Is money all that matters for SRU?

The SRU l ook to have followed the money when they cast their vote for France in the battle to host the 2023 World Cup. And such was their enthusiasm for the cash, they even ignored a specially commissioned £500,000 independent report that recommended South Africa should host the tournament.

Ireland, whose bid also failed alongside the South Africans, claim the SRU refused to back them because they thought the financial cake — and therefore their slice — would be much bigger i f the tournament was hosted in cities like Paris, Lyon and Marseille.

The Murrayfield stance can be explained by the fact they remain in debt to the tune of around £5.2million, but surely there should be more behind their voting intentions than just money.

‘Scotland were consistent in that they said they were going to support the bid that produced the greatest amount of money,’ said Irish Rugby Football Union chief Philip Browne. ‘ We were very disappointed, very disappointed indeed.’

Wales didn’t back Ireland’s bid either and Brian O’Driscoll accused both them and Scotland of a lack of solidarity.

The SRU should feel compelled to explain why they turned their back on Ireland, ignored the independent report supporting the South African bid and instead voted in two secret ballots for France. If the only reason was finance, then that isn’t good enough.

Springboks legend Joel Stransky claimed that France won the right to stage the 2023 event on the say- so of ‘an old boys’ club’. You can understand his anger.

The outcome has l eft World Rugby chairman Bill Beaumont, who laughably claims the system was transparent, with egg on his face. South Africa had expected to win the vote after the independent review of all three bids recommended that they had put forward the best one.

Beaumont assumed that the World Rugby Council would simply rubber-stamp the recommendation at a meeting in London. how wrong and complacent he was.

In the first round, France received 18 votes, South Africa 13 and Ireland eight. With Ireland dropping out, it was a straight shoot-out between France and South Africa.

The French got 24 v otes compared to 15 for South Africa.

So despite expert opinion recommending South Africa as World Cup hosts, governing bodies like the SRU rejected their findings and voted for a rival bid seemingly based on no new information.

Questions remain to be answered on the matter.

Why did World Rugby even commission a technical study in the first place for it just be ignored?

What made some governing bodies choose to ignore its findings and vote for France?

Was t here any l ast- minute horse- trading that l ed to the French winning the bid?

The only thing we know for sure is that we’re all heading for a short hop across the english Channel in six years’ time.