FIFA controls IRB
DC
http://tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
"Boks to 'name their price'
Johannesburg - France has told the South African Rugby Union to �name
their price� to give up home advantage for next year�s Test match in
June against the Springboks.
While SARU are still hoping for a reprieve to host the game - set for
June 12 next year - to be played at Newlands, but a FIFA directive that
no other sporting events may take place within a Soccer World Cup host
city has put a hold on plans.
SARU has asked FIFA for a reprieve as the Test, which is scheduled to
kick off a day after the World Cup begins, is not at a World Cup
stadium, but the likelihood of this happening is unlikely.
It has already been mooted that the game may be moved to Wembley, but
SARU president Oregan Hoskins believes it could take place in France
after strong interest from the French to host the Springboks.
While Wembley is still an option, the other possibility was the
Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which could also host the match. ..."
DC
> http://tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
...
> While SARU are still hoping for a reprieve to host the game - set for
> June 12 next year - to be played at Newlands, but a FIFA directive that
> no other sporting events may take place within a Soccer World Cup host
> city has put a hold on plans.
Also, I wonder if this means that no cricket matches (ODI, Tests or
County games) would be allowed to be played at Lords, The Oval or Old
Trafford during June 2018, if England gets the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
didgerman
Oh a FIFA directive, how very interesting, bin.
What a load of bollocks.
Mike
FIFA can issue all the directives it likes how will it enforce them?
Unless the SA gov or the SARU have signed up to an agreement it's just
hot air. They can't move the soccer WC now, whilst they can penalise
the SA FA I doubt it would stand up to a legal challenge as the FA have
no powers to stop another even.
If the SARU want to move the match for economic reasons (fans may be
tapped out after paying for soccer tickets) then fair enough, otherwise
play the match in SA and tell the Sepp where to stick the directive.
Mike
Dave (SA)
> Maybe they should play the test in Kimberley or Stellenbosch.
>
>
> "Boks to 'name their price'
>
> their price” to give up home advantage for next year’s Test match in
> June against the Springboks.
>
> While SARU are still hoping for a reprieve to host the game - set for
> June 12 next year - to be played at Newlands, but a FIFA directive that
> no other sporting events may take place within a Soccer World Cup host
> city has put a hold on plans.
>
> SARU has asked FIFA for a reprieve as the Test, which is scheduled to
> kick off a day after the World Cup begins, is not at a World Cup
> stadium, but the likelihood of this happening is unlikely.
>
> It has already been mooted that the game may be moved to Wembley, but
> SARU president Oregan Hoskins believes it could take place in France
> after strong interest from the French to host the Springboks.
>
> While Wembley is still an option, the other possibility was the
> Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which could also host the match. ..."
If we have to lose it we may as well play at Stade de France
Dave (SA)
<mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> DC wrote:
> > Maybe they should play the test in Kimberley or Stellenbosch.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
>
> > "Boks to 'name their price'
>
> > their price” to give up home advantage for next year’s Test match in
> > June against the Springboks.
>
> > While SARU are still hoping for a reprieve to host the game - set for
> > June 12 next year - to be played at Newlands, but a FIFA directive that
> > no other sporting events may take place within a Soccer World Cup host
> > city has put a hold on plans.
>
> > SARU has asked FIFA for a reprieve as the Test, which is scheduled to
> > kick off a day after the World Cup begins, is not at a World Cup
> > stadium, but the likelihood of this happening is unlikely.
>
> > It has already been mooted that the game may be moved to Wembley, but
> > SARU president Oregan Hoskins believes it could take place in France
> > after strong interest from the French to host the Springboks.
>
> > While Wembley is still an option, the other possibility was the
> > Millennium stadium in Cardiff, which could also host the match. ..."
>
> FIFA can issue all the directives it likes how will it enforce them?
>
> Unless the SA gov or the SARU have signed up to an agreement it's just
> hot air. They can't move the soccer WC now, whilst they can penalise
> the SA FA I doubt it would stand up to a legal challenge as the FA have
> no powers to stop another even.
>
> If the SARU want to move the match for economic reasons (fans may be
> tapped out after paying for soccer tickets) then fair enough, otherwise
> play the match in SA and tell the Sepp where to stick the directive.
>
> Mike
I think the problem is bigger than we appreciate.
There is an agreement and I believe the host cities are all part of
the agreement.
For the WC draw FIFA stopped the Obz Festival which is a small music
festival that was scheduled to take place one one of the week-ends
close to the draw.
The organisers weren't using the WC because the festival has been held
then every year for many years.
FIFA is a mafia.
So unless they move the Test to a city that does not host any games we
may have a problem.
BTW - I don't think it will affect WC attendances even if they held it
in Cape Town.
