Wales and Scotland are big meanies - Discuss

First topic message reminder :

Oct 31, Tuesday morning, World Rugby plans to announce who is the recommended host country for RWC 2023. The recommendation is contained in a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who have pored through every detail of the three bids. Apparently they've looked at everything from travel times, to accommodation, stadia facilities, and how long the queues would be for the loo.

Bookies had Ireland as favourites but their odds have lengthened slightly. Bill Beaumont and Agustin Pichot were given the report last Friday. The full document will be released to media today Oct 31, to maintain transparency and integrity of the bid process.

All the WR unions, except the three bidders, will vote on who should get it on November 15. It's a secret ballot, but the likelihood of a vote going against the recommendation would cause more than a few raised eyebrows. It could still happen though.

There could be a lot of glum faces by midday in either Dublin, or Paris or Cape Town.

*******************************
Nov 15, Wednesday, World Rugby plans to announce who the World Rugby Council of Unions have voted in favour to be host country for RWC 2023.  The various unions can relay on a 220 page analysis report conducted by an independent firm of assessors who pored through every detail of the three bids. And they said that any of the three bidders could host the RWC but based on their scoring, their recommendation was South Africa.

Irelamd didn’t get the RWC.

Snot fair.

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

You're laughing but I was wondering the same thing.... we'll soon find out, seriously, and we'll know too if there are big cheesy smiles on the lips of WRU officials. They seldom smile so that will be a giveaway

Anyway, I usually laugh at the thought of Ireland hosting anything big.... but this time - I just felt it in my gut - and I think WR and it's members missed out on what would have been a special and different time for travellers from all over the world.  I genuinely think we would have made it a great WC and the entire Nation (+North+South) in population terms would have been heavily and emotionally involved.

So congrats to France again.  They'll have a good one too I'm sure - but Ireland were getting ready for a serious Nationwide party and we were going to let our hair down big time, and when we go mad (Italia 90 etc) we go mad. So sadness for what might have been is kinda now strong.

It was only 10 years ago that I was merrily celebrating high in the stands at the Stade De France after we knocked France out of their home WC in the semis....

A good time was had.....but really, France, again?

Congratulations to france. The safest choice i think.

Dissapointed for ireland as france has hosted before and will host again. Maybe sooner than we think under the current criteria and economical power.

A paltry 8 votes for ireland might indicate there chances of hosting the competion in the future has dissappeared.

catchweight wrote:Congratulations to france. The safest choice i think.

Dissapointed for ireland as france has hosted before and will host again. Maybe sooner than we think under the current criteria and economical power.

A paltry 8 votes for ireland might indicate there chances of hosting the competion in the future has dissappeared.

Anyone remember all the bleating about how Dublin was far too influential in rugby matters when the English & French clubs were trying to get the Heineken Cup to a 'neutral' country (in the sphere of influence of France)!

Sin é wrote:Anyone remember all the bleating about how Dublin was far too influential in rugby matters when the English & French clubs were trying to get the Heineken Cup to a 'neutral' country (in the sphere of influence of France)!

That logic applies now does it ?

With the monumental financial risk of the next world cup being in Japan, it made sense to go for the safe option in France. France would have had the strongest bid too, with the only negative against them being they've hosted it in 07.

Bloody awful decision. The World Cup needs to be spread out among the nations who are yet to host. And France have difficulty defending their people from attacks, I would have felt safer in SA (and Ireland).

Never mind. See you in 2023.

The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

Rather gutted it won't be in Ireland, I think it would have fantastic. French foods sucks too.....give me potatoes and lucky charms anytime over that French muck (although their cheese is quite nice).

Collapse2005 wrote:The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

The Italians are worse. According to Irish Times today (Gerry Thornley): Italy, despite the latter federation owing a sizeable debt to the IRFU for their continued presence in the Pro14. .........

