World Cup venues announcement

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I've followed this debate on Wigan with interest (as a Wigan lad).

The Coventry game is a bit of a red herring as the real debate is Wigan vs. Bolton hosting a game... similar stadiums very close to each with the only difference being that one is a town with a huge history in the sport and a name that is synonymous with Rugby League while the other just a few miles away is hardly associated with the sport at all.

I am pretty sure that all things being equal the RFL/World Cup organisers would want a game in an historic RL town such as Wigan as they have with St Helens, Leeds and Hull.

The selection of host towns/cities seems to have been a professionally run process with a fair degree of competition.  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the Wigan bid must have been very poorly put together and presented.

I agree that Wigan is a proud RL town and would have loved to host a game or two and they should feel very let down by whoever put together that bid.

Pretty much my view, articulated much better than I did!

[The Hallucinating Goose]

How about this right? Just a thought;

The distance from the centre of Wigan to Bolton's stadium is 7 miles. There are buses every 15 minutes according to google maps. You could bloody walk it!

The distance from Wigan to Leigh is 7 miles. There are buses every 15 minutes according to google maps. You could bloody walk it!

The distance from Wigan to St Helens is 9 miles. There are trains every 30 minutes according to google maps that take approximately 25 minutes.

The distance from Wigan to Warrington is 12 miles. There are trains every 15-30 minutes that take approximately 15 minutes.

You have 11 games within 12 miles of Wigan with journey times of 30 minutes or less.  If you throw in Liverpool and Manchester that would be 16 games if you include womens and wheelchair games.  You have all 3 finals, the opening womens game and ceremony, an england group game and 2 quarter finals, one of which will probably be england.  

Yes there might be a lot of games in Yorkshire but most are about 1 and half hours away from me.  I will not be able to make midweek games cos I work evenings so I will get to nowhere near as many games as you will.  People in pieland, stop whinging!! Quite frankly I would torture a bag full of kittens to have the opportunity to go to so many bloody games!!

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

How about this right? Just a thought;

The distance from the centre of Wigan to Bolton's stadium is 7 miles. There are buses every 15 minutes according to google maps. You could bloody walk it!

While this is true, a Rugby League World Cup game should be in Wigan and not Bolton shouldn't it?

Whoever put together the bid from Wigan and lost these matches to Bolton is totally incompetent.

[RP London]

51 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I was hoping you could read and follow a line of reasoning, even if the end point differed from your own... but hey ho. 

if there was true reasoning then fine but the basis is "we've been good to you please give me a game".. some arguments about wasps which are irrelevant to Wigan not getting a game and more "we've been good please give me a game". 

as a business that is poor reasoning, really poor reasoning. You don't make purely emotional decisions, and a world cup needs to make money and needs to be run as a business. IF the bids were close then you can make an emotional decision, we do it at work ourselves, you like a supplier and their price may be a little higher but you like them, they have treated you well in the past and their service is good so you stay. There comes a point, however, when the cost price is so different that you have to change. 

I haven't seen one reasoned argument that Wigans bid was better than anyone elses. It is all emotion and if the organising committee had made a judgement just because it was Wigan I would be asking serious questions about their common sense and ability to run this successfully. 

Give me a proper line of reasoning and i will follow it, i may agree with it if it is correct, give me some emotional guff and it gets the responses it gets.

the failure lies solely at the feet of the Wigan bid. 

 

[RP London]

25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I've followed this debate on Wigan with interest (as a Wigan lad).

The Coventry game is a bit of a red herring as the real debate is Wigan vs. Bolton hosting a game... similar stadiums very close to each with the only difference being that one is a town with a huge history in the sport and a name that is synonymous with Rugby League while the other just a few miles away is hardly associated with the sport at all.

I am pretty sure that all things being equal the RFL/World Cup organisers would want a game in an historic RL town such as Wigan as they have with St Helens, Leeds and Hull.

The selection of host towns/cities seems to have been a professionally run process with a fair degree of competition.  The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the Wigan bid must have been very poorly put together and presented.

