1. Introduction
Putting Rugby First

Following the presentation of our initial bid to the Rugby World Cup Board on 18th October 2002, we visited nine Council Unions (Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Scotland, South Africa and Wales) to present our proposals and discuss the ideas contained therein.

We were gratified that there was strong and widespread support for the concept of parallel Rugby World Cup and Rugby World Nations Cup tournaments. There has also been strong interest shown by Developing Unions in the RWNC concept as explained later in this document.

In this Alternative Tender we have drawn on the information obtained in our discussions with other Council Unions, FIRA and the input we have received from some of the 26 Developing Unions who asked for copies of our initial bid document.

As a result of this input we are now in a position to revise our initial bid - ' The Preferred Option' - in six specific areas to address the issues and concerns of the global game. As a result, we believe that this Alternative Tender now fully meets the needs and aspirations of the global game.

"The RWC is the game's shop window. It is also the pinnacle of a pyramid that involves and galvanises the entire IRB membership. RWC is the engine of our game, generating the funds that enable us to make rugby a truly global sport." Vernon Pugh, IRB and RWC Chairman, IRB Bulletin May 2002 "England is a sport-loving country with fine athletes and sports administrators and political and economic stability. The fundamentals are there." Jacques Rogge, IOC President - Commonwealth Games, August 2002.

Improved Stadium Utilisation

Proposed South Stand Development - Twickenham Stadium

The Home Unions were concerned that we were not utilising their National stadia - which are largely rugby specific - in the the later stages of the Tournament relying instead on large soccer stadia such as Old Trafford.

We have now included a provision in our bid to negotiate the leasing of these rugby specific National stadia with the Home Unions which, subject to terms, we will now utilise for some later stage matches in the Tournament.

These matches would be carefully chosen so as not to give an unfair competitive advantage against other non-Host Unions.

At the time of the production of our initial bid in mid 2001, it was unclear as to whether the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium would proceed and on what timescale. Since then, the full funding package for the development plan has been put in place and work has commenced on the project with a target completion date of January 2006. Having talked to both the UK Government and the English Football Association, we are now satisfied that the new Wembley Stadium will be completed in early 2006. As a result we have scheduled a number of matches at Pool, Super 8 and Knockout stages to be played at this new 90,000 seat 'state-of-the-art' National stadium.

The Tournament Playing Window

In the revised Tender Document, the IRB stipulates that RWC 2007 should be played between June and November. In essence this means that there are three possible Playing Windows: June/July, September/October and October/November. Use of August is not practicable from a commercial and operational viewpoint as it is in the main holiday month in Europe.

There has been much debate about the best Playing Window for the RWC. Not surprisingly the two Hemispheres are polarised: the Southern Hemisphere Unions have expressed a preference for October/November and the Northern Hemisphere Unions a preference for June/July or September/October. However these views are often based on a partial analysis of the issues.

We believe that this is such an important issue that we have allocated a new section in our bid proposals, entitled 'The Tournament Playing Window', to analyse fully all the issues facing all Council Unions of holding the RWC in each of the three possible windows between June and November.

The reasons why Unions feel strongly about this matter is simple. Depending on which window is chosen, Unions in the North and the South will lose incoming tours in one or two seasons, and also have key domestic competitions affected. These tours provide a major source of revenue to those Unions to finance both the professional and grass roots games. Without these revenues, some Unions will face financial difficulties.

In our analysis of the three Playing Windows set out in the new section, we have attempted to calculate the financial cost to each Council Union of holding the RWC in each of the three windows. We believe that this is the first time that this analysis has been undertaken and is a critical issue for the IRB to resolve going forward.

The revised tender document does not require bidding Unions to choose a particular Playing Window - only to confirm that the Tournament will take place between July and November. We believe that the actual Playing Window can only be chosen following full dialogue with each of the Council Unions with a view to finding a formula which will minimise disruption and lost revenues.

We recommend that a conference be convened by the IRB to hear the views all Unions prior to the IRB taking the final decision on the PLaying Window.

The RFU confirms, however, that it is capable of organising the RWC and RWNC tournaments as set out in any of the three Playing Windows, and has confirmed the availability of the required stadia to meet this commitment.

Playing Windows Compensation Scheme

The analysis in the PLaying Window section clearly shows that there is no window which has a neutral financial impact on all Council Unions.

We are therefore proposing that a compensation scheme be introduced so that, when the IRB chooses the Playing Window for the RWC, those Unions whose tours and competitions are affected receive financial compensation out of the overall Tournament surplus.

New RWC Challenge Round to reduce IRB costs

We have also completed further analysis of how the RWC Qualification Process could be streamlined. In our initial bid document we explained that a substantial reduction in IRB qualifying Union costs could be achieved.

As a result of this further analysis, we explain in the Tournament section how changes to the Qualification Process could be achieved without affecting the integrity of the existing programme of Regional Tournaments.

A key element in our revised Qualification Process is to hold an RWC Challenge Round in 2011 in the week prior to the commencement of the RWC. This Challenge Round would determine the three last qualifiers for the RWC and the three last qualifiers for the RWNC. This Challenge Round would remove the need for expensive repercharge rounds in addition to the savings made from changing the Qualification Process.

The revised Qualification Process analysis and the improvements to this process are set out in
Section 2 - The Tournament, together with out proposals on the new Challenge Round for 2011.

Size of the RWNC 2007

Strong interest and widespread support has been received from both Council Unions and developing Unions for the RWNC concept (see letters of support at Appendix 1- The Tournament/1k - International Unions' Support). The only issues of concern have been the size and cost of the RWNC for smaller Unions hosting future RWCs after 2007. Although we feel both these concerns were not really problems, as we conservatively budgeted for no central RWNC venues, we have taken the opportunity in this, our revised bid, to address both issues and remove them as cause for concern.

As far as size of the RWNC is concerned, whilst we in England still strongly believe in a 32 team format, we have been impressed by the views of other countries that sustainability of the format going forward is also important. Starting the competition with a smaller number of countries and growing its size in later RWCs as RWNC revenues grow clearly a sensible and pragmatic approach.

In this revised bid document we are therefore recommending that 20 countries participate in the RWNC 2007 rather than the 32 countries in our initial bid. The appropriate revisions to the structure of the RWNC are set out in the Tournament Section.

RFU Financial Underwriting of RWNC 2011

Because of the confidentiality agreement covering our initial bid preparation, we were not able to discuss the RWNC concept with the commercial markets prior to our first bid submission. Now that the concept is in the public domain following our initial bid submission, we have been able to have discussions with the commercial market place and have developed a valuation for the RWNC commercial and television rights. Based on this assessment, we believe that the RWNC will only make a small net loss in 2007 and will be profitable in 2011.

As a result the RFU is, as part of its revised bid, offering to underwrite RWNC 2011 so that no net cost falls on either the IRB/RWC or the Host Union in 2011.

Planning for future RWCs

There has also been some comment that England and France have a large advantage over all other Unions in bidding for the Rugby World Cup because of the size of their countries and economies. We believe that the key issue for the IRB is to plan forward so that over a period of, say, 20 years there is a rotation policy between 'high revenue' countries and 'lower revenue' countries so that both the IRB's goals of maximising revenues and maximising global coverage are met.

Letter of support from the UK Government

"The staging of the RWC in England is an ideal opportunity to show the sporting world our excellent facilities and for the RFU, once again, to demonstrate its world-renowned organisational expertise and excellent hospitality." The Prime Minister - Tony Blair