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/rugby-world-cup-2023-final-vote-set-for-dramatic-finale-1.3291920

I think the Irish Gov. should start taxing all the rugby businesses in Ireland (now they have a tax free status). Time they stopped sponging off the Irish taxpayer.

Collapse2005 wrote:The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

France's appeal was about money.  They promised a surplus would go to WR.  And the ten Tier 1 nations would benefit from over half that.  For someone like the SRU that meant £4m - so they voted France.   The WRU led by Gareth Davies said they were honour bound because of Davies being on WR Cup Ltd board to back the recommendation - so they voted SA.

Those were the two killer votes. If they'd backed the Irish bid, then it would have been France 15, Ireland 14, SA 10 on the first round. Don't know how the 10 SA votes would have transferred after that though.

Anyway, decision is made. Time tp move on.

Pot Hale wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

France's appeal was about money.  They promised a surplus would go to WR.  And the ten Tier 1 nations would benefit from over half that.  For someone like the SRU that meant £4m - so they voted France.   The WRU led by Gareth Davies said they were honour bound because of Davies being on WR Cup Ltd board to back the recommendation - so they voted SA.

Honour bound my arse. England voted for Ireland and Beaumont is the Chair of World Rugby. Scots are always moneygrabbing - down to them wanting the same cut as Ireland and France in Champs Cup even though they have only 2 teams.

Part of voting for Wales and getting some games to host in 1999 (and the cash that it brought) was that, if the others were hosting in future, they'd reciprocate. Ireland seem to have forgotten that with the bid they tabled. Reneged on the agreement, perhaps? Stuck two fingers up to the WRU after they had included Ireland before?

Not sure is this is true but sounds like a good enough conspiracy! Let's go with that.

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

The Italians are worse. According to Irish Times today (Gerry Thornley):  Italy, despite the latter federation owing a sizeable debt to the IRFU for their continued presence in the Pro14. .........

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/rugby-world-cup-2023-final-vote-set-for-dramatic-finale-1.3291920

You can only read that link if you're a subscriber, Sin.

So in short, you're saying that despite a presumed promise even from the Italians, it seems they jumped ship too on the vote?

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The SRU and WRU we obviously given some sort of sweetner from the French. Fairly bad form that they didnt vote for Ireland given we share a league at both club and international level and in particular given Ireland voted for Wales.

The Italians are worse. According to Irish Times today (Gerry Thornley):  Italy, despite the latter federation owing a sizeable debt to the IRFU for their continued presence in the Pro14. .........

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/rugby-world-cup-2023-final-vote-set-for-dramatic-finale-1.3291920

You can only read that link if you're a subscriber, Sin.

So in short, you're saying that despite a presumed promise even from the Italians, it seems they jumped ship too on the vote?

Here is the paragraph on that from Times.

irish times wrote:Yet word from France is that they are quite bullish about acquiring the three votes apiece from Scotland and Italy, despite the latter federation owing a sizeable debt to the IRFU for their continued presence in the Pro14.

Sounds like they bought their vote.

So Italy being in the Pro14 is only at Ireland's cost ?

Griff wrote:Part of voting for Wales and getting some games to host in 1999 (and the cash that it brought) was that, if the others were hosting in future, they'd reciprocate. Ireland seem to have forgotten that with the bid they tabled. Reneged on the agreement, perhaps? Stuck two fingers up to the WRU after they had included Ireland before?

Not sure is this is true but sounds like a good enough conspiracy! Let's go with that.

World Rugby insisted that all those horse trading deals were stopped in the interests of transparency. WRU announced that they were stopping the practice.

'Both unions (WRU & IRFU) will continue to work together in a spirit of cooperation, to ensure the support of their mutual interests, but without affecting Ireland’s bid to host RWC 2023.

'World Rugby has already stipulated that it wishes unions bidding to host RWC 2023 to only include venues within its territory, and this is also in keeping with the objective of the IRFU and both governments.'