Mike
> On Dec 31 2009, 12:58 pm, Mike
> <mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> DC wrote:
>>> Maybe they should play the test in Kimberley or Stellenbosch.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
>>> http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
>>> "Boks to 'name their price'
>>> their price� to give up home advantage for next year�s Test match in
FIFA is too big for it's boots but if you want to host IT'S WC you have
to do what it says.
Like the Olympics , it's just gotten too big and commercial, they have
'official' everything from washing powder to fast food.
Being relatively small the RWC escapes much of this and long may it do
so. Sure some teams pait their planes before the first KO but that's
about as far as it's gone so far ....
Mike
Uncle Dave
Unlike the IRB of course...
UD
DC
> FIFA is a mafia.
>
> So unless they move the Test to a city that does not host any games we
> may have a problem.
I wonder if they would have to move the dates for Wimbledon if England
got 2018 FIFA WC. Surely, FIFA would have to agree to Wimbledon being
held in London in June, since it such an established event.
Or Wimbledon and the French Open could swap dates.
dechucka
"Dave (SA)" <david.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aff47102-df14-485c...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 31 2009, 12:58 pm, Mike
<mikeloveschampagneandru...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> DC wrote:
> > Maybe they should play the test in Kimberley or Stellenbosch.
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/yj8uh3s
>
> > "Boks to 'name their price'
>
> > their price� to give up home advantage for next year�s Test match in
FIFA is a mafia.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are all sorts of restrictions that come into play when events like
this occur. Certainly were in Sydney during the Olympics and the RWC. NZ
lost the there bit of the joint RWC with Aus because they would not comply
with the contract they signed. Some of the the restrictions for instance
against ambush advertising must be enforced by legislation.
DC
> There are all sorts of restrictions that come into play when events like
> this occur. Certainly were in Sydney during the Olympics and the RWC. NZ
> lost the there bit of the joint RWC with Aus because they would not
> comply with the contract they signed. Some of the the restrictions for
> instance against ambush advertising must be enforced by legislation.
However, regarding the stipulation of no other significant sporting
events in a FIFA host city, how can it be enforced if the other sporting
body does not want to cooperate?
If the other body is not controlled (or subsidised) by the government
how can they force it to cancel an event?
For example, if England got the 2018 FIFA WC, how could the UK
government force the Lawn Tennis Association to move or cancel
Wimbledon, if that is what FIFA demands?
Parliament will probably have to enact primary legislation to ban Wimbledon.
Or there will need to be a general 2018 WC law passed giving the
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the power to ban any
competing event that FIFA does not want.
dechucka
"DC" <---@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:F480n.22491$jj1....@newsfe12.ams2...
> dechucka wrote:
>
>> There are all sorts of restrictions that come into play when events like
>> this occur. Certainly were in Sydney during the Olympics and the RWC. NZ
>> lost the there bit of the joint RWC with Aus because they would not
>> comply with the contract they signed. Some of the the restrictions for
>> instance against ambush advertising must be enforced by legislation.
>
> However, regarding the stipulation of no other significant sporting events
> in a FIFA host city, how can it be enforced if the other sporting body
> does not want to cooperate?
It can't be enforced but it could probably be made hard for that
organisation esp if they didn't own the grounds in question.
>
> If the other body is not controlled (or subsidised) by the government how
> can they force it to cancel an event?
probably can't but if they wanted to could make it difficult eg no extra
public transport
>
> For example, if England got the 2018 FIFA WC, how could the UK government
> force the Lawn Tennis Association to move or cancel Wimbledon, if that is
> what FIFA demands?
>
> Parliament will probably have to enact primary legislation to ban
> Wimbledon.
>
> Or there will need to be a general 2018 WC law passed giving the Secretary
> of State for Culture, Media and Sport the power to ban any competing event
> that FIFA does not want.
If Wimbledon clashed and FIFA didn't want it on and the LTA refused to move
the dates than FIA would just award the contract to some other Country. FIFA
holds all the cards as there are lots of countries wanting the SWCs but
power wins. You may call it bullying but is it bullying if the better scrum
wins all the ball?
Greig Blanchett
<mikelovescham...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>FIFA is too big for it's boots but if you want to host IT'S WC you have
>to do what it says.
>
>Like the Olympics , it's just gotten too big and commercial, they have
>'official' everything from washing powder to fast food.
>
>Being relatively small the RWC escapes much of this and long may it do
>so. Sure some teams pait their planes before the first KO but that's
>about as far as it's gone so far ....
>
>
>Mike
Not quite - the whole collapse of the NZ/Oz co-hosting deal in 2003
was due to IRB running roughshod over corporate boxes, advertising,
season ticket holders etc.
There was talk of the inter-island ferry being halted during games at
the Caketin because if a camera caught sight of it, that could be seen
as infringing the non-authorised advertising exclusion zone.
The IRB may not be as big as FIFA, but by God, they'd like to be.
