We were outmanoeuvred politically by French, but yet again our neighbours have let us down

TREACHERY and betrayal! Deceit and devious behaviour? Vested interest and greed. All in a day’s work behind locked doors. In London yesterday the vote to host the Rugby World Cup 2023 went the way of all previous World Rugby Council votes – all the way back to 1987.

One of the most interesting questions posed at the press conference was “how much had the evaluation process cost?”

A 20-man committee evaluating three different bids over several months and the recommendation, as we all knew it would be, completely disregarded and rightly so. How much did they spend?

Wouldn’t have been as much as what our government paid for the electronic voting machines but we got the same value.

It seemed to me that on the basis of the recommendation, which was correctly called into account by both the French and Irish consortia, that World Rugby were pushing South Africa to win this competition.

This done on the basis that if they do not get to host the World Cup there would be no other way to reverse the decline and stagnation of the game in that country. You just could not award the tournament to South Africa. The country is in the throes of political and economic turmoil.

Their infrastructure is a shambles and all the other key indices would suggest that you could not hold a viable tournament there without serious consequences. What state will South Africa be in six years from now?

I was always certain that South Africa would not win the right to host – so where did that leave Ireland and France?

Ireland really should have gone the extra mile in their monetary contribution. €120 million just wasn’t enough and if Ireland were serious, really serious, about getting this event, they should have gone after it with the same sort of financial fecklessness that the French showed.

The French guaranteed a dividend of €350 million – we will only find out in six years’ time whether these figures were spurious or based on sound financial foundations. Ireland could only promise €270 million, the same amount as South Africa. It was at all stages coming down to money.

Ireland displayed naivety on a number of fronts. They were, though, hamstrung by a number of elements in their bid. But all this could be overcome in the two weeks between the evaluation and the vote.

We were completely politically outmanoeuvred by the French and they picked up all the loose votes from the smaller rugby nations, presumably on the back of promises and pledges from the French, something we were simply unable to do. The amount of Fijian, Samoan and Tongan players operating in the French league for instance had to tell. How certain were we of the fidelity of assurance from our Celtic cousins – that term is a virtue peculiar to those who are about to be betrayed. In 1972, when the

Troubles were at their height and the international championship was being played in Dublin, Scotland and then Wales shamefully pulled out of the fixture in Dublin. Much to their credit, the English turned up only to be spanked on the day.

Several years ago when Mark McCafferty was attempting a solo run with the Heineken Cup, all it required was for the Celts to show some moral backbone and some intestinal fortitude: hold firm, stay together and this issue would be resolved.

The Scots, after giving assurances and commitments, changed course at the vital moment and did a deal with BT for £20 million. The Welsh followed suit a couple of days later and Ireland were, yet again, left high and dry. Thirty pieces of silver.

Ireland voted for the Welsh bid to host in 1999. We also voted for the New Zealand bid in 2011. Our PRO14 partners, who we share many interests from financial to political, may have had their own course and interests to follow.

What currency or value could Scotland gain from supporting the French bid? Why would Wales offer their support to South Africa when they would have been fully aware of our need for their support?

Would it have been for as little as the match in Cardiff against the Springboks which takes place outside of the November international window? If the Scots and the Welsh had been with us on the first bid, the French would have received 15 votes, Ireland would have received 14 votes and the South Africans would have received only 10.

On the second ballot with 10 points up for grabs and only one point separating Ireland and France anything could have happened. Our bid was good enough, our financial contribution wasn’t good enough and should have been increased.

Our lobbying in the two-week window came up short and we must question the value of our perceived friendships with our neighbours. What does that friendship really mean if we can’t count on it when we need it most?

Wales and Scotland would have been aware of our need for their support and for very little political capital they went elsewhere. Again!