I agree that Wigan is a proud RL town and would have loved to host a game or two and they should feel very let down by whoever put together that bid.

i would agree with that 100%.. 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

if there was true reasoning then fine but the basis is "we've been good to you please give me a game".. some arguments about wasps which are irrelevant to Wigan not getting a game and more "we've been good please give me a game". 

as a business that is poor reasoning, really poor reasoning. You don't make purely emotional decisions, and a world cup needs to make money and needs to be run as a business. IF the bids were close then you can make an emotional decision, we do it at work ourselves, you like a supplier and their price may be a little higher but you like them, they have treated you well in the past and their service is good so you stay. There comes a point, however, when the cost price is so different that you have to change. 

I haven't seen one reasoned argument that Wigans bid was better than anyone elses. It is all emotion and if the organising committee had made a judgement just because it was Wigan I would be asking serious questions about their common sense and ability to run this successfully. 

Give me a proper line of reasoning and i will follow it, i may agree with it if it is correct, give me some emotional guff and it gets the responses it gets.

the failure lies solely at the feet of the Wigan bid. 

 

Exactly, the fact that Bolton have ended up with both an England game and a quarter final suggests a very good bid was put together.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

28 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

While this is true, a Rugby League World Cup game should be in Wigan and not Bolton shouldn't it?

Whoever put together the bid from Wigan and lost these matches to Bolton is totally incompetent.

Personally I don't see why Wigan absolutely should have a game. Thats the kind of inward, cautious thinking that has held international rugby league back over the years.  Lets just go to the same, small, safe stadiums instead of being ambitious and trying to grow our game.  Now I know Bolton isnt exactly growing the game out of the heartlands but it is a bigger stadium and we are being ambitious with places like Middlesbrough and Sheffield.  Tell you what though, lets forget potential 28,000, 32,000 and 34,000 crowds and make sure we get 22-23,000 in Wigan. I imagine one reason Bolton was picked (aside from a great bid as others have said) was because organisers thought, yes there won't be a game in Wigan but there are still plenty of games close by that their fans can go to.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Personally I don't see why Wigan absolutely should have a game. Thats the kind of inward, cautious thinking that has held international rugby league back over the years.  Lets just go to the same, small, safe stadiums instead of being ambitious and trying to grow our game.  Now I know Bolton isnt exactly growing the game out of the heartlands but it is a bigger stadium and we are being ambitious with places like Middlesbrough and Sheffield.  Tell you what though, lets forget potential 28,000, 32,000 and 34,000 crowds and make sure we get 22-23,000 in Wigan.

Let me explain my point a little more.  I do not believe that Wigan 'should' have a game as some kind of a given.  I am not discussing Wigan vs. Coventry or Wigan vs. Bristol but Wigan vs. Bolton.

In this scenario, the towns are adjacent and the stadiums are comparable sizes.  All things being equal, Wigan's heritage in the sport should have been a factor.

Even now, I am not saying Wigan should have the game over Bolton.  Clearly Bolton put together a better and more compelling bid.  My point is that the anger anybody has for Wigan not getting a game or two should be directed squarely at the team who put the Wigan bid together and not the World Cup organisers or the RFL.

I do not consider myself to be inward thinking when it comes to Rugby league and I would be surprised if you could find evidence on this forum that supports that conclusion.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

11 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Let me explain my point a little more.  I do not believe that Wigan 'should' have a game as some kind of a given.  I am not discussing Wigan vs. Coventry or Wigan vs. Bristol but Wigan vs. Bolton.

In this scenario, the towns are adjacent and the stadiums are comparable sizes.  All things being equal, Wigan's heritage in the sport should have been a factor.

Even now, I am not saying Wigan should have the game over Bolton.  Clearly Bolton put together a better and more compelling bid.  My point is that the anger anybody has for Wigan not getting a game or two should be directed squarely at the team who put the Wigan bid together and not the World Cup organisers or the RFL.

I do not consider myself to be inward thinking when it comes to Rugby league and I would be surprised if you could find evidence on this forum that supports that conclusion.

Please don't think I'm directing my argument at you personally Dunbar, I'm really not, the point you're making is a point a lot of people are making so I'm not directing it at anyone in particular. 

