IRB stands firm -- New Zealand will not co-host Rugby World Cup

3.00 pm

The International Rugby Board (IRB) has dismissed New Zealand's claims that Rugby World Cup Ltd (RWC) does not have the power to cancel its status as co-hosts of next year's cup tournament.

IRB communications manager Chris Rea said the IRB's power was delegated to RWC and dismissed any threat of legal action by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union.

"Rugby World Cup Ltd is empowered to negotiate the terms of the Rugby World Cup and that's what it has been doing," Rea told NZPA.

"It certainly has the power to do so and that's our legal advice."

New Zealand sticks strictly with its stance that the only body which can strip it of its 2003 sub-host status is the full IRB board, not the Rugby World Cup Ltd arm of the board which yesterday did just that in conjunction with the Australian Rugby Union.

NZRFU chairman Murray McCaw said yesterday New Zealand could not sign an agreement his council could not deliver on. The three matters that applied were:

* All corporate boxes and hospitality areas to be available 10 days before and two days after each match;

* Catering rights to be available to RWC Ltd to put up for tender;

* All advertising and signage within a 500m radius to be removed from inside and outside stadiums, with New Zealand to meet costs.

That would mean the Interislander ferry would be breaking RWC rules by carrying its signage into and out of its dock during Cup matches in Wellington.

New Zealand chief executive David Rutherford said the NZRFU wanted to hear it from someone with more authority.

"We're waiting to see, from a source somewhat more authoritative than Chris Rea, a response to the two issues we've raised.

"Once we've got that response we'll consider it, and if we have to we'll take legal advice -- and if that advice says take legal action, then we will. Mr Rea is not a lawyer, and both our council members are."

New Zealand also insists that only the full IRB council has the right to remove the tournament from anyone.

Australia now has 21 days to come up with an alternative plan to host the cup on its own.

Rutherford said New Zealand would be watching that situation very closely and would have "some very major" questions to ask if terms between Australia and the RWC were agreed different from those the RWC insisted New Zealand should comply with.

Earlier, McCaw and Rutherford could scarcely conceal their contempt for the way they had been treated and laid the blame largely at the feet of IRB chairman Vernon Pugh and his counterparts in northern hemisphere rugby.

They did not discount a suggestion that the overall aim appeared to be to hold World Cups permanently in the northern hemisphere.

ARU managing director John O'Neill said he was "very disappointed" New Zealand would not be involved but negotiations were "over".

"New Zealand went into this knowing that certain terms and conditions were not negotiable and there is no time now for any further negotiations," O'Neill said.

He didn't foresee any problems in Australia running rugby's world showpiece solo and predicted a proposal would be ready within a week.

"We were asked in recent times were we capable of hosting all 48 matches if that eventuality occurred," O'Neill said.

"From a match-scheduling perspective we've done a little bit of work. I'm confident that from a logistical, infrastructural, financial perspective we can put together a compelling proposal.

"New Zealand were told that it had to be unconditional. You couldn't send it back with conditions or with changes because it therefore is a meaningless document," O'Neill said.

"There's no trickery in this ... this is not the ARU applying a heavy-handed approach, we're simply acting as the host union, fulfilling our obligations to bring in a sub-host union on the same terms and conditions that we've signed up for."

The NZRFU had also been in dispute over its plan to go ahead with its national provincial championship (NPC), a big revenue earner which overlaps with the World Cup's early stages.

- NZPA