jim
Marquee Player
Posts: 1,150
|
Post by jim on Aug 15, 2009 20:43:28 GMT 10
Same as with the Celtic thread, i have nothing else to do so I'd like to propose my venues for the RLWC 2013. It's a long way out i know.
Going with this pool system
Pool A - 1 to semi's, 2 to quarters
England
Australia
PNG
Tonga
Pool B - 2 to quarters
New Zealand
Wales
Fiji
Russia
Pool C - 2 quarters
France
Ireland
Scotland
USA
ENG V AUS - City Of Manchester Stadium, Manchester, 48,000
PNG V TGA - Halton Stadium, Widnes, 14,000
ENG V TGA - Reebok Stadium, Bolton, 28,000
AUS V PNG - Olympic Stadium, Barcelona, 56,000
or
KC Stadium, Hull, 25,000
ENG V PNG - Olympic Stadium, London, ?
AUS V TGA - St Helens New Stadium, St Helens, 20,000?
WAL V FJI - Rodney Parade, Newport, 15,000
NZL V RUS - Halliwell Jones Stadium, Warrington, 14,000
WAL V NZL - St Davids Stadium, Cardiff, 25,000
FJI V RUS - Craven Park, Hull, 12,000
WAL V RUS - Brewery Field, Bridgend, 12,000
NZL V FJI - Headingley Stadium, Leeds, 25,000
FRA V SCT - Stade Yves du Manior, Montpelliar, 12,000
IRL V USA - RDS Stadium, Dublin, 25,000
or
Leigh Sports Village, Leigh, 12,000
FRA V USA - Stade Gilbert Brutus, Perpignan, 14,000
SCT V IRL - Tynecastle Park, Edinburgh, 18,000
or
Castleford New Stadium, Castleford, 15,000?
FRA V IRL - Stade Ernest Wallon, Toulouse, 19,000
SCT V USA - Keepmoat Stadium, Doncaster, 15,000
Quarters
A2 V B2 - Elland Road, Leeds, 40,000
A3 V C1 - Parc Des Princes, Paris, 49,000 ( Whichever France play in)
B1 V C2 - JJB Stadium, Wigan, 24,000
Semi's
A1 V WQ3 - KC Stadium, Hull, 25,000
WQ 1 V WQ2 - St James Park, Newcastle, 52,000 (Whichever semi England play in)
Final - Wembley Stadium, London, 90,000
|
|
|
|
Post by sportsmad on Aug 16, 2009 10:53:56 GMT 10
interesting you left out lebanon jim.
looks like a great schedule. i would have nz across with france though, possibly giving it the same qualification status as group 1. the big focus of this world cup will still be making a war chest so games like france v less popular teams arent going to make money where as france v nz has more of a chance IMO.
the 2000 WC had the audacity of what should be at absolute minimum the 2017 WC. this WC shouldnt undersell itself and be played like the four nations but cant be as audacious as the 2000 one. judging by the optomism around richard lewis' business plan it will be a success featured around the heartland of the north but staging a few games elsewhere aswell. trick is to find the right mix. a profit of 5 Million pounds woulf be a success IMO. great schedule though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Aug 16, 2009 13:34:05 GMT 10
I think teams is orrelevant, he was just putting teams as examples, you would in the end hope that teams would be on merrit... I would hazzard a guess 2-3 team could drop in and out of that list.
Besides there still in no 100% confimartion that it cant change to 16 teams by 2012 when the qualifiers are on.
|
|
|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on Aug 17, 2009 2:06:55 GMT 10
Placing England in the same group as France, Ireland, Wales or Scotland might spark a bit of interest in the latter 4 nations. Fans from these nations might travel to England so they can see them play against their oldest rivals, the English.
New Zealand should be placed in the same group as Tonga, Samoa and Fiji because of the cultural ties between them.
PNG should be in the same group as Australia as they are neighbours and share a rich history (political and rugby league) with one another.