I totally, 100% agree that whoever put the bid together needs to be taken to the gallows and I DO find it a bit odd that Wigan hasn't been picked when it is a modern stadium that has been used a lot before.  As you say though, Bolton is a comparable stadium.  You did say, and I quote, 'a Rugby League World Cup game should be in Wigan and not Bolton shouldn't it?' Why??

I am just looking at the Wigan debate from the point of view of the tournament as a whole.  The organisers have clearly picked stadiums they think they can fill, stadiums that will get bigger crowds than at Wigan.  This will be a big factor in not choosing Wigan. In the end does it really, honestly, matter that there will not be a game in Wigan? The organisers have made sure that there is games that Wigan fans will be able to go to quite easily.  Sure, whoever put the bid together that failed for Wigan is clearly incompetent but this is about fans attending games and the tournament being a success.  People seem to be exhausting a lot of energy on this particular debating point.  Can we just enjoy the tournament??

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Please don't think I'm directing my argument at you personally Dunbar, I'm really not, the point you're making is a point a lot of people are making so I'm not directing it at anyone in particular. 

I totally, 100% agree that whoever put the bid together needs to be taken to the gallows and I DO find it a bit odd that Wigan hasn't been picked when it is a modern stadium that has been used a lot before.  As you say though, Bolton is a comparable stadium.  You did say, and I quote, 'a Rugby League World Cup game should be in Wigan and not Bolton shouldn't it?' Why??

I am just looking at the Wigan debate from the point of view of the tournament as a whole.  This is my question; in the end does it really, honestly, matter that there will not be a game in Wigan?? 

Yes, my quote was essentially with all things being equal (which they pretty much are) between Wigan and Bolton the game should be in Wigan.

There is always a really fine balance when managing any sport between those who value history and heritage and those that seek innovation and expansion.  This board is full of these debates on a daily basis.

I would have be happy to have a debate with anyone on the merits of Coventry over a game in the North West or Bristol or any other expansion/non heartland location.

But it just seems to me that Bolton is so close to Wigan that the Wigan name and heritage factor could be considered without any negative impact.... it's not as if the Bolton townspeople would have been up in arms over not getting the nod.

But, let me be clear... this is an argument for how disappointing it is that the Wigan bid was so poor, not an argument for the fact they should have simply been given a game.

[Exiled Wiganer]

35 minutes ago, RP London said:

if there was true reasoning then fine but the basis is "we've been good to you please give me a game".. some arguments about wasps which are irrelevant to Wigan not getting a game and more "we've been good please give me a game". 

as a business that is poor reasoning, really poor reasoning. You don't make purely emotional decisions, and a world cup needs to make money and needs to be run as a business. IF the bids were close then you can make an emotional decision, we do it at work ourselves, you like a supplier and their price may be a little higher but you like them, they have treated you well in the past and their service is good so you stay. There comes a point, however, when the cost price is so different that you have to change. 

I haven't seen one reasoned argument that Wigans bid was better than anyone elses. It is all emotion and if the organising committee had made a judgement just because it was Wigan I would be asking serious questions about their common sense and ability to run this successfully. 

Give me a proper line of reasoning and i will follow it, i may agree with it if it is correct, give me some emotional guff and it gets the responses it gets.

the failure lies solely at the feet of the Wigan bid. 

 

I can’t see how difficult it is to follow, I really don’t.

1) in the past, there have been well supported international games in Wigan. Many of them, and many in hard sell series where the game has been desperate for the revenue; 

2) in the future, there may well be hard sell series where the RFL is desperate for money, and Wigan would be a banker for those on the basis of its history; 

3) these are, in my opinion, factors that the game should take into account; 

4) moreover, while you can’t spend it, there is the potential in a tournament which is meant to be a celebration of the game, for host towns to engage with current and future - particularly future - followers. There is zero prospect of any spin off benefits to a game being gained from playing a game in Bolton, whereas we are missing out on a host town experience benefiting the many schools and junior Wigan clubs which follow our game. We are not strong enough as a game that we can ignore that;

5) now, it might be that Wigan put in such a poor bid that there was clear daylight between them and Bolton, without weighing up any of these factors. Neither of us knows. But these in my view are significant factors, that go beyond a simple cash guarantee. Of course, others may disagree entirely, and indeed do. 

