Ah I didn't know vote-splitting was a thing. My head hurts now.
So in round 1 we got the 4 from US/Can/NA two of the three from England and (by the process of elimination), one each from Oceania and Asia (who split between Ireland and France in Round 1 and between SA and France in Round 2)?

EDIT: Or we got all 3 England and one from either Asia or Oceania (one of whom split Ireland/France and the other split SA/France)

salmson wrote: I read that as England split their vote on the second ballot. I'd also assume the other "transfers" came from us being eliminated, so that leaves our vote as:

England (3)
Canada (1)
US (1)
North American (1)
Unknown (1)

Edit: But if Europe voted for Ireland and England split their vote 2-1 Ireland-SA in round 1 then that adds up.

This is almost definitely what happened, England split their vote after we were eliminated. The only question is who the single mystery vote came from, it was someone who changed their vote to South Africa in round 2.

I read that as England split their vote on the second ballot. I'd also assume the other "transfers" came from us being eliminated, so that leaves our vote as:

England (3)
Canada (1)
US (1)
North American (1)
Unknown (1)

Edit: But if Europe voted for Ireland and England split their vote 2-1 Ireland-SA in round 1 then that adds up.

Seems the English split there vote between us and SA m.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Le-decompt...du-monde-2023/850994

pinky wrote: The bid committee are having a go at Scotland and Wales for not voting for us, but the way I add it up, one of them did.
England + US + Canada = 5. We got 8. So my guess would have been the other 3 were Wales.
The other alternatives don't make much sense (North America + Georgia?)

Being reported that Wales told Ireland they would abide by the report & that Scotland always intended to follow the money, so not them. If US and Canade voted for us then NA probably did too. Unlikely Georgia did.

The bid committee are having a go at Scotland and Wales for not voting for us, but the way I add it up, one of them did.
England + US + Canada = 5. We got 8. So my guess would have been the other 3 were Wales.
The other alternatives don't make much sense (North America + Georgia?)

France it is!

bear in mind he is the same Muppet that wants to bring Tractors in for a NCT.

www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/world-cup...o-none-36285797.html

If Shane Ross truly believes this he hasn't been in too may if Ireland's stadiums. Most are substandard with poor ancillary facilities, and little to no supporting transportation infrastructure.

pinky wrote: A big issue seems to be that they wanted primarily all-seater venues. If this was a known requirement, you'd have to wonder why the IRFU bothered.
Pearse and FitzGerald Stadiums were always going to be a hard sell in that context.

Should be possible to fit temporary seating in any of the GAA stadiums, but lack of covered seating in same may have been a concern especially with the unpredictability of an Irish late Summer / autumn.
Most of the GAA stadiums have one covered stand (Killarney, Castlebar, Derry etc), and quite a few like Pearse Stadium don't even extend the full length of one side ...

I've been to games at both Biarritz and Bayonne in September and got absolutely drowned, even in 25°c it's not fun and tickets would have been much less than half of what I suspect a RWC 2023 ticket will cost...

Despite all the ramaish been put into print by professional naysayers, there are lots of positives from the legacy of Ireland winning the right to host...

Still not a foregone conclusion that Saffers will get the nod.
There will be other countries thinking that if they vote for them that they may be voting to exclude themselves from a future opportunity ..

pinky wrote:
It's a bit of an anomaly that the eliminated country doesn't get to choose between the remaining candidates.

It kind of makes sense. If Ireland or France were eliminated they'd screw the other to give themselves a chance of getting 2027 (unlikely there would be 2 European RWCs in a row); if SA were eliminated they'd vote for France as they'd be the greater threat in a 2027 bid. So none of them would actually be voting on the RWC 2023.

greyingbeard wrote: According to Gerry Thornley it's first to 20 votes, if after a first round of votes no country has 20 votes the last team is eliminated and the countries vote again until a country reaches 20 votes

Tier 1 nations get 3 votes (England, Wales, Scotland, Italy, NZ, Argentina & Australia, countries bidding don't get to vote)
Regional associations get 2 votes (Europe, Africa, Oceania, N America, S America, Asia & Japan)
Smaller rugby nations get 1 vote (USA, Canada, Georgia & Romania)

Actually yeah, this article supports that view too (it's a bit out of date as Japan and Argentina were given an extra vote since then).
www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SouthAfrica2023/...oting-works-20170717

It's a bit of an anomaly that the eliminated country doesn't get to choose between the remaining candidates.

According to Gerry Thornley it's first to 20 votes, if after a first round of votes no country has 20 votes the last team is eliminated and the countries vote again until a country reaches 20 votes

Tier 1 nations get 3 votes (England, Wales, Scotland, Italy, NZ, Argentina & Australia, countries bidding don't get to vote)
Regional associations get 2 votes (Europe, Africa, Oceania, N America, S America, Asia & Japan)
Smaller rugby nations get 1 vote (USA, Canada, Georgia & Romania)

I'd imagine this is first past the post. Otherwise the intent of the evaluation process (to eliminate backroom horse-trading) is completely nullified by a second round.

Article on the WR website says the host will be decided by a simple majority vote.
www.worldrugby.org/news/291551

"Independent auditors will oversee the process and the vote on 15 November, which will comprise a total of 39 votes, with a simple majority required to select the Rugby World Cup 2023 host."

However there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what constitutes a simple majority.
I always thought it just meant the largest number of votes, as in a UK election, and that's what Oxford gives: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/simple_majority
But Collins has it as more than half of the total: www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/simple-majority with various other sources falling into either camp.

Couldn't spot a detailed explanation of the actual RWC voting process anywhere.
You'd imagine in a first past the post scenario, South Africa would be a shoo-in, but if there was a second round of voting in the event no-one gets to 20, one of the NH bids might sneak in.

A big issue seems to be that they wanted primarily all-seater venues. If this was a known requirement, you'd have to wonder why the IRFU bothered.
Pearse and FitzGerald Stadiums were always going to be a hard sell in that context.