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.

The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) said the South African coastal city had failed to meet the promises contained in its bid, and the search for a replacement host was now on.

I'm sure that won't happen with the RWC though

marty2086 wrote:

The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) said the South African coastal city had failed to meet the promises contained in its bid, and the search for a replacement host was now on.

I'm sure that won't happen with the RWC though

They held the Football World Cup, which is more comparable than a single city bid for athletics.

SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) said the South African coastal city had failed to meet the promises contained in its bid, and the search for a replacement host was now on.

I'm sure that won't happen with the RWC though

They held the Football World Cup, which is more comparable than a single city bid for athletics.

7 years ago, that means they've spent that money

6 months ago SA said it was broke, six months later they have the money and Durban is irrelevant because the bid team told them so?

In what realm is that legitimate analysis?

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Depending on the criteria and weighting you set you could easily alter it so that any of the three countries win the recommendation so for me the process is a little flawed.

I wonder did World Rugby just decide they wanted to lean voting towards SA this time around? Who knows but I would have thought of all three the SA bid was the weakest proposition for reasons of security and political instability both in terms of rugby governance and politically.

Read it and criticize what they actually did. These hypothetical 'maybe they did this' posts are nonsense unless you talk specifics.

Lol

Gwlad wrote:SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

So are you saying that a country failing to fulfil it's promises in one bid being deemed irrelevant to another because they say so isn't dodgy?

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

So are you saying that a country failing to fulfil it's promises in one bid being deemed irrelevant to another because they say so isn't dodgy?

It's not even the same people, federation, money, or anything. It's like saying BMW couldn't afford to invest in a new car so don't make a deal with Volkswagen.

Gwlad wrote:SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

They haven't won yet. New Zealand won the bidding for their 2011 RWC after World Rugby failed to recommend their bid.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

So are you saying that a country failing to fulfil it's promises in one bid being deemed irrelevant to another because they say so isn't dodgy?

It's not even the same people, federation, money, or anything.

Yes it is, public money is used in both bids and the government guarantees the full amount.

The sports minister 6 months was the one who said there was no money to host the Commonwealth Games, he didn't favour the RWC bid either and his replacement was for it and that's when they finally bid

Collapse2005 wrote:Depending on the criteria and weighting you set you could easily alter it so that any of the three countries win the recommendation so for me the process is a little flawed.

I'm not sure what data you're using to imagine that this is possible? Ireland were bottom in 6 of the 7 measures. They'd have to weight it quite bizarrely for Ireland to come out on top.

Collapse2005 wrote:I wonder did World Rugby just decide they wanted to lean voting towards SA this time around? Who knows but I would have thought of all three the SA bid was the weakest proposition for reasons of security and political instability both in terms of rugby governance and politically.

Again, I don't know what information you are using to think the SA bid would have been the weakest (whilst presumably thinking the Ireland bid would have been the strongest). Read the report, it really is pretty interesting.

cascough wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Depending on the criteria and weighting you set you could easily alter it so that any of the three countries win the recommendation so for me the process is a little flawed.

I'm not sure what data you're using to imagine that this is possible? Ireland were bottom in 6 of the 7 measures. They'd have to weight it quite bizarrely for Ireland to come out on top.

Collapse2005 wrote:I wonder did World Rugby just decide they wanted to lean voting towards SA this time around? Who knows but I would have thought of all three the SA bid was the weakest proposition for reasons of security and political instability both in terms of rugby governance and politically.

Again, I don't know what information you are using to think the SA bid would have been the weakest (whilst presumably thinking the Ireland bid would have been the strongest). Read the report, it really is pretty interesting.

You can use any other criteria you wish to assess each nation other than the criteria they used. Ability to fill stadia, rotation, quality of brazzers. Use your imagination.

They only published a redacted document so there is no real way of knowing what exact criteria they used to assess each category and what scoring was awarded to each underlying factor.

Ireland ranked the same as SA and France in terms of security threat, how did they come to that conclusion? What criteria was used? Given that it is a redacted document we probably will never know but doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. The report states that both Ireland and SA represent a "moderate" security risk.

It strikes me as a little bit bizarre that SA and Ireland would represent the same security threat.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:SA won must be a fix, if Ireland had won it would be honest QED.

They haven't won yet. New Zealand won the bidding for their 2011 RWC after World Rugby failed to recommend their bid.

NZ ain't Ireland or France, its a done deal.