The end result was sufficiently noteworthy outside the ancient and loyal borough to get a BBC article about it, an article which could have been about the game in the north east. The end result was not a good one for the town or the game (ironically the club is probably least affected). 

Having spent the 2013 watching games in 4 countries and across the south (where I live), though not Wigan, this is not an argument based on its affect on me and my plans.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I can’t see how difficult it is to follow, I really don’t.

1) in the past, there have been well supported international games in Wigan. Many of them, and many in hard sell series where the game has been desperate for the revenue; 

2) in the future, there may well be hard sell series where the RFL is desperate for money, and Wigan would be a banker for those on the basis of its history; 

3) these are, in my opinion, factors that the game should take into account; 

4) moreover, while you can’t spend it, there is the potential in a tournament which is meant to be a celebration of the game, for host towns to engage with current and future - particularly future - followers. There is zero prospect of any spin off benefits to a game being gained from playing a game in Bolton, whereas we are missing out on a host town experience benefiting the many schools and junior Wigan clubs which follow our game. We are not strong enough as a game that we can ignore that;

5) now, it might be that Wigan put in such a poor bid that there was clear daylight between them and Bolton, without weighing up any of these factors. Neither of us knows. But these in my view are significant factors, that go beyond a simple cash guarantee. Of course, others may disagree entirely, and indeed do. 

The end result was sufficiently noteworthy outside the ancient and loyal borough to get a BBC article about it, an article which could have been about the game in the north east. The end result was not a good one for the town or the game (ironically the club is probably least affected). 

Having spent the 2013 watching games in 4 countries and across the south (where I live), though not Wigan, this is not an argument based on its affect on me and my plans.

I agree with a lot of the logic in this post.  And as St Helens, Warrington, Leeds, Hull et al did get games then the organisers are clearly cognisant of the value of history that these towns and cities represent.

While we don't know that Wigan put in a poor bid and lost to a superior one from Bolton (despite the RL passion that Wigan could include in their bid), as far as I can see it is the only logical conclusion.

Bolton got the games because they put in a better submission.  As it should be in a process like this.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, my quote was essentially with all things being equal (which they pretty much are) between Wigan and Bolton the game should be in Wigan.

There is always a really fine balance when managing any sport between those who value history and heritage and those that seek innovation and expansion.  This board is full of these debates on a daily basis.

Okay, your first point there is fair enough, I can accept that, so lets put that to the side.  

So lets break down the second point.  The people that care about heritage are obviously the people that want a game in Wigan.  Now in terms of Wigan v Bolton there isn't really an expansionist argument seen as Bolton isn't exactly an expansion area. On that point the traditionalists obviously win.

Lets look at it from a wider view point.  This tournament is clearly the most ambitious rugby league has ever put on and a big part of it is attracting new people to games, potential future fans, hence the big 'marquee' game in London and big games in Liverpool and Newcastle, the latter two being areas with loads of potential new fans but still close to traditional areas to ensure crowds will be decent.  Certainly tv is gonna be a big factor here as well with every game being on free-to-air.  It seems to me that the organisers have put a lot of focus on these new people and this potentially huge tv audience and this is where my reasoning comes in.

In the end it doesn't matter whether there is a game in Wigan or not because the average joe in the street that we are trying to attract to games or indeed to sit down and watch games at home, doesn't know enough about rugby league or indeed the heritage and history of rugby league to give one as to where games are played.  In the end the only people that are really that bothered are a small number of hardcore fans which is a much smaller number than the kinds of people we are trying to engage with this tournament as a whole.

Of course that brings up another point that is debated on here a lot, are the organisers taking the established fan base for granted??

[RP London]

25 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

I can’t see how difficult it is to follow, I really don’t.

