RWC 2011

[Weebie]

I Have read the same thing as well but only in Pro Rugby Australian Papers.

The RWC in New Zealand is a huge setback for the comp.

[AndyS]

Time we pulled the collective finger
By PHIL GIFFORD - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 25 November 2007

Why is it important to quickly settle what's happening about Eden Park? Let me count the ways.

If there are too many delays there won't be any alternatives in New Zealand for the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

I love Christchurch. However, like Wellington, the city may be able to provide a stadium for the biggest games, but there wouldn't be room for the influx of spectators. Conversely, North Harbour Stadium is in the Eden Park basket. The greater Auckland area has the beds for visitors, but the upgrade to the ground would need the lead time Eden Park does.

Could we stand the psychic pain of losing another world cup to the Australians?

I admire John O'Neill for his skills, but how would you feel watching him on television expressing sympathy for New Zealand while unveiling Australia 2011?

Without an early decision on a bigger, better Eden Park, there's a chance we'll revert to what we're sadly pretty good at, internal squabbles that, at best, benefit only the egos of politicians, in and out of parliament, by allowing them to bask in the media spotlight. You might fairly ask why Mr and Mrs Taxpayer should be funding a venue that at any one time can accommodate only 1.5% of the population.

Should the rugby fans of the nation be helped out financially by those who see the game as just one step up from cage fighting?

I'd suggest the answer is yes, for the same reason Te Papa, for example, deserves national funding.

Not every New Zealander will get to Wellington to see the national treasures, but surely as a country we know there's more to be done with tax or ratepayers' money than just providing roads and sewerage?

Quality of life is a loose phrase, but whether it's an art gallery, a swimming pool, or an orchestra, providing a range of recreation opportunities has to be something that can't always be measured in cash.

Of course, Eden Park won't be a venue of choice for a substantial number of people, but world cup games played there will, through television, give pleasure to a huge audience all over the country.

The rugby union is often an all-purpose whipping boy, and if there's one constant criticism I hear it's that the union itself should be providing most, if not all, of the money.

The harsh reality is that staging the world cup is not a money-making proposition for the host.

All television cash, and sponsorship fees, go to the International Rugby Board, not the New Zealand union. It gets a percentage of ticket money, which, at best, will cover just the costs of running the tournament.

Why doesn't the IRB stump up the cash for Eden Park then? Because it has so many other choices in bigger, richer countries. If New Zealand asked to stage the cup with the proviso the IRB paid for the main venue it'd be tantamount to saying we didn't want it, or at least not in this universe.

Cardiff this year makes it hard to envisage, but the World C=up in New Zealand is potentially a feelgood event.

The longer the debate over funding Eden Park drags on, and the more bitter that debate becomes, the less pleasure there's likely to be for everyone.

Yes, rugby should derive the greatest benefits from a successful tournament, especially if the All Blacks can finally win the cup again.

But if a country with as worldly a viewpoint as France, and a city as sophisticated as Paris, can embrace, and enjoy, the tournament, would it really be asking too much to hope most New Zealanders might be able to do the same?