It neednt be a fix. Just simply a case of favouting the bid offering the most money. The recommendation order reflected the money on offer. Of course no governing body will want to admit publically that they are for sale to the highest bidder. But privately i would think its probably the main consideration. Its interesting that ireland were the front runners with the bookies to host and their seemed to me to be a genuine feeling within rugby that they would get it. The report seems to totally dismiss that and suggest they were long shots. The findings of the report would suggest the chances of a smaller country hosting are remote if larger nations bid. It would have been interesting to see the findings of the report if ireland were offering 40m more than sa.

catchweight wrote:It neednt be a fix. Just simply a case of favouting the bid offering the most money. The recommendation order reflected the money on offer. Of course no governing body will want to admit publically that they are for sale to the highest bidder. But privately i would think its probably the main consideration. Its interesting that ireland were the front runners with the bookies to host and their seemed to me to be a genuine feeling within rugby that they would get it. The report seems to totally dismiss that and suggest they were long shots. The findings of the report would suggest the chances of a smaller country hosting are remote if larger nations bid. It would have been interesting to see the findings of the report if ireland were offering 40m more than sa.

Agreed.  I’ve no quibble with SA winning the bid based on the criteria used for assessment.

Having considered the decision and assessment document a bit more in the last 24 hours, my disappointment remains.   I fully accept that Ireland did not submit a bid that was good enough to win it by the criteria set.  Each bidding country was fully aware of the process in advance and signed up to it.  So no issue there.

However, the assessment and qualitative analysis of bids poses a few questions for future RWC bid processes.

On the face of it, I don’t see how or why the IRFU would consider bidding again if the same criteria were to be applied.

First off, there needs to be unequivocal clarity about the issue of geographic location and whether it is relevant.   The whole taking it in turns betweeen NH and SH is a load of codswallop in my view.   As far as I’m concerned if RWC2027 and beyond went to Argentina, Australia and then South Africa again, so be it if they are the best bids according to the agreed criteria.

So what should the criteria be?  Commentators have described the assessment as a ‘technical’ assessment - a process driven by facts, figures and metrics, rather than involving emotion, politics or strategic thinking/development.  But how do you get future bidders engaged and encouraged to bid in order to grow the game?  The answer, in my view, is that they won’t unless other factors come into play and maybe some criteria altered.

For RWC 2023, WR stated that bids had to come from a single union and sharing of matches across union territories was not allowed.  So all those saying before and after the decision that Ireland should bid with Scotland/Wales/Isle of Man are wasting their breath - not allowed.  The appeal of a single island bid involving north and south was the whole point of the bid - a unifying bid, rather than diluting it across parts of the UK - in rugby terms that amounts to sharing it with other unions/countries.   That vision and that of tapping into the diaspora in US markets was viewed positively and for which they gained points.  

However, what you gain on the one hand, you lose with the other.  A stand-alone bid by a country that had not hosted a big sporting tournament before, had its detractions.

If previous experience of hosting big sporting tournaments is something that gains you points and conversely not having experience loses you points then this needs to be either become a disqualifier from bidding in the first place, or else have a compensatory element elsewhere if you’re a new bidder.

Linked to this is availability of stadia and the required infrastructure inc seating capacity and technology facilities.  Bidders who already had these in place were compared versus a bidder who’s willing to invest €320m in upgrading these facilities to the required standard (because they haven’t hosted a “big sporting tournament” before).  The investment in upgrading the new facilities was considered a higher risk than bidders who had them in place since 2010 or later   The conclusion from this for future bidders is - you’d better have your stadia built and up to spec before even putting your name forward.  (Oh and if you don’t get it, sure you can use them to house all the people that you didn’t provide houses for as a result of splurging hopeful money on stadia instead.)

Next.  Countries with a small population should not apply.  If financial guarantees and commitments are not fixed then it becomes a lottery as to who is willing to put forward/risk the most money each time and/or inducements.  Large population unions will be advantaged, although wealth assessed by GDP may indicate differently.

So assuming that the SA recommendation is ratified, then who is likely to bid the next time around?

Argentina and USA are possibilities. France may do so again on the ‘NH turn’ principle.  Equally, Italy withdrew for the 2023 bid, but may decide to go forward for 2027, particularly if its teams have an upward swing over the next few years.   Would Australia consider another bid - who knows?

Wales should host the next RWC in the home islands

I think the criteria places too much emphasis on experience in hosting past major tournaments. It all but rules out any country which hasnt as the relative disparity with countries which have is too big a bridge to gap. I do think those countries should still have the opportunity.