1) in the past, there have been well supported international games in Wigan. Many of them, and many in hard sell series where the game has been desperate for the revenue; 

2) in the future, there may well be hard sell series where the RFL is desperate for money, and Wigan would be a banker for those on the basis of its history; 

3) these are, in my opinion, factors that the game should take into account; 

4) moreover, while you can’t spend it, there is the potential in a tournament which is meant to be a celebration of the game, for host towns to engage with current and future - particularly future - followers. There is zero prospect of any spin off benefits to a game being gained from playing a game in Bolton, whereas we are missing out on a host town experience benefiting the many schools and junior Wigan clubs which follow our game. We are not strong enough as a game that we can ignore that;

5) now, it might be that Wigan put in such a poor bid that there was clear daylight between them and Bolton, without weighing up any of these factors. Neither of us knows. But these in my view are significant factors, that go beyond a simple cash guarantee. Of course, others may disagree entirely, and indeed do. 

The end result was sufficiently noteworthy outside the ancient and loyal borough to get a BBC article about it, an article which could have been about the game in the north east. The end result was not a good one for the town or the game (ironically the club is probably least affected). 

Having spent the 2013 watching games in 4 countries and across the south (where I live), though not Wigan, this is not an argument based on its affect on me and my plans.

3. Yes I dont disagree with you as I have already said a few times, but they are not the be all and end all they are the part that sways the close decision in your favour, as most people have said I am sure they wanted a game in Wigan as it is a common sense place to have one IF the figures stack up.... therefore it would be sensible to assume its not even close!

5. unless we are going to say the administrators are corrupt, have an agenda etc etc then the assumption has to be that it really was a bloody awful bid.. 

I do not disagree with the history of Wigan or anything else.. but you do not base the decision on that it is based on financials and it must have been that shocking a bid that the organising committee cannot use the other arguments (which i dont disagree with) to sway it in Wigan's favour. 

point 4 to me just seems like someone stamping their feet saying, if it is not right on our doorstep I'm not doing anything.. those same kids, school, junior clubs can all go 7 miles to Bolton, some of those schools and residential areas will be even closer than 7  miles. If there really is footstamping in Wigan then shame on Wigan. They are missing out on a "host town benefit" financially of people being in Wigan that day but you have to pay to get that benefit, Bolton obviously have paid more to get he benefit. The rest of the add on to the kids should not be lost by it not being Wigan IF people have the best interest of those kids at heart.

The whole thing, including from the mp, just looks like a big moan that Wigan wasnt handed a game on bended knee saying "please have this game you mean so much to us" and that is just silly. 

(btw when i say you/your i do not mean you personally i mean Wigan)

ps. I follow the argument you are making and always have (i dont see why you think i dont) its just weak and based purely on the emotional side IMHO

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Okay, your first point there is fair enough, I can accept that, so lets put that to the side.  

So lets break down the second point.  The people that care about heritage are obviously the people that want a game in Wigan.  Now in terms of Wigan v Bolton there isn't really an expansionist argument seen as Bolton isn't exactly an expansion area. On that point the traditionalists obviously win.

Lets look at it from a wider view point.  This tournament is clearly the most ambitious rugby league has ever put on and a big part of it is attracting new people to games, potential future fans, hence the big 'marquee' game in London and big games in Liverpool and Newcastle, the latter two being areas with loads of potential new fans but still close to traditional areas to ensure crowds will be decent.  Certainly tv is gonna be a big factor here as well with every game being on free-to-air.  It seems to me that the organisers have put a lot of focus on these new people and this potentially huge tv audience and this is where my reasoning comes in.

In the end it doesn't matter whether there is a game in Wigan or not because the average joe in the street that we are trying to attract to games or indeed to sit down and watch games at home, doesn't know enough about rugby league or indeed the heritage and history of rugby league to give one as to where games are played.  In the end the only people that are really that bothered are a small number of hardcore fans which is a much smaller number than the kinds of people we are trying to engage with this tournament as a whole.

Of course that brings up another point that is debated on here a lot, are the organisers taking the established fan base for granted??

That is all very fair.  Which is why I am delighted to see Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, London and others hosting these games.

But, as you say it doesn't matter if it is in Wigan but similarly it does not matter if it is in Bolton as the stadiums and aesthetics are so similar.  it does seem to me that moving a game 7 miles to a town that has provided so much to our sport would provide benefits to the public of Wigan and lose nothing to the overall competition.

