Hold everything: This is all about politics now

By WYNNE GRAY

Promises, promises and more promises.

Add in a fair amount of schmoozing, boozing and colonic irrigation and that has been New Zealand's strategy to regain the rights to host the World Cup.

It is a throwback to the days when a swag of delegates met at the New Zealand Rugby Union headquarters in Wellington to vote on matters of national interest.

By the time they gathered at the conference table in the Huddart Parker building for the official business, the deals had been completed.

In the weeks, days and nights leading to the meeting, favours had been called in, promises made and accepted, tradeoffs made, back-scratchings arranged.

These were the balancing acts of rugby politics.

New Zealand has been getting back into that mode since March 8 when the union refused to adhere to conditions about clean stadiums, catering, hospitality and advertising to stay as next year's World Cup sub-host to Australia.

The International Rugby Board bounced New Zealand out of the tournament and asked Australia to rustle up a proposal as solitary host.

Having realised its gaffe, New Zealand was left with just one hope: to win a majority of the 21 votes at the IRB council meeting next week in Dublin.

For the past month, NZRFU officials have worked their old contacts to try to muster support.

In some cases it has been cold calling, in others there has been interest, in the rest there has been genuine support.

All these tactics are being played out against a background of simmering IRB annoyance at the way New Zealand officials Murray McCaw and David Rutherford made personal attacks on chairman Vernon Pugh.

There is also uncertainty about whether New Zealand and Australia should be reunited as hosts, given the continuing bad feelings between the two nations.

It is also understood that New Zealand's representative on the Rugby World Cup Ltd board, Rob Fisher, was reprimanded strenuously by Pugh when RWCL met for a secret briefing in Wales several weeks ago.

Fisher was excluded from listening to any details about Australia's sole bid.

But New Zealand pushes on, apparently. The cone of silence has descended, compared with the very public protests McCaw and Rutherford made when the New Zealand union was taken off the World Cup roster.

They have been beavering away with arguments that New Zealand must be reinstated for rugby reasons, that staging the World Cup must not be decided purely on financial projections.

New Zealand will convince many that it will get better crowds for minor matches, that shared hosting is the only way for small nations to be involved. But Australia's commercial clout is a huge attraction.

The council meeting will test the influence Fisher and fellow delegate Tim Gresson hold within the IRB.

It will be a reminder of how well they have wined, dined, entertained and cosied up to other delegates during their time on the council.

Backing those moves have been reports of the New Zealand union offering sweeteners to other countries, such as some Tri-Nations involvement for Argentina and support for France's bid for the 2007 World Cup, or suggesting another test against England this year.

Strange, given that England's clubs, for example, will not release their players for any more internationals later this season.

Even if RWCL does not send a hosting recommendation to the IRB council, it is clear Australia has completed all the conditions asked of it and so will start as favourite.

The IRB will also be loath to countermand chairman Pugh, who must favour Australia. But New Zealand should not be discounted.

Just as in late 1991, when a New Zealand union committee recommended that John Hart be All Black coach and the full union council decided in favour of Laurie Mains.

A similar turnaround must be New Zealand's hope. It is an even chance: human frailties and promises can be a lethal combination.

However, even if New Zealand rescues its World Cup role, that should not conceal its clumsy, slack preparation. Either way there should be a price.