2025 RLWC to have no host country?

[Dr Tim Whatley]

2 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

The 2013 and 2017 tournaments were multi-nation tournaments with four countries hosting in 2013 and I think, at least three in 2017. I think the writing in the article is intentionally fantasised to make the 2025 tournament sound as though it’s comparable to the Euros in Football, when in reality, a tournament primarily hosted across England, with a group hosted in France and a handful of games elsewhere, like we saw in 2013 with Ireland hosting Australia in Limerick and a handful of games in Wales, would work quite well and wouldn’t be as extravagant and wild as the Euros. 

Unless you’re throwing it open to cities to bid financially to host a game (though, why would you put your hand up as a city, I’m not so sure), I don’t see what the point is in pins in maps stuff. Unless the games being taken to places is part of a bigger picture, including some funding to the amateur game in those respective countries (as we’ve seen here with money handed to clubs), I don’t know why we’d bother taking such a risk. 

You're probably right re the article tbf. After all it was in...checks notes...The Sun 

[Scotchy1]

8 minutes ago, langpark said:

This is the balance you are going to need to find.  I am sure there are many major European cities that, if given just ONE game, would be able to pull a crowd.  Let's say NZ vs Jamaica, for example, was going to be held in Amsterdam, I do believe they could get 10k turning up.  Because it is a special, one-off event.  But ask them to host 5-6 matches, then it becomes a whole different story and a much harder sell.

 

8 minutes ago, Dr Tim Whatley said:

Exactly - football is doing it because it can. This is pie in the sky stuff for RL.  We're only just coming to terms with the sport having World Cups at regular intervals. Walk first, then run. And even then, I don't much like the idea of a multi-nation competition.

I think as an idea of giving loads of separate games to different cities i think that's right.

But I think from the perspective of selling 1 weekend as 1 event then its much easier.

If we go with 16 teams again then that's 8 games for a group stage. 

You could give a city 1 of those weekends to sell to the people who are there and people who would travel.

You can do that as a game Friday night, a magic weekend style Saturday and Sunday with 3 games each and a game Monday (or some similar variation maybe extending it Thursday to Tuesday).

Its one discrete event containing 8 games for them to sell. 

[langpark]

6 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Unless you’re throwing it open to cities to bid financially to host a game (though, why would you put your hand up as a city, I’m not so sure), I don’t see what the point is in pins in maps stuff. Unless the games being taken to places is part of a bigger picture, including some funding to the amateur game in those respective countries (as we’ve seen here with money handed to clubs), I don’t know why we’d bother taking such a risk. 

I agree with you, I was just pointing out that a WC match could pull a crowd in many places, even if there is no current RL presence there.

I too believe the whole RLWC legacy campaign that is going on is a great thing and they should do similar initiatives at all future WCs.  So for that reason, I think only places with an existing RL set-up should be considered, even if it is just for one match.  Because it's not just a WC, it's the potential long-term impact that it can make in that country.

[langpark]

2 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

If we go with 16 teams again then that's 8 games for a group stage.

* 6 games.

[Scotchy1]

6 minutes ago, langpark said:

* 6 games.

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear but I mean 8 games per weekend.

16 teams, 4 groups of 4, 2 games in each group per week.

[langpark]

2 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure if I wasn't clear but I mean 8 games per weekend.

16 teams, 4 groups of 4, 2 games in each group per week.

Got it. My mistake!

[thebrewxi]

2 hours ago, langpark said:

"Decent" I would consider to be 5000 in Greece, and 10,000+ in Italy (since they have a bigger "rugby culture")

This is assuming they are afforded a decent bit of resource and marketing prior to the matches and not just left to their own devices.

I would too, I guess. But I think any more than a couple of hundred is probably fantasy.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, langpark said:

I think there needs to be some balance between profitability and breaking new ground.  So I personally, would go with a 'major' host, with other games then being given to other nations, so for example, let's say France is the major host, you could then look at giving:

- Italy 3 games.  If they qualify, they can host all their group matches.  Crowds you would expect would be decent and they should be able to at least break-even.

- Greece 3 games.  Same as above.

Then other major cities could put in bids to host one-off matches.

 

If not, if you want to play it safer, but still innovating, then you could go with:  France, Ireland, Scotland, Wales - each in separate groups, and all matches from that group, get played in that country.  So that gives them 6 matches each for the group stage.

I am sure France would get good crowds, Wales should be able to also, Ireland starts to get a bit doubtful, Scotland even more so.  So even this is a bit risky and could also run at a loss.  I do understand the argument of it getting a bit 'messy' too.

The idea of playing England and Wales might work... might.  Especially if it was part of a series. In the same way we might play it in London.  But what is the point of England playing NZ in either Scotland or, well anywhere?

[langpark]

1 hour ago, thebrewxi said:

I would too, I guess. But I think any more than a couple of hundred is probably fantasy.

Well I cannot prove otherwise, so I won't argue, but I will say this.  The last international home match Greece has, that was free of obstruction was against Czech Republic in 2014.  As you can see, even back then they were already getting a few hundred (judging by the photos, I'd say closer to 500) - https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=artstudio.karagiannidis&set=a.315580838625054

Add to that, a decade of growth (which they will have had by 2025), the prestige of a WC, plus the aid of some RLWC marketing, and they will surely get a few thousand through the gates, and I say that on the assumption that it's against a medium-low profile nation.  Against Aus, NZ or England though, you would expect even more to turn up.

[thebrewxi]

33 minutes ago, langpark said:

Well I cannot prove otherwise, so I won't argue, but I will say this.  The last international home match Greece has, that was free of obstruction was against Czech Republic in 2014.  As you can see, even back then they were already getting a few hundred (judging by the photos, I'd say closer to 500) - https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=artstudio.karagiannidis&set=a.315580838625054

Add to that, a decade of growth (which they will have had by 2025), the prestige of a WC, plus the aid of some RLWC marketing, and they will surely get a few thousand through the gates, and I say that on the assumption that it's against a medium-low profile nation.  Against Aus, NZ or England though, you would expect even more to turn up.

latest match in Greece doesn't look what I'd call packed 

 

However I have now just subscribed to the Greek League youtube channel as it looks quite good

[langpark]

6 minutes ago, thebrewxi said:

latest match in Greece doesn't look what I'd call packed

However I have now just subscribed to the Greek League youtube channel as it looks quite good

That is why I said "free of obstruction".  This match in your example (vs Malta, 2018) was held in a secret location.  Parents of players were only told of the location half an hour before kick-off in order to minimise the risk of it being shut down.  Anyway, it was pretty well-documented at the time.  So it's not the best example to be using in order to gauge possible crowd size.