And again (I do feel I have to end every post with this), this is a reason why we should be so disappointed that the Wigan bid was poor... not that we should just move the games from Bolton to Wigan.

[The Hallucinating Goose]

24 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That is all very fair.  Which is why I am delighted to see Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, London and others hosting these games.

But, as you say it doesn't matter if it is in Wigan but similarly it does not matter if it is in Bolton as the stadiums and aesthetics are so similar.  it does seem to me that moving a game 7 miles to a town that has provided so much to our sport would provide benefits to the public of Wigan and lose nothing to the overall competition.

And again (I do feel I have to end every post with this), this is a reason why we should be so disappointed that the Wigan bid was poor... not that we should just move the games from Bolton to Wigan.

I must say, you are quite right, when I said the new fan doesn't care whether a game is in Wigan or not, it is true also that they don't care whether there is one in Bolton or not as well.  

I think everyone would agree that we would need to know more about the two bids before we can make a proper judgement, although the bid surely has to be the only factor in the decision.

One thing I would like to know more about is the general plan behind picking the venues, perhaps more so than about the bids.  There are a number of stadiums of comparable size hosting 3 games each.  There must be a reason for this, perhaps these stadiums will be designated to particular teams and/or groups.  It is obvious that the quarters and semis have 1 big game because this is where it is planned England will play, similarly there are bigger grounds hosting group games which will be England group games.  

This is where we come back to Bolton.  Why choose a small ground for an England group game?  We have 52,000 and 33,000 (rounding up) capacity venues for the other two.  Anything sub-30,000 seems a bit small for an England game when we seem to be being much more ambitious with the tournament as a whole.  One of the group games will be with a small team such as Jamaica and obviously less people will turn out for that but that kind of foresight seems a little too thought out for people who run rugby league tournaments!  Now, the quarter final would be fine at Wigan because there will be a smaller game there and as I always say, a small, full stadium is better than a big stadium with a load of empty seats, even if the bigger stadium has a bigger crowd.  Certainly an England game shouldn't be at Wigan but no one is suggesting that.  That comes back to my inward and cautious point I made earlier about knowing we can fill smaller grounds.  As I say though, no one is suggesting that.  I am saying an England game shouldn't be held at Bolton.  

Stadiums have clearly been chosen with an interest in filling them.  A lot of small stadiums have been chosen because it will be easier to fill them for smaller games.  With the total capacity of 780,000 and a target of 750,000, this clearly seems to be the aim over picking stadiums that are bigger but will be a bit empty. I aren't particularly bothered about which stadiums have been picked because I like this approach of focusing on filling grounds even if they are smaller ones but I would like to know why certain games have been designated to certain stadiums, particularly number of games.

Here's a question, if there were no games at Bolton or Wigan, would people be having this debate??

[Tommygilf]

I think its also reasonable to consider the fact that so many councils bid for games relatively close to Wigan will have affected their success. 

Its not inconceivable that Wigan aimed to copy Leeds by having 3 group games at the smaller venue (Headingley/LSV) and then a knockout at the larger (Elland Road/DW). In that context Wigan lost out on 1 game - but if the council only bid for 1 at the DW then thats a high risk strategy to take considering the proximity of Saints, Wire and Bolton who all have offered either 3 group games (seemingly a popular package with the organisers) or a non England quarter final and and England game. If Wigan's bid was thus inflexible, or came down to a choice between losing 2 games (and you'd imagine a significant financial incentive) at Bolton for 1 quarter at Wigan whilst still retaining the 3 at Leigh, its not hard to see why it may have lost out simply by circumstance.

On top of the additional advantages Leeds has by being a large city, Leeds by contrast only had Huddersfield in its immediate vicinity getting a single game. Bradford and Wakefield's councils either were poor bids or more likely didn't bother. Calderdale despite getting games last time was overlooked for 2021. The rest in Yorkshire are at least 20 miles away.

I hope there's a lot of soul searching from the Wigan bid team as they have apparently snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Tommygilf]

18 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Here's a question, if there were no games at Bolton or Wigan, would people be having this debate??

