World Cup 2013 - Bid / Impovements ..

[NRLMad]

I have heard that Australia will be bidding for the 2013 cup. If this is correct, I am very happy. The reason being is that in Australia the game has had considerable forward momentum thrust due to holding this year's cup.

• Pool games well attended; games close, ... you know many more
• No decent TV & Radio rights offering - and hence next time they'll pay 2-3x as much. Current "wrapped" rghts end in 2011 - am I correct?
• Sponsors - lack of huge dolars being splashed out all of the teams (other than Australia / Pool A) were not going to get on tv that much - think Manly / Melbourne - as they're meant to be on TV for at least 10 games per year or whatever - they're now worth $1m year for major sponsorship
• PNG want a NRL team & have allocated A$12-15m of their budget into faciliating ground improvements; Fiji with AMI have stated they want an NRL team.
• England go away holding their tails between their legs as they know the ESL needs to improve & start bringing throuhg their own juniors. Players who retire from the NRL shouldn't all go to the ESL - if they retire they should retire!

All the knockers will need to get back into their box now that Australia has been beaten on home turf in the world cup that Australia were supposed to win from the outset.

The bid should encompass Australia & NZ (Wellington & Auckland) & possibly for qualification some games should be staged in the pacific nations.

Australia needs to not stop or thing, focus on 2013 & we can make a motzzzza! I'd say that in 2013 if Australia were to stage the WC, we;'d easily make $9-15m..

This bid should include:

1. Live TV for all games
2. Live Audio for all games
3. Increased advertising

Thoughts?

 

[JasonE]

I agree, i hope Australia wins the bid to hold the next WC if only for the fact that playing conditions/weather has been almost ideal for good open footy.

Obviously there were mistakes and teething problems with this WC but if we can iron them out i honestly think the next Cup in Oz could make a $20million profit.

They have to get games Live and every game covered on radio for starters.

 

[roopy]

If UK can't do it in 2013, the year after the olympics, they will never be able to do it.
It might as well be set in stone - WC every four years in Australia.

 

[roughyedspud]

ours would make more money....

 

[roopy]

ours would make more money....

I agree.
The biggest cheque out of this was the 13 million for TV rights, and more games at better times for bigger TV markets would mean more money for a Europe based comp, and put Russia and USA in as the two extra clubs and you add a few million more.

 

[griff]

As the defending champs, it makes a lot of sense for NZ to host it. They are getting a lot of stadium upgrades for the 2011 RUWC and will be well placed. They have a lot of the right size stadiums (c 18-20,000) for this sort of tournament, and a big islander population to support the Pacific teams.

There is also the potential for Australia's pool games in Australia, and PNG's pool games in PNG. And as I've suggested for a few years - even a France pool game in New Caledonia.

 

[Brownie.Kougari]

Why is there no NZ option?

 

[The Tank]

I doubt it's viable for NZ to host it alone.

 

[roughyedspud]

i don't believe that...i reckon with abit of work both NZ & france could host it alone

maybe give NZ the pacific cup & france the european championship as test event?

 

[NRLMad]

Why is there no NZ option?

If we'd like to lose money then - yeh, go ahead.

 

[NRLMad]

ours would make more money....

Why did it go so wrong last time? What would be different this time? Some of the crowds last time were atrocious. If England were to win the bid, then they'd have to be more games played in areas where the game is growing..

I'd say that the Qualifying games should be played in home nations of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, & France ..

At max they should play 3 games in France, and the rest spread through-out areas where rugby league is very strong in England.

 

[NRLMad]

bump.. roughyedspud?

 

[roopy]

I think the problems in 2000 have been gone over a million times.
It came down to once in a hundred years filthy weather and a too ambitious program that included 16 nations in the main draw and an expensive emerging nations tournament.
For a long time the organisers claim that 2000 broke even despite the disasterous crowds due to half of england getting blown away in a hurricane and massive floods, but in the end it turned out to be a 2 million pound loss that basically killed off any development work by England for years.

The plan for this WC was basically developed by looking at the mistakes of 2000 and doing the opposite.
They went for the most teams possible - basically any team they could find or invent - we went for only quality sides and excluded a couple of quality sides to make sure.
They tried to put on the best tournament they could - we tried to put on the cheapest tournament we could.

If England were to get it again, they would take our plan and probably make it a bit better.

