IRB tries to keep lid tight on secret cup talks

By WYNNE GRAY

It depends on who you talk to. That should not be surprising because it has been no different all through the messy World Cup saga.

But the procedure for the crucial meeting of the International Rugby Board remains as blurred as the arguments about what went on during the original negotiations for next year's tournament.

The IRB, New Zealand and Australia have all issued their versions of what happened as the complicated arrangements about hosting the World Cup unravelled.

Sift through those statements and there are conflicts about who did what to whom and when.

That is the sort of debate which will have to be sorted out when the IRB begins its week-long session in Dublin on April 12.

Inquiries cannot quite nail down the process in Dublin. Does the IRB first have to consider New Zealand's pitch that they should be retained as sub-host, or will they initially debate a recommendation from Rugby World Cup Ltd which is likely to support Australia as sole host?

Or will both scenarios be weighed up together?

Uncertainty about the routine is surprising, given the full and frank disclosures which pour out of rugby HQ. Consider the latest offering.

"There will be no press statements at the conclusion of the period of exclusive negotiations between Rugby World Cup Ltd and the Australian Rugby Union in relation to the alternative proposals for the staging of RWC 2003, the expiry date for which is Friday, March 29.

"The directors of RWCL will meet in Dublin on Friday, April 12, after which there will be no statement.

"A statement will, however, be issued immediately after the meeting of the IRB council the following Wednesday on a date and time to be announced."

Staggering stuff indeed. Especially the idea that every delegate will stay schtum after the final vote and walk stoically out of the meeting in St Stephen's Green in Dublin.

Chairman Vernon Pugh may be able to persuade the victor to keep quiet, but as sure as a rugby ball is oval, others will discuss publicly the merits of the council vote.

New Zealand attempts to mould that opinion, to influence IRB delegates, is being undertaken on a variety of fronts.

Individual councillors have been targeted, suggestions offered, national unions and governments regaled with reasons why they must include New Zealand in the 2003 World Cup organisation. There will be several general thrusts to the advocacy.

Delegates Rob Fisher and Tim Gresson will take the meeting through NZ's rich history of rugby tradition to counter those who feel it should be excluded because of its lack of commercial clout.

New Zealand is left with little alternative because it cannot make a significant case based on finance and compliance to strict conditions.

There will also be warnings about Australia getting too many benefits if they are allowed to be sole host.

Major sponsors such as Coca-Cola, Heineken and Visa have been getting the spiel, too, questioning the value of their multi-million-dollar investment if it is confined to one country.

Somehow the New Zealand Rugby Union might win concessions; it might even provoke another tournament adjustment; it might return in some hosting capacity.

But with what conditions and at what cost?

Would the IRB then allow the NPC to overlap any of the World Cup? Would the NZRFU get the $12.07 million subsidy it needs to help its shortfall? What transtasman tremors would be left after this lengthy spat?