That would obviously then shift to where the Quarter final was being held instead surely? With Hull, Hudds and Leeds all having knockout games in Yorkshire, and Liverpool and London having another two, Wigan would probably be competing with another stadium in Greater Manchester/lancashire or a London venue perhaps? Does it really matter?

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Let's be honest here Wigan lost out to Bolton a stadium walking distance away that is absolutely desperate for every penny it can get. It doesn't take a conspiracy more likely that Bolton similar sized stadium in the same vicinity offered a better financial deal

I would certainly expect so.  Any of us who have been involved in bid processes know that it doesn't matter how compelling your submission is, if you get the commercials wrong you are very unlikely to be successful.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would certainly expect so.  Any of us who have been involved in bid processes know that it doesn't matter how compelling your submission is, if you get the commercials wrong you are very unlikely to be successful.

Especially with so much competition on your doorstep.

[Exiled Wiganer]

52 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would certainly expect so.  Any of us who have been involved in bid processes know that it doesn't matter how compelling your submission is, if you get the commercials wrong you are very unlikely to be successful.

Indeed, though in my view a purely financial comparison should not have won the day. If, say, the weighting was 75% financial, 25% intangibles such as prospects for developing the game, and past track record, then that would do for me. (On that basis, Wigan could get 25% and Wasps minus 25%  ) . 

I must say I trust this group to an organise a great World Cup, the best we have had, when it comes to clever publicity and generating a buzz, but their track record in selecting stadia is not rock solid. While Rochdale was a triumph, Limerick was a dispiriting failure. 

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Exiled Wiganer said:

Indeed, though in my view a purely financial comparison should not have won the day. If, say, the weighting was 75% financial, 25% intangibles such as prospects for developing the game, and past track record, then that would do for me. (On that basis, Wigan could get 25% and Wasps minus 25%  ) . 

I must say I trust this group to an organise a great World Cup, the best we have had, when it comes to clever publicity and generating a buzz, but their track record in selecting stadia is not rock solid. While Rochdale was a triumph, Limerick was a dispiriting failure. 

I agree that it should not have been purely a financial decision.

But having said that, I believe that the submission of Wigan should have been far superior to Bolton when it comes to the heritage and legacy arguments.  Bolton has a ~3.5k extra seats and so maybe that was a factor but it is not a huge difference.

So, even though the commercials shouldn't be the only factor, I can only assume that there was a big enough difference for the organisers to choose a non Rugby League town over one steeped in the game just 7 miles away.

As they say, money talks.

[paulwalker71]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

On top of the additional advantages Leeds has by being a large city, Leeds by contrast only had Huddersfield in its immediate vicinity getting a single game. Bradford and Wakefield's councils either were poor bids or more likely didn't bother.

Just FYI, Bradford did put in a bid - to be a host for Women's games. I'm assuming they thought bidding for men would be a total waste of time!

There's been a bit of angst in the Bradford local paper about being overlooked for women's matches - for some reason, they preferred Anfield... no idea why lol

[Bleep1673]

It's nice Workington got a couple of games, will these be the first World Cup Game to be played in a Wattle & Daub stadium?

[Ullman]

On 1/29/2019 at 11:28 PM, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Those games underperformed because they were at craven Park not because they were in Hull. Craven Park is a bit of a hole to get to, even living in the city. From where I am it's two buses and can take even up to an hour to get to the interchange and change and get through the bloody traffic on holderness Road and the almost inevitable cordoned off lane for yet another cyclist being squished by a lorry. Then after you've navigated through that and you've got off the bus down Preston Road you have to equip yourself with a stab vest to just cross the road to the caravan park. There are not particularly any pubs round there, nowhere to get any food particularly or to just socialise before the game. Certainly not somewhere to be hosting international sporting events. To quote a friend of mine who played a gig there, and was visiting for the first time, "when I was in the taxi going down that way, I thought I was being taken into mordor". 

Well you never know where Tolkien might have drawn his inspiration from. He spent 18 months in Hull and Holderness recuperating from the trench fever he contracted at the Somme and will have been familiar with the dark lands of Marfleet.