 

[roopy]

The floods of 2000 arose during a series of exceptional rainfalls that swept across England and Wales over a seven-week period in an intensity not seen in 270 years,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/flood_facts.shtml

 

[roughyedspud]

bump.. roughyedspud?

what roopy said....too ambitous,sh!t weather,poor teams blah blah it's been gone over a million times, if we want to compare RLWC'S compare 2008 to 1995...

in 2013 i'd like too see us expand on 2008 alittle,like move to 12 team,but in the interest of profit making i would'nt like to see the games spread too thinly..i'd be tempted to stick too the heartlands and build the bank balance some more...

 

[VonVolks]

host should equal best package offered in next year. (1 year to table bids, with firm financials)

 

[bender]

I think the problems in 2000 have been gone over a million times.
It came down to once in a hundred years filthy weather and a too ambitious program that included 16 nations in the main draw and an expensive emerging nations tournament.
For a long time the organisers claim that 2000 broke even despite the disasterous crowds due to half of england getting blown away in a hurricane and massive floods, but in the end it turned out to be a 2 million pound loss that basically killed off any development work by England for years.

The plan for this WC was basically developed by looking at the mistakes of 2000 and doing the opposite.
They went for the most teams possible - basically any team they could find or invent - we went for only quality sides and excluded a couple of quality sides to make sure.
They tried to put on the best tournament they could - we tried to put on the cheapest tournament we could.

If England were to get it again, they would take our plan and probably make it a bit better.

You forgot about the most important aspect. The TV deal fell over because Australia refused to give the RLIF rights to televise the kangaroos (in Australia), which would have guaranteed a financial profit, before a ball was kicked. Even the latest world cup would ahve lost money, without the chance to sell tv games in Australia.

 

[KalgoorlieRed]

I have heard that Australia will be bidding for the 2013 cup. If this is correct, I am very happy. The reason being is that in Australia the game has had considerable forward momentum thrust due to holding this year's cup.

• Pool games well attended; games close, ... you know many more
• No decent TV & Radio rights offering - and hence next time they'll pay 2-3x as much. Current "wrapped" rghts end in 2011 - am I correct?
• Sponsors - lack of huge dolars being splashed out all of the teams (other than Australia / Pool A) were not going to get on tv that much - think Manly / Melbourne - as they're meant to be on TV for at least 10 games per year or whatever - they're now worth $1m year for major sponsorship
• PNG want a NRL team & have allocated A$12-15m of their budget into faciliating ground improvements; Fiji with AMI have stated they want an NRL team.
• England go away holding their tails between their legs as they know the ESL needs to improve & start bringing throuhg their own juniors. Players who retire from the NRL shouldn't all go to the ESL - if they retire they should retire!

All the knockers will need to get back into their box now that Australia has been beaten on home turf in the world cup that Australia were supposed to win from the outset.

The bid should encompass Australia & NZ (Wellington & Auckland) & possibly for qualification some games should be staged in the pacific nations.

Australia needs to not stop or thing, focus on 2013 & we can make a motzzzza! I'd say that in 2013 if Australia were to stage the WC, we;'d easily make $9-15m..

This bid should include:

1. Live TV for all games
2. Live Audio for all games
3. Increased advertising

Thoughts?

Please stop using the name "England' when refering to the UK. There is also Wales, Scotland, and Northern ireland too!

 

[roughyedspud]

he was'nt refering to the uk...

 

[Cheezel]

what roopy said....too ambitous,sh!t weather,poor teams blah blah it's been gone over a million times, if we want to compare RLWC'S compare 2008 to 1995...

in 2013 i'd like too see us expand on 2008 alittle,like move to 12 team,but in the interest of profit making i would'nt like to see the games spread too thinly..i'd be tempted to stick too the heartlands and build the bank balance some more...

From what I have read over the past few weeks 12 teams will be involved in the 2013 WC.

It's just a matter of who will host it. I think it should go to England in 2013. England, France, Ireland, Wales and Scotland will be different teams on home soil.

Spread the big games throughout the UK. Keep the smaller games in the north of England were they will be well supported. Obviously if the home nations qualify it would make sense to at least have one game in that nation at the minimum. Wales got pretty good crowds in the 1995 WC
The same can't be said for Ireland, Scotland in the 2000 WC.