireland, and there are still about twice as many sunshine hours on average - eight compared to four. & there is still only a 40% chance of rain in Cape Town, compared to 60% in Dublin.

You'd actually have to go to the middle of the Northern Hemisphere summer and the middle of the Southern Hemisphere winter to find a point at which Ireland's average monthly temperature is actually a degree or two higher than Cape Town's. But even there there is still one more hour of sunshine on average in SA,, six compared to five, and the chances of rainfall remain at 40% to 60%.

So no wonder my Irish colleagues are always moaning about the cold and rain 'back home,' and thanking their lucky stars they live in a place where the sun actually shines on a regular basis and it's not always raining outside.

You seem to have this fetish for heat and sunshine, Quentin - which presumably is why you now live in Turkey. No one is disputing that South Africa is warmer on average, given its geographical location. "still one more hour of sunshine" - makes you sound like a schoolyard child boasting about the size of his willy.

You may have noticed in your travels that different countries have different climates. People enjoy different temperatures - it isn't a black and white situation. Despite the cooler or more temperate climate in Europe, you'll notice from the above visitor figures that people still manage to move around and enjoy themselves. And yes it rains - shock, horror. Rugby gets played in the rain too.

You have the mind of a 12-year-old, Pot Hale. Your arguments are absolutely idiotic, you seem to think World Rugby is going to award Ireland the World Cup ahead of South Africa on the basis of its WEATHER ! then respond like a heinous infant when somebody makes a mockery of your delusions with plain and simple statistics. Grow up & face the facts! World Rugby is NEVER going to award Ireland the World Cup on the basis of its weather. That is the very definition of stupidity.

So which one is Ireland & which one is South africa?   & which would you rather visit for the RWC?  

The weather argument is ridiculous; there are plenty of people across the world who don't love sunshine and heat all the time. I've talked to plenty of tourists who come to Ireland to enjoy what our weather offers because it's completely different to what they experience back home.

South Africa won't get the world cup because they are run by a bunch of incompetent racists, who if they had their way would not only destroy rugby in SA but ruin thousands of careers and lives because they don't have the right skin colour.

Sure, World Rugby is going to award the RWC to Ireland precisely because it is a wet, cold, gloomy country, and that will be a great attraction to multitudes of fans, who would be turned off completely by the warm and sunny conditions South Africa has to offer. Makes perfect sense - after a couple of bottles of Jamesons        

I think it is the opposition to South Africa's attempts to redress the ongoing imbalances within the game at first class level which is racist, and that is something which is endemic within the sport in general.  

Rowanbi wrote:Meanwhile, back in the real world, Argentina is set to bid for 2027, apparently, having been given full government backing. My guess is that if a European nation gets 2023, it'll come down to either Argentina or SA (provided they're allowed to bid) for 2027. However, if the South African government can be persuaded to change its stance in time for the 2023 bid to ahead (still quite possible), I think they'll get to host it and Argentina might have to wait till 2031. Interesting Argentina is also bidding for the 2030 FIFA World Cup with Uruguay as a co-host. I certainly don't see them getting both. It'll have to be one or the other, surely.

I would actually be 100% behind Argentina if they went head-to-head with SA for 2027. I firmly believe 2023 should be South Africa's year, to wind up a cycle which has seen all of the major rugby playing nations hosting at least twice so far, to bring the tournament back to the Southern Hemisphere after succeessive World Cups in the north, and to return to the event to the second biggest player base in the world and also the African continent, where the game has been making vast inroads. But if they themselves throw away this opportunity, then I won't be backing them again in the future.

Rowanbi wrote:Sure, World Rugby is going to award the RWC to Ireland precisely because it is a wet, cold, gloomy country, and that will be a great attraction to multitudes of fans, who would be turned off completely by the warm and sunny conditions South Africa has to offer. Makes perfect sense - after a couple of bottles of Jamesons        

I think it is the opposition to South Africa's attempts to redress the ongoing imbalances within the game at first class level which is racist, and that is something which is endemic within the sport in general.  

Of course you would think that. A party whose members regularly sing kill the boer are trying to "redress imbalances" with racial quotas? Are you joking? The only things quoatas in any situation do is encourage cronyism and nepotism. Anyone who thinks quotas adress anything are quite simply stupid, I'm sorry to say.

Not really. An entire generation of South Africans has grown up in the post-Apartheid era, and still we see that the national team is predominantly white. How could that be, when the population is 90% non-white? Obviously the sport has failed to fully integrate that majority. Evidently barriers remain.

Rowanbi wrote:You have the mind of a 12-year-old, Pot Hale. Your arguments are absolutely idiotic, you seem to think World Rugby is going to award Ireland the World Cup ahead of South Africa on the basis of its WEATHER ! then respond like a heinous infant when somebody makes a mockery of your delusions with plain and simple statistics. Grow up & face the facts! World Rugby is NEVER going to award Ireland the World Cup on the basis of its weather. That is the very definition of stupidity.

Quentin - when have I said that I think WR would award Ireland the RWC ahead of South Africa on the basis of its weather? You are the one who originally stated that South Africa is warmer and more sunshine and therefore has superior weather so it should be awarded the RWC, which, frankly, is a comical argument. When others have pointed out that rugby can be played in other temperatures, you seem incapable of accepting this, despite the last RWC being held in England with a very similar temperate climate.

You also seem to think the choice is polarised between two countries. It's not - it involves four bidders. You fail to recognise my own and other people's views that other countries bids have merits. Weak or laughable statements from you about '% chance of rainfall' or 'where would the visitors fit' do not give your viewpoint any credence.

You started this thread on this forum and on other fora by spouting inaccurate facts about other bidding countries and intentionally using pejorative language to describe them in advocating the choice of SA. You've done this in different blogging sites and you've been called on it each time, with people pointing out your inaccuracies and - I'll be kind here - mistaken assumptions. You ignored them on each occasion, and you ended up being banned.

Despite this, and a greater level of tolerance for your approach on this site - you ignore any other points of view and continue to bleat about how you are right and everyone else is wrong like some petulant child who's not getting their own way.

In short, you are a persistent and consistent troll. Your posting history on this forum and on others is evidence of that.

Rowanbi wrote:You have the mind of a 12-year-old, Pot Hale. Your arguments are absolutely idiotic, you seem to think World Rugby is going to award Ireland the World Cup ahead of South Africa on the basis of its WEATHER ! then respond like a heinous infant when somebody makes a mockery of your delusions with plain and simple statistics. Grow up & face the facts! World Rugby is NEVER going to award Ireland the World Cup on the basis of its weather. That is the very definition of stupidity.

Notwithstanding some customary bored-room banter, it was a reasonable discussion until Pot Hale decided to get all snarly-faced and juvenile because somebody made him look ridiculous. Really, we're supposed to just sit here like a bunch of gimps and accept all this idiotic tripe about Ireland's weather being a favorable asset?