World Cup 2023

So Italy have pulled out of the running - that leaves Ireland, France and SA.
http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12040/10605331/world-rugby-chairman-bill-beaumont-praises-world-cup-2023-bids

Who do you think should get the main event after Japan?

I have been lucky enough to go to all 3 of the possible hosts and can say that I would be happy going to any of them again.
From a financial perspective being based in London obviously Ireland or France would be more convenient, but I don't think I would have too much trouble convincing the wife to go back out to SA.

SA would be my preference.

France had theirs just back in '07 so seems a little early for them again.

SA has the climate, fan base and the infrastructure

And they are due as their last was in '95.
Yet Ireland haven't hosted at all yet - well, joint few games in '91.
If talking about infrastructure then it is there and available in Ireland - especially if that GAA agreement is in place. And from the sound of things in the NZ WC then infrastructure isn't the main factor in selection.

I'd definitely go with Ireland, but think there's been long debates elsewhere on the forum!

Personally I would have given it to Argentina but since they are not candidate it has to be Ireland provided the guarantees are there for them to organize that properly. Don't see a good reason to award it to France unless it becomes a trend to have a RWC a year before the Olympics. As for SA, this has been debated over 200 pages in another thread....

propdavid_london wrote:
Yet Ireland haven't hosted at all yet - well, joint few games in '91.  

Ireland also hosted games in 1999.

Ireland also hosted games in 1999.

That's a looong time ago though - even for an auld git like me.

I think most people understand the distinction around the use of the word 'hosting' in this context - where it means which country/union is the principal or sole organiser/financier of the competition.

Clearly, being allocated some some pool games in RWCs from 20-25 years ago is not the same as being the sole host nation of the entire competition as has happened in the past with France, England, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.   Italy, unfortunately, have withdrawn their bid but would also have been a first-time host of the entire RWC.

As others have observed, this topic has been done to death in quite a number of other threads already over the last four years, so I won't comment further than that.

https://www.606v2.com/t63742-ireland-s-bid-for-2023-world-cup-venues-announced-gov-underwriting-320m

https://www.606v2.com/t62924-2023-expanded-rugby-world-cup-for-south-africa?

https://www.606v2.com/t62004-2023-expanded-rugby-world-cup-for-south-africa

https://www.606v2.com/t63223-judging-criteria-announced-by-world-rugby-to-host-2023-rugby-world-cup?

https://www.606v2.com/t62923-2023-rwc-not-in-south-africa-it-seems#3338659

https://www.606v2.com/t58978-ireland-rugby-world-cup-bid-for-2023?

https://www.606v2.com/t20096-ireland-to-host-rugby-world-cup-in-2023?

https://www.606v2.com/t44227-question-re-ireland-possible-bid-for-rwc-in-2023?

https://www.606v2.com/t33884-gaa-vote-is-boost-for-ireland-s-2023-rugby-world-cup-bid

https://www.606v2.com/t24196-ireland-to-pursue-hosting-of-rwc-2023

Like others, I still think a joint Celtic bid would have had more heft.

However (and similarly with France who only hosted in 2007) it's probably too soon to have the WC back in the British Isles after England 2015.

SA would be fantastic. Here's hoping they sort out any issues as they would certainly put on a brilliant tournament.

Shame about Italy though.

Cyril wrote:Like others, I still think a joint Celtic bid would have had more heft.

However (and similarly with France who only hosted in 2007) it's probably too soon to have the WC back in the British Isles after England 2015.

SA would be fantastic. Here's hoping they sort out any issues as they would certainly put on a brilliant tournament.

Shame about Italy though.

The Ireland bid is a joint bid. It's a unique bid by one union to host the competition entirely within its territory, for the first time in Europe.

The British Isles isn't a country and is somewhat an archaic term at this point since they're factually British and Irish islands. But you know this already.

Real blow, think it would have been great in Italy. Ireland as the next new host for me.

Thought British Isles still existed?

Strange, but France are closer to the England than Ireland is. Maybe they shouldn't get it either as England had it only last year?

Pot Hale wrote:The British Isles isn't a country and is somewhat an archaic term at this point since they're factually British and Irish islands.  But you know this already.  

I guess it's somewhat comparable in terms of 'correctness' to the 'English' RFU?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought British Isles still existed?

They certainly do! As a geographical rather than political entity.

Cyril wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The British Isles isn't a country and is somewhat an archaic term at this point since they're factually British and Irish islands.  But you know this already.  

I guess it's somewhat comparable in terms of 'correctness' to the 'English' RFU?

Somewhat, but the British and Irish Lions would be a better comparator in a rugby context.

stub wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought British Isles still existed?

They certainly do! As a geographical rather than political entity.

Which is the context I was using

You can alas get a British Isles breakfast!

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought British Isles still existed?

They certainly do! As a geographical rather than political entity.

Which is the context I was using

You can alas get a British Isles breakfast!