Griff wrote:Part of voting for Wales and getting some games to host in 1999 (and the cash that it brought) was that, if the others were hosting in future, they'd reciprocate. Ireland seem to have forgotten that with the bid they tabled. Reneged on the agreement, perhaps? Stuck two fingers up to the WRU after they had included Ireland before?

Not sure is this is true but sounds like a good enough conspiracy! Let's go with that.

I don't get this...and never did.

Wales wants to host.  They look around for support.  Other close Nations says they'll support Welsh bid - in return for a few games thrown their way as....well, let's say as "Thankyou, for making our bid viable".

It's all logical to that point.

But then it seems that the Welsh got cheeky and said they'd only 'agree' to letting the other have some of the games IF that was reciprocated in the future.

Logic breaks down here and Wales seemed to instead say to the Nations that helped them out with both venues and votes: "Thanks for making our bid viable but now you all know that you owe us one in the future"



The Welsh are truly from planet ZOD!  But then again, any other Union that agreed to such a plan must surely come from the same planet - the IRFU too have come from ZOD.

Griff wrote:Part of voting for Wales and getting some games to host in 1999 (and the cash that it brought) was that, if the others were hosting in future, they'd reciprocate. Ireland seem to have forgotten that with the bid they tabled. Reneged on the agreement, perhaps? Stuck two fingers up to the WRU after they had included Ireland before?

Not sure is this is true but sounds like a good enough conspiracy! Let's go with that.

No Griff - as you will recall, the agreement letter was leaked to media about 10% of revenues was the agreement. WR intervened because the other bidders didn't want voting compromised so WRU board dropped the agreement saying they had received enough over the intervening period. Obviously that left WRU with no obligations to anyone and vote as they wanted. Davies said they were honour bound to vote with the recommendation.

LordDowlais wrote:So Italy being in the Pro14 is only at Ireland's cost ?

It sounds like the IRFU paid Italy's portion of their PRO14 subscription (or certainly did in the past).

LordDowlais wrote:So Italy being in the Pro14 is only at Ireland's cost ?

FIR agreed to reimburse the individual unions/teams for their costs each season - that was the price agreed for participating in the league. (SA took a different approach and brought a TV deal instead). The FIR didn't pay up on any costs during 2012/13 and owed monies to various teams. The FIR negotiated the amount owed down and said they would pay the reduced amount. It still hasn't been paid. How much is owed to each team is not known.

Sin é wrote:

'World Rugby has already stipulated that it wishes unions bidding to host RWC 2023 to only include venues within its territory,

Or in other words: "World Rugby, in order to finally take away the possibility of smaller nations hosting their grand marketing baby, and in order to best excuse the giving of the World Cup Competition now to the usual big world contenders for big world events (England, USA, China, Russia, France, Australia, Brazil and Malta....) now stipulates that Unions bidding only include venues in their territory.

There goes the Millennium down the tubes as host for any more World Cup games - evah! - coz if Wales gets even the sniff of a game, the IRFU will cry that they do not meet the criteria!

SecretFly wrote:

Griff wrote:Part of voting for Wales and getting some games to host in 1999 (and the cash that it brought) was that, if the others were hosting in future, they'd reciprocate. Ireland seem to have forgotten that with the bid they tabled. Reneged on the agreement, perhaps? Stuck two fingers up to the WRU after they had included Ireland before?

Not sure is this is true but sounds like a good enough conspiracy! Let's go with that.

I don't get this...and never did.

Wales wants to host.  They look around for support.  Other close Nations says they'll support Welsh bid - in return for a few games thrown their way as....well, let's say as "Thankyou, for making our bid viable".

It's all logical to that point.

But then it seems that the Welsh got cheeky and said they'd only 'agree' to letting the other have some of the games IF that was reciprocated in the future.

Logic breaks down here and Wales seemed to instead say to the Nations that helped them out with both venues and votes: "Thanks for making our bid viable but now you all know that you owe us one in the future"



The Welsh are truly from planet ZOD!  But then again, any other Union that agreed to such a plan must surely come from the same planet - the IRFU too have come from ZOD.