I'd like to see the teams organised into the following groups:
Group 1
Australia
PNG
Lebanon
USA OR Russia
Group 2
England
France
Ireland
Wales OR Scotland
Group 3
New Zealand
Tonga
Samoa
Fiji
OR
Group 1
Australia
England
Ireland
Scotland or Wales
Group 2
New Zealand
France
Papua New Guinea
USA or Russia
Group 3
Samoa
Tonga
Fiji
Lebanon
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Aug 17, 2009 8:38:05 GMT 10
Placing England in the same group as France, Ireland, Wales or Scotland might spark a bit of interest in the latter 4 nations. Fans from these nations might travel to England so they can see them play against their oldest rivals, the English. New Zealand should be placed in the same group as Tonga, Samoa and Fiji because of the cultural ties between them.PNG should be in the same group as Australia as they are neighbours and share a rich history (political and rugby league) with one another.I'd like to see the teams organised into the following groups: Group 1Australia PNG Lebanon USA OR Russia Group 2England France Ireland Wales OR Scotland Group 3New Zealand Tonga Samoa Fiji OR Group 1Australia England Ireland Scotland or Wales Group 2New Zealand France Papua New Guinea USA or Russia Group 3Samoa Tonga Fiji Lebanon No no no... sorry bruce I cannot agree with those statements. In a world cup you want to have your best teams getting through on a merritt basis and not be denied just becuase we think of them on racial or Political terms... The point of world cups is that they are meant to get rid of racial and political issues where everyone is treated equally... its also why I dont think a super group should be used anymore... yes the last one was a success, but it was needed for money, but we have to back ourselves as a sport... lets not be scared of the odd blow out lets make sure we have the best teams in there with an equal chance... for once lets not be scared to use what other sports do. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsmad on Aug 17, 2009 10:40:54 GMT 10
i still think the 2013 WC should be about making money aswell. if the 2013 WC doesnt make a profit it will be giant step backwards. i think big matchups are still needed to make this money. 2017 at earliest should be the first WC where teams are randomly drawn out of a hat, even thats optomistic. im not afraid of massive blowout scres druzik i just think the reality of situation is that these matchups are needed to draw a much needed profit.
the four nations will be the only money making tournament between now and the next world cup. i dont have a clue how much each tournament has the potential to make so if anyone has a guess please fill me in..... i know gilette got sponsorship for this one at a bargain proce when coca-cola puled out due to the nrls off field incidents which was a huge blow
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi fan on Aug 17, 2009 18:28:33 GMT 10
i still think the 2013 WC should be about making money aswell. if the 2013 WC doesnt make a profit it will be giant step backwards. i think big matchups are still needed to make this money. 2017 at earliest should be the first WC where teams are randomly drawn out of a hat, even thats optomistic. im not afraid of massive blowout scres druzik i just think the reality of situation is that these matchups are needed to draw a much needed profit. the four nations will be the only money making tournament between now and the next world cup. i dont have a clue how much each tournament has the potential to make so if anyone has a guess please fill me in..... i know gilette got sponsorship for this one at a bargain proce when coca-cola puled out due to the nrls off field incidents which was a huge blow I agree with you, the super pool must be retained for 2013. If this World Cup was to lose money masses of momentum would be lost. I think you have a super pool of 4 and then two other pools of four. The top two from the super pool goes through and the other two teams play the winners of the two other pools for the other semi final spots. I think that provides a good balance. The way I see it you can play NZ vs Russia and it will get 0 coverage or you can play NZ vs Aus and it will be a massive game which draws large crowds and a large tv audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Aug 17, 2009 19:07:54 GMT 10
i still think the 2013 WC should be about making money aswell. if the 2013 WC doesnt make a profit it will be giant step backwards. i think big matchups are still needed to make this money. 2017 at earliest should be the first WC where teams are randomly drawn out of a hat, even thats optomistic. im not afraid of massive blowout scres druzik i just think the reality of situation is that these matchups are needed to draw a much needed profit. the four nations will be the only money making tournament between now and the next world cup. i dont have a clue how much each tournament has the potential to make so if anyone has a guess please fill me in..... i know gilette got sponsorship for this one at a bargain proce when coca-cola puled out due to the nrls off field incidents which was a huge blow I agree with you, the super pool must be retained for 2013. If this World Cup was to lose money masses of momentum would be lost. I think you have a super pool of 4 and then two other pools of