Sorry, this story is unavailable
it is not about the north australia ,south africa even Japan could offer a better world cup with better viewing times , revenues from the world cup are used to fund smaller developing unions and various age grade and womens world cups ,reduced revenues just means lesser development again sentiments should never be a criteria or awarding world cups
Posted 09:08 08th July 2011
The new zealand public won't lose money. Also the expenses NZ has will balance out long term with the infrustructural upgrades and a boost in the tourism sector.
I thought we all agreed that money isn't a part of the game. We just want good atmosphere at the games...which we will get.
Posted 22:27 07th July 2011
Oh geez just dont you get sick and tired of the moaning from the north. Moan, moan, moan, criticize, criticize, criticize. It never stops boy no wonder they call them the whining 747s.
Posted 14:31 07th July 2011
Kenyanguy so rugby world cups should only be based on revenue? I guess that means it will be held every year in France or the UK? That means Japan should not have received it and any of Asia or the Americas in general should also never receive it. These are unknown quantities also with no proven financial track record. You have a very simplistic and sad view of the world Kenyanguy.
Posted 11:34 07th July 2011
NZ should have never been awarded the RWC 11 in the first place now the entire rugby world will suffr from reduced revenues ,decisions should be based on economic sense not emotional sentiments
Posted 10:09 07th July 2011
stumpy, the IRB awarded NZ the WC knowing that attendances would be relatively small, cos' as you have shown, the WC has grown into a major global sporting event, too large for NZ to host in the future. This is the last opportunity for NZ to host the WC. I believe NZ deserves this last shot at hosting.
Posted 01:39 07th July 2011
stumpy are you serious? you do realise 2007 was in europe which has a) bigger stadiums (i.e even if all tickets were sold at rwc2011 it would only amount to about 1.6mill b) is closer to all the markets. i.e only hours from the United Kingdom whereas NZ is 24 hours away. Is it then that hard to understand that it is smaller than the 2007?
Posted 11:53 06th July 2011
So it's expecting 1.35mil? That's quite disapointing. 1999 sold 1.75 mil, 2003 sold 1.83 mil, and 2007 sold 2.2mil yet in New Zealand they can't reach higher than 1.35mil?
Posted 10:49 06th July 2011