I think that is the context that most people use to be honest..

Is this thread now going to develop into a breakfast off

Full English
Ulster fry
Porridge
Lava bread and bacon
???
....

And the geographical context is inaccurate too, in my view.

Rather than derail this topic any further, you can read more about irish and British views on the subject here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

It matters not about geography - the main point here is that what kind of breakfast the English choose to eat has no moral impact on the breakfast the Irish want to eat or the French want to eat.

That the English had bacon, egg, beans and toast on one particular morning doesn't preclude the Irish from having a similar breakfast the next day or the French from having coffee and a damn tasteless croissant the day after.

Now let this be the end of the debate!

Nice try Fly.

Now I've read Pots article and I'm happy to change the name of our islands to "The Western European Isles" if we can agree on a shared breakfast to cement a common identity!

I say there needs to be salty pork involved..

The Western European Isles.... I like the sound of that, stub.

Just as long as the UK doesn't then change its official name to The United Kingdom of Western European Isles.

On that agreement I'd allow one rasher. Strictly no f**king hash browns though.

SecretFly wrote:It matters not about geography - the main point here is that what kind of breakfast the English choose to eat has no moral impact on the breakfast the Irish want to eat or the French want to eat.

That the English had bacon, egg, beans and toast on one particular morning doesn't preclude the Irish from having a similar breakfast the next day or the French from having coffee and a damn tasteless croissant the day after.

Now let this be the end of the debate!

Jeez, at times I wonder what country you live in, Fly. Clearly you have never sampled a proper Irish fry including hairy rind rashers, fried eggs, sausages, mushrooms, tomatoes, chips, beans and optional pork chop, with a bottle of house white (milk) on the side as served up at 3am in The Manhattan. Toast? That was only for posh gits. Anyway, bread isn't good for ya, too stodgy.

Pot Hale wrote:

Jeez, at times I wonder what country you live in, Fly.   Clearly you have never sampled a proper Irish fry including hairy rind rashers, fried eggs,  sausages, mushrooms, tomatoes, chips, beans and optional pork chop, with a bottle of house white (milk) on the side as served up at 3am in The Manhattan.   Toast?  That was only for posh gits.   Anyway, bread isn't good for ya, too stodgy.

Well you know me, Pot. All I really need is a bit of uncovered bread to throw a few spits onto to soften nicely and then suck up the lovely soupy juice through my nose.

SecretFly wrote:The Western European Isles.... I like the sound of that, stub.

Just as long as the UK doesn't then change its official name to The United Kingdom of Western European Isles.

On that agreement I'd allow one rasher.  Strictly no f**king hash browns though.

I can live without hash browns but would be keen to add some good black pudding..

Do we have a deal?

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Jeez, at times I wonder what country you live in, Fly.   Clearly you have never sampled a proper Irish fry including hairy rind rashers, fried eggs,  sausages, mushrooms, tomatoes, chips, beans and optional pork chop, with a bottle of house white (milk) on the side as served up at 3am in The Manhattan.   Toast?  That was only for posh gits.   Anyway, bread isn't good for ya, too stodgy.

Well you know me, Pot. All I really need is a bit of uncovered bread to throw a few spits onto to soften nicely and then suck up the lovely soupy juice through my nose.

Sounds like my grand uncle Charles William Alexander during his marriage years.

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought British Isles still existed?

They certainly do! As a geographical rather than political entity.

Which is the context I was using

You can alas get a British Isles breakfast!

http://cms.springboard.gorillanation.com/embed_iframe/2653/video/772313/what003/whatculture.com/5

Sausage, bacon, black pudding, white pudding, mushrooms, beans, potato cake, eggs, with well buttered soda farls on the side. In the interest of a hand of friendship to our Scottish cousins will be willing to compromise on square sausage, fruit pudding and haggis. Otherwise no deal.
Break(fa)stit Now!

Exactly

Gooseberry wrote:

Cyril wrote:

stub wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought British Isles still existed?

They certainly do! As a geographical rather than political entity.

Which is the context I was using

You can alas get a British Isles breakfast!

http://cms.springboard.gorillanation.com/embed_iframe/2653/video/772313/what003/whatculture.com/5

Liked that a lot.
"Ders more to Oirland dan dis."

Irish Londoner wrote:Sausage, bacon, black pudding, white pudding, mushrooms, beans, potato cake, eggs, with well buttered soda farls on the side. In the interest of a hand of friendship to our Scottish cousins will be willing to compromise on square sausage, fruit pudding and haggis. Otherwise no deal.
Break(fa)stit Now!

I think that there's something there for everyone! I like that square Scottish sausage (lorne sausage?) Particularly like the insistence of plenty of butter.

Makes the breakfast I've just eaten seem a little sub-standard though..

I don't know how I left out the black and white pudding - sacrilege.

You did put a pork chop in though which deserves respect..