four. The top two from the super pool goes through and the other two teams play the winners of the two other pools for the other semi final spots. I think that provides a good balance. The way I see it you can play NZ vs Russia and it will get 0 coverage or you can play NZ vs Aus and it will be a massive game which draws large crowds and a large tv audience. Again I think people are missing a few points here... the WC should always be about making money, but not at the expense of having a fair an unbiased tournament... BUT ... the other thing we have to realise is that we can't always rely on just the WC to make the money for the international game. We need to have the Eurp Cup, Pacific cup, 4 nations etc... doing this, so that they can pick up slack here and there... Its why we need to have big regional tounraments and not just one WC every 4 years. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsmad on Aug 18, 2009 10:57:22 GMT 10
agree. four nations has the potential to make quite a lot of money, even the AU5 million that the wc in aus made. the other tournaments will be a while until they spin a prifit though. the european nations has the most potential to make a profit in the near future. still quite a way off yet. the IRB maked pretty much all their profit from their world cup. i dont know if this is because they give away all their 6 nations tickets thus making profit (as i think druzik said) or what.... tri nations must cost a lot to run for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on Aug 18, 2009 12:06:21 GMT 10
agree. four nations has the potential to make quite a lot of money, even the AU5 million that the wc in aus made. the other tournaments will be a while until they spin a prifit though. the european nations has the most potential to make a profit in the near future. still quite a way off yet. the IRB maked pretty much all their profit from their world cup. i dont know if this is because they give away all their 6 nations tickets thus making profit (as i think druzik said) or what.... tri nations must cost a lot to run for them. The IRB makes a tone of money from th 6 mations, if I remember correctly their TV contract with the BBC for the next 5 years is something like 600 million pounds... that is a massive chunk, it helps that they have their cronnies in the upper eschelons of the BBC too. I am sure the WC also makes $$ for them, but I have heard the next WC is looking at making a massive loss in NZ... hence the $200 million staging fees for the IRB. The tri nations I think is the only one making losses at the momehnt, hence the Tokyo game. |
|
|
|
Post by sportsmad on Aug 18, 2009 15:05:25 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi fan on Aug 18, 2009 15:33:08 GMT 10
agree. four nations has the potential to make quite a lot of money, even the AU5 million that the wc in aus made. the other tournaments will be a while until they spin a prifit though. the european nations has the most potential to make a profit in the near future. still quite a way off yet. the IRB maked pretty much all their profit from their world cup. i dont know if this is because they give away all their 6 nations tickets thus making profit (as i think druzik said) or what.... tri nations must cost a lot to run for them. The IRB makes a tone of money from th 6 mations, if I remember correctly their TV contract with the BBC for the next 5 years is something like 600 million pounds... that is a massive chunk, it helps that they have their cronnies in the upper eschelons of the BBC too. I am sure the WC also makes $$ for them, but I have heard the next WC is looking at making a massive loss in NZ... hence the $200 million staging fees for the IRB. The tri nations I think is the only one making losses at the momehnt, hence the Tokyo game. I'm sure the 3 Nations still makes the money. Interest and support for it is certainly waning. The NZRU lost money last year but it was a forcasted loss and they have heaps of reserves. The game in Tokyo is about creating more money not creating money in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by ashulster on Aug 23, 2009 4:18:19 GMT 10
The IRB makes a tone of money from th 6 mations, if I remember correctly their TV contract with the BBC for the next 5 years is something like 600 million pounds... that is a massive chunk, it helps that they have their cronnies in the upper eschelons of the BBC too. I am sure the WC also makes $$ for them, but I have heard the next WC is looking at making a massive loss in NZ... hence the $200 million staging fees for the IRB. The tri nations I think is the only one making losses at the momehnt, hence the Tokyo game. I'm sure the 3 Nations still makes the money. Interest and support for it is certainly waning. The NZRU lost money last year but it was a forcasted loss and they have heaps of reserves. The game in Tokyo is about creating more money not creating money in the first place. Very true, it took 10 weeks to sell out the AusNZ test at the ANZ, which they say normally sells out much quicker. Even the coaches of Aus and NZ say the rugby product is not that great and there is far to much aimless kicking. Rugby league must take advantage with our much more entertaining product. I can't wait for the next world cup, even though theres a good bit to wait ;D |
|