With Ireland, its traditional rugby country and the bid had the feel of an historical once in a lifetime or more opportunity with a lot of positivity. France and SA will ahve many more opportunities to host rugby world cups and other major tournaments. Im not sure Ireland will and certainly on the basis on the criteria and report they are never really going to get a recommendation. It seems pointless for them to bid again unless there is a bigger picture thinking in the criteria.

I said all along Ireland is not a RWC venue and as usual am proved right

Gwlad wrote:I said all along Ireland is not a RWC venue and as usual am proved right

No you didn’t. You said the exact opposite.

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:I said all along Ireland is not a RWC venue and as usual am proved right

No you didn’t.   You said the exact opposite.  

prove it

Gwlad wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:I said all along Ireland is not a RWC venue and as usual am proved right

No you didn’t.   You said the exact opposite.  

prove it

It’s not necessary to prove it.

Did you know that Ireland has been a RWC venue previously in 1991 and 1999?

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Gwlad wrote:I said all along Ireland is not a RWC venue and as usual am proved right

No you didn’t.   You said the exact opposite.  

prove it

It’s not necessary to prove it.  

Did you know that Ireland has been a RWC venue previously in 1991 and 1999?  

It is.

And what entirely unmemorable RWCs they were

The memorable ones being 1995, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015

Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Startling insight. Since it hasn’t hosted an entire football or rugby tournament previously, it’s not difficult to reach the conclusion that it’s not famous for them. You can now join the rest of us who knew this already. Congrats.

What does GW stand for?

Yet again I've forgotten what this was amount ...you see just not very memorable.

This thread is a getting a little irrational.

The same person has implied that it's all about the money, then later said that there's too much emphasis on hosting past tournaments.

Someone else has questioned the security scores for both teams without being able to suggest why they were scored equally. In South Africa's case, there is the small matter of successfully hosting the World Cup in 2010. Like it or not, hosting the World Cup is a much bigger deal that hosting the RWC. The World Cup final in 2010 was estimated to have had a TV audience of over 1 billion people. The most watched RWC final to date (2015) had a TV audience of 120 million. With such a high profile event, it's reasonable to suggest it makes it a much bigger target and higher security threat. The reputation and appetite for trouble of football fans vs rugby fans is another well known factor. I don't know why SA and IRE scored the same here, but what's inescapable is that SA have a track record of successfully hosting the biggest sporting event on earth.

Overall, even if the money on offer for Ireland and SA was equal, SA would still be much higher recommended than IRE. If it were merely about picking the strongest commercial bid, then FRA would have won the recommendation. IRE simply scored too low in too many facets. Take SA out of it, IRE still lose to FRA. I can understand why IRE fans will be disappointed, but I'm not seeing a conspiracy here.

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Really? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the annual All Ireland competitions and the feedback from the Vuelta Espana a few years ago. There are plenty of others that happen in Ireland every year

Actually no. What i said was that the money guaranteed may well be the most important factor in the bid. And secondly that under the current reporting criteria that it makes it essentially imposdible for a country without a history of hosting major tournaments to ever be given the opportunity of hosting one. Not particularly fair even if there is logic behind it. Nothing about a conspiracy.

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Really? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the annual All Ireland competitions and the feedback from the Vuelta Espana a few years ago. There are plenty of others that happen in Ireland every year

some sort of limerick jousting?!!

Gwlad wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Really? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the annual All Ireland competitions and the feedback from the Vuelta Espana a few years ago. There are plenty of others that happen in Ireland every year

some sort of limerick jousting?!!

Classy as ever

I suspect that world rugby are leaning towards SA because the game is dying there a little bit, attendances are down and the national side isn't the force it used to be. Maybe they think a RWC will bring them back to the force they want them to be.

Collapse2005 wrote:I suspect that world rugby are leaning towards SA because the game is dying there a little bit, attendances are down and the national side isn't the force it used to be. Maybe they think a RWC will bring them back to the force they want them to be.

I think giving SA the RWC would have the opposite effect, that it just endorses a corrupt and incompetent governing body.

I would agree with you. I don't see the logic in giving the RWC to SA but the review process glossed over or simply ignored many of the issues with SA. I'm just pondering why that would be.

I suspect WR have recommended SA for the world cup for the reasons documented in their report, which having read it, seem perfectly reasonable.

cascough wrote:This thread is a getting a little irrational.

The same person has implied that it's all about the money, then later said that there's too much emphasis on hosting past tournaments.