Wales could have just stuck to mainland Britain, making the tournament more easily accessible by fans, with still plenty of stadium options in England, but welcomed Ireland's involvement in the tournament with open arms! Short memories, the Irish, short memories!

Welcomed us with open arms?

As auld Jonathan Wayne used to say; "That'll be the day"

SecretFly wrote:

Sin é wrote:

'World Rugby has already stipulated that it wishes unions bidding to host RWC 2023 to only include venues within its territory,

Or in other words: "World Rugby, in order to finally take away the possibility of smaller nations hosting their grand marketing baby, and in order to best excuse the giving of the World Cup Competition now to the usual big world contenders for big world events (England, USA, China, Russia, France, Australia, Brazil and Malta....) now stipulates that Unions bidding only include venues in their territory.

There goes the Millennium down the tubes as host for any more World Cup games - evah! - coz if Wales gets even the sniff of a game, the IRFU will cry that they do not meet the criteria!

That prevents the Ireland union bidding with a plan to use stadia in Wales, Scotland or wherever.   Depending on how one reads that particular wording, then if three unions bid together to co-host, they would be entitled to use the stadia within their own territories.   Obviously, I don't know what the precise wording was.   Maybe joint bids would be allowed in the future.

Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

A view from the London Times:


France won the right to host the World Cup in 2023 today because they were the country with the biggest cheque book. France promised to share riches with the game’s leading nations that Ireland and South Africa simply could not match.

World Rugby was left humiliated here because it had fully endorsed South Africa as the best bid. Even when questioned over certain elements in its technical report, which graded South Africa top, followed by France and then Ireland, World Rugby insisted that South Africa had the best bid.

Nevertheless, at lunchtime today, the game was treated to the spectacle of Bernard Laporte, who led the French bid, being publicly congratulated by Bill Beaumont, the World Rugby chairman, whose technical review Laporte had publicly slated as “nonsense”, with “errors” and “incompetence”.

Ireland and South Africa were both distraught at their fate. However, today was a day when it was the money that spoke. The surplus the French had guaranteed World Rugby was £350 million. Compare that to the £162 million that England handed over after the 2015 World Cup, or the £270 million that Ireland and South Africa were offering for 2023 and the reasons behind this decision become clear.

The surplus is distributed between the nations, 55 per cent of it going to the 10 tier-one nations. Ireland were disappointed that Scotland didn’t stick with them in the voting room today, but Scotland were honest: they were following the money. They will be around £4 million better off now that France won the vote.

The vote required two rounds to go all the way through. Of the 39 votes, France won 18 in the first round, South Africa 13 and Ireland eight. Ireland were therefore knocked out of the race and in the second round, France won 24 votes to South Africa’s 15.

Money told so much in this game that even the two continental votes of the African confederation went against South Africa and towards France. It may have helped that Abdelaziz Bougia, who cast those African votes, lives in Paris.

The discord and disappointment from France’s rivals quickly erupted. As Brian O’Driscoll, an ambassador for the Ireland bid, said, the romance of taking the game to new territories does not look healthy.
He said: “You have got to spread the load and develop the game and you have got to look beyond the nations that have already hosted it.

Jurie Roux, the chief executive of SA Rugby, gave a withering assessment of the last two weeks’ lobbying. He said: “World Rugby ran an exhaustive and transparent process for 15 months to identify the best host nation, only for the process to go entirely opaque for the past two weeks.”

Mark Alexander, the chair of the SA bid, said: “There were a set of rules, we abided by those rules up until today. The set of rules were broken during that process which we are upset about.”

The straight forward truth that we learned about rugby today was that money rules the game. If you want your World Cup to be a huge money-maker, then vote France, and that is what the delegates of the World Rugby council did.

If you want the bid that was decided to be the best technical bid, then vote South Africa - and not enough people did.

If you want the romance of taking the game to a new host nation, then vote Ireland – and not even Ireland’s Celtic cousins would do that. Wales voted for South Africa and Scotland followed the money and went straight to France.