--
greig
Dave (SA)
A tricky one. You are correct. They cannot ban matches by law but....
In SA the the stadiums are either owned or on very long term leases
(50 years and more).
So the stadiums are not an issue.
However the rugby unions do need the services of the traffic police
etc. on match days. Presumably the fixture lists get cleared with the
cities well in advance. More than a year in the case of
internationals. The French game is in the calendar but the ground is
undecided.
So I believe that the City Councils (who signed the exclusivity
clauses) would have the power to refuse a rugby match in their city
because of insufficient notice and insufficient available resources.
The S14 is over before the WC so no issues there. So rugby is
generally organised.
To be honest it will be a non issue.
If FIFA won't make an exception there is no way our cities will stand
up to them.
It seems the French Union will give SARU more money than they would if
they hosted it themselves.
Since rugby supporters don't feature high on the SARUs agenda I expect
SA supporters will get screwed.
The only alternative I can think of is to play the game in a small non-
WC city like East London.
That will make bugger all money so that won't happen.
dechucka
"Greig Blanchett" <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote in message
news:n1s2k5tqmv6kst6o2...@4ax.com...
Huge revisionism by you. The NZers lost their share of the RWC because they
wouldn't comply with the conditions of the contract they signed. Australia
did comply and staged a very successful WC just as they did when Sydney
staged the Olympics and complied with the contract they had signed.
NZ thought they were bigger than the game and were shown they weren't.
Two Dogs
Huge revisionism and some poor fact checking by you. NZ lost their
share of the RWC because they *wouldn't sign* the sub host agreement,
not because they wouldn't comply with a signed contract. The NZRFU's
lawyers advised them that they would not be able to enforce the
agreement as written (and, apparently, reinforced in private by the
IRB) and they wanted further open discussion and clarity on some of
the issues. They would have gotten it, and successfully cohosted the
event, if O'Neill hadn't taken the opportunity to throw NZ under the
bus to get the entire shebang for the ARFU, allowing the IRB to
maintain their arrogant "take it or leave it" stance.
NZRFU management should have been shot for leaving all this to the
last minute, but it was also naive and stupid of NZRFU to think they
could expect anything other than arrogance from the IRB and
opportunistic deceit from Possum head and the ARFU.
Two Dogs
Greig Blanchett
wrote:
So what you're saying is that the ARU by not taking a stance against
IRB arrogance actually helped reinforce their attitude?
No wonder sports governing bodies can do what they want when they're
dealing with flocks of self interested sheep.
>NZ thought they were bigger than the game and were shown they weren't.
No, they thought the IRB was trying to be bigger than the game.
Unfortunately, the ARU backed them up and now the IRB IS bigger than
the game.
I think we can directly thank your countrymen for the fiasco of the
ELVs, the different rules per game, per hemisphere, per season. If the
IRB hadn't come to the conclusion they were untouchable, they'd never
have gotten away with it. Shame on you, Chucky. Shame!
--
greig
dechucka
"Greig Blanchett" <gre...@nNzOrSfPu.AcMom> wrote in message
What arrogance? If the NZRFU didn't want to get involved they shouldn't have
from the start. If they couldn't/ wouldm't meet the conditions of the
contract than. They tried to play hardball and lost. They thought they were
bigger than the game and were shown they weren't.
>
> No wonder sports governing bodies can do what they want when they're
> dealing with flocks of self interested sheep.
It is because they look at the big picture. I'm sure that even in the NZ the
NZRU goes out of its way to protect its sponsors and and it's "brandname".
This is the same thing on a larger scale
>
>>NZ thought they were bigger than the game and were shown they weren't.
>
> No, they thought the IRB was trying to be bigger than the game.
> Unfortunately, the ARU backed them up and now the IRB IS bigger than
> the game.
The IRB weren't trying to be bigger tham the game. They wanted a successful
RWC and got one, pity that NZ wasn't involved but it was there choice
>
> I think we can directly thank your countrymen for the fiasco of the
> ELVs, the different rules per game, per hemisphere, per season. If the
> IRB hadn't come to the conclusion they were untouchable, they'd never
> have gotten away with it. Shame on you, Chucky. Shame!
Your paranoia is showing
Andrew
>
> Or there will need to be a general 2018 WC law passed giving the
> Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the power to ban any
> competing event that FIFA does not want.
Probably.
It required a 43 page bill in Parliament to keep the IOC happy for the
2012 Olympics.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/045/2006045...
The host city contract for 2012 includes.
19. No
Inconsistent
Commitments
or Activities
With respect to the provisions of the Olympic Charter and the terms of
this Contract,
the City, the NOC and the OCOG hereby confirm:
a) that no major public or private event, conference, or other meeting
which could
have an impact on the successful organisation and staging of the Games
or their
public and media exposure, shall take place in the City itself, or its
neighbourhood or in the other competition sites, during the Games or
during the
preceding or following week, without the prior written approval of the
IOC;
Which prevents any sports or other major events in London, or near
other venues during 8 weeks of 2012 without their permission.