Someone else has questioned the security scores for both teams without being able to suggest why they were scored equally. In South Africa's case, there is the small matter of successfully hosting the World Cup in 2010. ........

Just on this point - there were some major problems with the 2010 world cup including how the poor couldn't afford to attend and were rounded up and moved out of the way, with some street kids being stored in a a prison as well as there being a huge problem with the security:

Around 300 of the South African workers staged a demonstration at the Moses Mabhida Stadium following Germany’s game against Australia.

The workers claimed they received only a fraction of the wages they had been promised and are threatening to strike in a move, which could threaten the security of future games in the tournament.

Riot police moved in after the protesters refused to disperse and at least one woman was injured after being hit by a rubber bullet.

One of the stewards, Fanak Falakhebuengu, said the private security firm employing them had told them they would receive £130 a day for marshalling fans and maintaining security.

But when they received their pay packets after the game they discovered they had only been paid £17.

Then there was that ******** vuvuzela.

cascough wrote:I suspect WR have recommended SA for the world cup for the reasons documented in their report, which having read it, seem perfectly reasonable.

Its a technical report to cover the asses of the board of World Rugby. Its a good idea, but I think they should have just presented the information without making any recommendation to Council.

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Really? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the annual All Ireland competitions and the feedback from the Vuelta Espana a few years ago. There are plenty of others that happen in Ireland every year

some sort of limerick jousting?!!

Classy as ever

I'll have to take your word for that I have never seen any World Class limerick jousting such as what Ireland hosts.

Gwlad wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Gwlad wrote:Sorry but Ireland is famous for lots of stuff, some good some bad and being a sporting venue for World class international comps is not one of them.

Really? Maybe you should familiarise yourself with the annual All Ireland competitions and the feedback from the Vuelta Espana a few years ago. There are plenty of others that happen in Ireland every year

some sort of limerick jousting?!!

Classy as ever

I'll have to take your word for that I have never seen any World Class limerick jousting such as what Ireland hosts.

So how glad are you that Ireland didn’t get the recommendation?

On a scale of 1-25 say? 23?, 25?

Sin é wrote:

cascough wrote:I suspect WR have recommended SA for the world cup for the reasons documented in their report, which having read it, seem perfectly reasonable.

Its a technical report to cover the asses of the board of World Rugby. Its a good idea, but I think they should have just presented the information without making any recommendation to Council.

Splitting hairs here. This report does not force anyone to do anything, the unions can vote for whoever they want to. WR uttering the words "the recommendation for hosting the RWC 2023 is..." makes absolutely no difference as it is clearly implied from the assessment itself.

On your previous point, the 2010 World Cup was considered incident free relative to the scale of the operation. I think it's reasonable to suggest they delivered a successful tournament, but if you don't, fair enough.

On the vuvuzela, completely agree. Awful things.

There was me thinking I'll book my room at my cousins house in Cape Town not and you bring up vuvuzela

Horrible things - South Africa should be banned from holding a WC for that reason alone.
It really is quite unpleasant sitting next to one of them

With various media outlets saying it would be a scandal not to vote for SA and that the vote is a rubber stamping exercise, Ireland and France should abandon their politicking at this point, Steve Tew, CEO of NZRU has now said publicly that he will be voting for the recommendation.

I am a little disappointed with this decision if I am honest.

I would have quite liked a WC in Ireland, even though it would have cost an arm and a leg, I would have truly embraced it, and would have made the effort to go and watch every Welsh game, as travel would not really be a problem.

South Africa, as beautiful country it is, it's not a country I am fond of, too much crime, and not a comfortable country to be in, this decision has to be down to the relative strengths of each countries currency, it has to be.

How much more money will be made with the South African Rand compared to the Euro ?

New Zealand will be voting for South Africa.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11939966

Pot Hale wrote:With various media outlets saying it would be a scandal not to vote for SA and that the vote is a rubber stamping exercise, Ireland and France should abandon their politicking at this point,   Steve Tew, CEO of NZRU has now said publicly that he will be voting for the recommendation.  

Its an anonymous vote so it doesn't entirely matter what Steve Tew says publically.

LordDowlais wrote:I am a little disappointed with this decision if I am honest.

I would have quite liked a WC in Ireland, even though it would have cost an arm and a leg, I would have truly embraced it, and would have made the effort to go and watch every Welsh game, as travel would not really be a problem.

South Africa, as beautiful country it is, it's not a country I am fond of, too much crime, and not a comfortable country to be in, this decision has to be down to the relative  strengths of each countries currency, it has to be.