World Rugby could have brought the World Cup to Ireland for a romantic story - instead they went for the money

This is a decision that is humiliating for the leadership of World Rugby – whose directive was to take the World Cup to South Africa. The decision, however, says more about the future of the game. The romance of taking the World Cup around the world? No thanks. We want the dollar.

Expand the game in new territories? Not this time. Rugby World Cup is going to Japan in 2019 and it may never go to another such an outpost again – not under these voting conditions.

Nations such as Ireland, New Zealand, Italy, Argentina – they may now well wonder if they will ever get their opportunity. Ireland suggested after the vote today that maybe they shouldn’t have bid, and maybe they won’t bid again – not if it is big and profitable that is the prime factor dictates where the game is played.

Rugby today voted with its pockets. Not for the greater good of the future of the sport.

Pot Hale wrote:  Depending on how one reads that particular wording, then if three unions bid together to co-host, they would be entitled to use the stadia within their own territories.   Obviously, I don't know what the precise wording was.   Maybe joint bids would be allowed in the future.

Joint bids again?
To hell with joint bids, Pot. Joint bids only means people jostling with each other to get to host the fecking final itself (the kudos of beating your neighbour into a more important position would always become the bugbear).

I've had enough scraps with our 'pals' the 'Celts' in recent years over trying to get along in commonality competitions. They should simply have voted for us so that they could then host their own full WC in their own territory sometime in the future. They've really just killed the concept for many of us small countries.

I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Heard him just now on the news...'hugely disappointed' in his close neighbours.

There will be long memories about this when cooperation is needed again.

SecretFly wrote:Welcomed us with open arms?  

As auld Jonathan Wayne used to say; "That'll be the day"

You can stick your games anyway, Ireland! I don't want my stadium covered in shamrocks, all our ale replaced with Guinness, and the locals made to dress as leprechauns (although they wouldn't need much work in some parts of Cardiff)! 

Too much? Sorry!    (Just trying to lighten the mood. I can already sense it going down the road of 'which b*stards shafted us' and the blame game).

LordDowlais wrote:I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

We've always said we're all equal...except in refs. We control the refs - and that's legally binding until 2058

LordDowlais wrote:I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

It seems the IRFU just did it without bragging about it and are now letting it out because they are so annoyed by the disloyalty.

LordDowlais wrote:Vive la France.

Thank God it's not South Africa. I would have preferred Ireland, but at least it's the same timezone and at least it does not mean I have to traverse continents.

I will go and watch Wales in France, I would not go to South Africa though.

Mind and get to the ground really early if you think France is in the same time zone as you!

LordDowlais wrote:I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

Italy are not equal partners.   If you read the press release issued when the PRO14 was announced during the summer, it says very clearly at the bottom that the three shareholders in Celtic Rugby which owns the PRO14 are IRFU, WRU and SRU.    

As I stated above, the Italian rugby federation (FIR) agreed to pay the costs of the teams travelling to Italy during each season in exchange for their participation in the competition.   Likewise, SARU paid their participation fee through the TV deal they brought to the table.   The FIR didn't pay back the teams/unions for their costs during the 2012/13 and built up a debt.  They were threatened with expulsion if they didn't pay what they owed.  The FIR negotiated a settlement figure and said they would pay that.   They still haven't paid it.   Which is why they haven't become shareholders.  More than likely they owe money to Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams.  The point being made in the Times article is that Italy didn't support the IRFU even though they owed them a chunk of money.  Not that they didn't owe it to Scottish and Welsh teams as well.   But Wales or Scotland weren't bidding for hosting rights.

All our Pro14 buddies cut loose on us.

Now ain't that sweet. The only friends we have left in the Friendship League of Multi-Denominational Unity and Fraternity now is actually our rivals for the World Cup itself! The South Africans - at least we both feel cheated at the same time and can give each other a...manly... hug

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Stay in the parts of South Africa designated as safe by your Foreign Embassy?