I think Wimbledon falls just outside that time period.
I imagine that similar rules are insisted on by FIFA IRB etc.
dechucka
"Two Dogs" <nzr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5099a4aa-33eb-40f8...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
======================================================
Of course it was all the nasty IRB and ARU's fault that NZ didn't know what
was going on when they wanted to get involved. They knew from the start what
was required didn't want do it because they thought they were the game and
were surprised when they found out they weren't. Come on it wasn't like NZ
hadn't run International events where he protection of sponsors and brand
names were important.
Well that is all water under the bridge. Hopefully this time the NZRFU has
actually read the requirements before they got involved and have solved
these tricky problems like the type of beer at venues and advertising on the
inter island ferry ( loved that one as a reason put forward by the NZRU ).
Two Dogs
> "Two Dogs" <nzre...@aol.com> wrote in message
Yes we did, RWC in 1987. Ran a good event. The problem was that in
the intervening years since Aust/NZ had pushed the vision of a World
Cup on a less than enthusiastic IRB and ran that first tournament by
basically their own rules, the IRB had done a complete 360 and decided
it was a fabulous cash cow and had grabbed all the cows teats firmly
in their little hot hands. They initially pooh poohed the idea of a
RWC because they were afraid of having a profitable tournament in the
hands of private entities, but once they saw what a great event it was
they formed their own private entity, Rugby World Cup ltd, to collect
and control all the money. By 2003 NZ was secondary host and most of
the negotiations were between O'Neill and Rugby World Cup limited
*after* the initial hosting rights had been awarded. NZ, naively,
didn't understand how fiercely the RWC LTD was going after every
available penny, and how arrogantly they were going to defend their
rights to control those pennies. Stop ships sailing? FFS, does that
sound reasonable to you?
Now the NZRFU were certainly not blameless, but their sin was
stupidity and naivety, as opposed to greed and arrogance shown by the
ARFU and RWC ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary or the IRB.
> Well that is all water under the bridge. Hopefully this time the NZRFU has
> actually read the requirements before they got involved and have solved
> these tricky problems like the type of beer at venues and advertising on the
> inter island ferry ( loved that one as a reason put forward by the NZRU ).
There were other issues, such as trying to be loyal to their own
constituency who had been buying tickets to games for a century or
more and wanted some rights to their seats, but yes, they have now
overcome these "tricky problems" to the satisfaction of the teat
grabbers of the IRB, and to the immense dissatisfaction of the NZ
public who support rugby in NZ. Personally, I preferred it when they
were naive but loyal, thanks IRB
Two Dogs
dechucka
===============================================================
Stupidity YES. They were stupid in thinking that they could run a RWC on
their terms. Bugger the sponsors bugger the conditions in contract we are
the mighty NZru and we can do what we like.
Naive YES. They were niave if they thought that the IRB and World Rugby
would let them have their way by not fully suporting the sponsors of the
tournament and protecting the name brand of the RWC. Niave that they thought
that the IRB wouldn't take the RWC away from them following repeated
warnings
> Well that is all water under the bridge. Hopefully this time the NZRFU has
> actually read the requirements before they got involved and have solved
> these tricky problems like the type of beer at venues and advertising on
> the
> inter island ferry ( loved that one as a reason put forward by the NZRU ).
There were other issues, such as trying to be loyal to their own
constituency who had been buying tickets to games for a century or
more and wanted some rights to their seats, but yes, they have now
overcome these "tricky problems" to the satisfaction of the teat
grabbers of the IRB, and to the immense dissatisfaction of the NZ
public who support rugby in NZ. Personally, I preferred it when they
were naive but loyal, thanks IRB
======================================================================
The W in RWC stands for World not insular little NZ. What was the NZRU
thinking when they sold the membership packages? You can't sell something
that you don't own. Anyhow it didn't help their constituency in the end
because they got nothing.
Two Dogs
I'm sorry, but your total lack of knowledge of the facts of what
happened make it impossible for us to have a reasoned conversation on
this issue.
Two Dogs
dechucka
===================================================================
Fine, if you can't logically look at the role of the NZru in that fiasco but
blame it all on the nasty IRB and ARU so be it.
Lets face it the NZru stuffed up they thought they could play hardball with
the IRB over the WC and seemed very surprised when they found they couldn't.
As I said it wasn't like the NZRU didn't know what was required having co
hosted the 87 RWC.
Interestingly the NZru seemingly complying with with contract for this RWC
and may have even solved the inter Island ferry problems.
All the best for the hosting of this RWC I am sure it will be a great
success