Sports

Sports

ARFU and Japan had reasons to be disappointed
By Vimal Perera
No Revote for RWC 2011 Host Union. A press release of the IRB datelined 9th January 2006 has been issued in this regard. The issue of this news release is the result of “unfounded allegations” in an English newspaper on Sunday January 8th as explained.

The IRB explains that the voting procedure and process was communicated to the tendering unions in advance of the vote on November 17th 2005. It is also ascertained that the vote itself was verified by the independent auditors from Price Waterhouse Coopers.

The London Sunday Times Rugby correspondent Stephen Jones reported that ARFU has petitioned the IRB for a new vote. The letter was sent on behalf of the ARFU by English lawyers Addelshaw Goddard as reported. The release states that the democratically elected members of the Asian Rugby Football Union have informed the IRB that the letter should not have been sent as it does not represent the views of the ARFU and the persons who it seems engaged the lawyers did not have the constitutional authority to do so. It is stated “The Secretary General of ARFU has written to the solicitors stating that they must cease and desist purporting to act for and behalf of the Asian Rugby Football Union”

Meanwhile confusion continued on the issue of the ARFU threat of legal action. The Secretary General of ARFU has denied a letter was sent by the Union through English lawyers Addleshaw Goodard , who continue to maintain that they have been authorized.

The Dominion Post reporting on 10th January Quotes Ekanayake the ARFU President as stating that the lawyer’s letter to the IRB went too far. The ARFU Council decided to write to the IRB at a meeting in Lahore on December 17th. “At the point the main topic was Japan not being awarded the World Cup. It appears from reports that A RFU members seem divided on the issue of the letter with some supporting and others not so happy.

ARFU and Japan had reasons to be disappointed by New Zealand winning the race for hosting the Rugby World cup 2011. Prior to the voting on the 17th of November it appeared that Japan were favourites. There was the opportunity for the world cup to move out of the hands of the established nations. Japan it seemed was a favourite considering the spread of the game globally. Asia with its potential market for developmental rugby could have been seen a s winner though Japan was ahead of South Africa. New Zealand may have been a weak bid considering the infrastructure.

Yet the reality of voting is that New Zealand can offer more to host unions through brand rugby. .These visits mean money. The process of voting may have been of concern. There is also the issue at stake of where are the heartland of rugby and the possibility of the hosting of the world cup moving away from the Trinity of New Zealand South Africa and Australia
Japan after losing out may have felt that the ARFU should take its case further. The bid for 2007 world cup was for France over England with a big majority. It is now believed that Japan may have lost by a slender margin which may have been as small as one. It may be thought that the 2011 decision is one of missed opportunities for rugby to reach out to new audiences in Asia.

Top