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

What are these rules?

Sin é wrote:Philip Browne quoted in UK Independent that ''Scotland followed the money''.

IRFU must be well pissed off with them.

Haha typical Scots

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Been there twice thanks, for work, in my early 20's. But thanks for the heads up.

Also, my uncle and my farther went there for the last Lions tour there, my uncle had a very disturbing experience, one I would not like to divulge on an open forum.

Pot Hale wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I have searched the WWW for any news on the IRFU paying for Italy to be in the Pro14 but I cannot find anything, perhaps I am searching for the wrong info, but I did find an article where it states that Italy are now equal partners, but that was from 2014.

Italy are not equal partners.   If you read the press release issued when the PRO14 was announced during the summer, it says very clearly at the bottom that the three shareholders in Celtic Rugby which owns the PRO14 are IRFU, WRU and SRU.    

As I stated above, the Italian rugby federation (FIR) agreed to pay the costs of the teams travelling to Italy during each season in exchange for their participation in the competition.   Likewise, SARU paid their participation fee through the TV deal they brought to the table.   The FIR didn't pay back the teams/unions for their costs during the 2012/13 and built up a debt.  They were threatened with expulsion if they didn't pay what they owed.  The FIR  negotiated a settlement figure and said they would pay that.   They still haven't paid it.   Which is why they haven't become shareholders.  More than likely they owe money to Irish, Welsh and Scottish teams.  The point being made in the Times article is that Italy didn't support the IRFU even though they owed them a chunk of money.  Not that they didn't owe it to Scottish and Welsh teams as well.   But Wales or Scotland weren't bidding for hosting rights.

Well see therein lies your problem. How could Ireland call in a debt. and then not expect everybody else to call it in as well. The debt. is not only Ireland's, it's everyone's. So to use that as a stick to beat the Italians with is unfair.

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

What are these rules?

Rule 1:  Don't get mugged
Rule 2:  Don't get killed.

LordDowlais wrote:

Well see therein lies your problem. How could Ireland call in a debt. and then not expect everybody else to call it in as well. The debt. is not only Ireland's, it's everyone's. So to use that as a stick to beat the Italians with is unfair.

Oh Jesus, Lord, you never stop. The IRFU should now apologise to the WRU, the SRU and the Italians for making them vote against Ireland's bid?

I'm beginning to enjoy this one. There might be some good stuff here if people keeping digging holes with Spades given to them by Word Rugby.

At least it’s on the European mainland and the 2007 tournament was a great success. I do think having it in Ireland would have been very good.

LordDowlais wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Been there twice thanks, for work, in my early 20's. But thanks for the heads up.

Also, my uncle and my farther went there for the last Lions tour there, my uncle had a very disturbing experience, one I would not like to divulge on an open forum.

Next you’ll be telling us homes in SA have carpets.

LordDowlais wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Been there twice thanks, for work, in my early 20's. But thanks for the heads up.

Also, my uncle and my farther went there for the last Lions tour there, my uncle had a very disturbing experience, one I would not like to divulge on an open forum.

ooooh the drama, because anyone cares and we're going to know who he is right?

well he shouldn't go to that type of bar then.

mikey_dragon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:??? South Africa was the safest place on the list according to the boys that knew!!! Why would you not go to SA Lord? Altitude sickness?

Because as beautiful a country SA is, I value my belongings, my well being, and mostly my life.

Also, I wonder if France have let Wales use the MS for any of our group games.

I expect with this narrow view you've never been. I 've been twice and as long as you observe some rules you'll be fine.

Been there twice thanks, for work, in my early 20's. But thanks for the heads up.

Also, my uncle and my farther went there for the last Lions tour there, my uncle had a very disturbing experience, one I would not like to divulge on an open forum.

Next you’ll be telling us homes in SA have carpets.

Twas nothing to do with carpets back then.

Think automotive and emissions.

But what any of it has to do with you and Gwlad I do not know.