How much more money will be made with the South African Rand compared to the Euro ?

Well they have guaranteed a fairly hefty up front sum to world rugby so it doesn't matter what currency they use. Id question their ability to turn a profit but world rugby don't really care as long as they get their fee.

aucklandlaurie wrote:New Zealand will be voting for South Africa.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11939966

Cant fault his reasoning, shame though as Ireland tend to vote for NZ.

Ireland just don't get pro sport at this level...its all about the wedge and they didn't have a chance.

Its not all over yet!

Laporte slams ‘amateur’ RWC 2023 report
FFR president disregards World Rugby’s endorsement of South Africa

Bernard Laporte, president of the French Rugby Federation (FFR), has accused World Rugby of 'lies', 'negligence' and 'amateurism' while questioning the independence of the report that recommends South Africa hosts the 2023 World Cup.

Laporte claims the FFR and IRFU have both made formal complaints about the process to World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont ahead of the November 15th vote.

“What bothers me, primarily, is that the process was misguided, flawed,” Laporte told Le Figaro. “World Rugby told us that two external and independent companies would be mandated to conduct the audit. There was only one, and they ignored some aspects.

“In the end, 80 per cent of the report was made by World Rugby employees. I do not like being lied to! That’s why I wrote to Bill Beaumont to ask why the process was different from the one they advertised.

“The Irish did the same,” Laporte added. “They started the protest by sending a letter before ours.”

World Rugby have previously stated that The Sports Consultancy [based in London], Dow Jones Sports Intelligence and IMG assisted the technical review group come to recommend South Africa as the best option to host the tournament in six years time.

The Irish government agreed to pay the £120 million guarantee to host the tournament but France offered a £150 million while South Africa topped that by agreeing to pay £160 million.

Laporte is furious that the report docked the French bid vital marks due to the risk attached to unlikely clashes with the French soccer season and their anti-doping policy.

“We discovered so many anomalies,” Laporte continued. “There are obvious mistakes. How can World Rugby say that hotels in the most visited country in the world are worse than those in South Africa? How can it be said that there are not enough hotels in Saint-Étienne which, for the record, hosted European Championship football matches 18 months ago. They make fun of us there!

“How can they dare to say that France is not able to better organise international sports events than South Africa? During the last 10 years, 21 have been organised (football, handball, athletics et al) and South Africa just two! They give us less marks than them for the quality of our stadiums but of our nine stadiums, five of them are new!”

On the issue of security - when all three bids were rated equally despite France recently experiencing a state of emergency and South Africa’s “historical” crime problems - Laporte states: “According to the official statistics from the South African police there are more than 19,000 murders last year (the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs currently advises French nationals not to travel to South Africa, now in the grips of violence against white farmers). It’s crazy!

“France gave the necessary assurances in terms of security but South Africa, on the other hand, just had the Commonwealth Games 2022 withdrawn for security reasons.”

Laporte also questioned the report overlooking the French assurance of delivering a profit £64 million greater than South Africa, with an additional €12 million to develop rugby around the world.

“A fairer rating would have placed us well in front of South Africa. We are not happy.”

Laporte continued: “I do not want to incriminate anyone. I cannot imagine for one second that they wanted to favour one nomination over another. It would be serious. No, I honestly think it’s negligence. Amateurism.”

The French bid lost marks in several categories - including stadium and medical services - for not providing sufficient clarifications to the review group.

“We show point by point all the inconsistencies in our letter to Bill Beaumont but also to all the federations that will vote.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/laporte-slams-amateur-rwc-2023-report-1.3279569

He is right but it wont stop the rubber stamping exercise rewarding, surprise surprise, the country who came up with the most dosh.

If that’s what Laporte thinks of the SA bid, I can’t imagine what he’d say about the Irish one.

World Rugby may have created a stick to beat itself with. It will probably still go through with SA this time, but they’ll have to look at it for the next time.

Pot Hale wrote:If that’s what Laporte thinks of the SA bid, I can’t imagine what he’d say about the Irish one.  

World Rugby may have created a stick to beat itself with.  It will probably still go through with SA this time, but they’ll have to look at it for the next time.  

Well, I'd like them to explain how Ireland and S Africa could be ranked the same for safety & Security. SA is ranked 123 in the world index, France is in the 51 and Ireland is 10th.

There is something really dodgy about that. I think I nailed it when it I said World Rugby Board are using this as a fig leaf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index