NZ wins delay in vote on Cup host

By WYNNE GRAY

New Zealand forced a delay in the decision on who would host the Rugby World Cup next year by hinting it might take legal action against the International Rugby Board.

The Herald understands the NZRFU delegates to the IRB, Rob Fisher and Tim Gresson, used legal argument to gain a day's delay, effectively ensuring the board stuck to its original timetable to hold the vote tonight.

The New Zealanders wanted more time to lobby delegates for the majority needed from the 21 votes to stop Australia being sole host, as recommended by Rugby World Cup Ltd.

A spokesman said yesterday there had been no mention from a RWCL weekend meeting that Australia's role be altered from sole host to allow New Zealand back as sub-host.

Had that happened, the NZRFU would have been comfortable with the IRB vote being brought forward.

Instead they asked for voting to be suspended after Australia and New Zealand presented hour-long submissions to the IRB yesterday.



New Zealand argued that the IRB had to award dual hosting rights for rugby and financial reasons, while Australia emphasised its commercial clout and the success of the 2000 Olympics.

The IRB council agreed to a voting delay for several reasons.

Chairman Vernon Pugh did not want his board accused of orchestrating the decision if New Zealand's bid failed.

"On the face of it, it should be to our advantage to have that extra 24 hours for the various lobbying we are doing," said former NZRFU chairman Eddie Tonks.

"But it's hard to gauge. When I heard it was delayed I felt a bit relieved and more comfortable.

"Bringing the meeting forward unexpectedly wasn't in our favour, that's how I read it. I thought it would have been a clear indication of Mr Pugh thinking 'let's get this over'."

Arguments about the hosting rights have escalated since the March 8 deadline when the NZRFU failed to comply with conditions imposed about stadium advertising signs and corporate hospitality spaces.

The NZRFU claimed the tournament should be more than a commercial venture. It had to be a rugby experience, otherwise nations with smaller economies but rich rugby traditions would be excluded.