The southern hemisphere countries are all on side, but don't bet the farm on a universal thumbs up. It's been reported that at meetings in Dublin this week, delegates from all the countries involved have "broadly agreed" to the idea, but the stumbling blocks are, again, promotion-relegation, and how the cash is divvied up.
When would it happen?
The first year would be 2026.
How good is the idea?
On the upside, it'd be great if there's a genuine desire to use some of the multi-millions the tournament will generate to help second-tier teams, like Tonga and Samoa. On the downside, despite soothing sounds from World Rugby, it'll water down the World Cup.
SILVER LAKE
What is it?
American investment company Silver Lake want to buy between 5.71 and 8.58 per cent of New Zealand Rugby's commercial arm. Silver Lake originally wanted 12.5 per cent, and 13 months ago the provincial unions agreed to the sale. But the Players' Association didn't. Things got ugly very quickly. NZR chairman Brent Impey claimed World Cup winning captain David Kirk, who opposed the deal, was being disingenuous.
A former Black Fern described the All Blacks to me as "greedy pricks". To calm things down Richie McCaw, who rarely comments on rugby politics, went public, saying, "The current players will not be driven by how much money is going to come to them, but about what's best for New Zealand rugby." A year of negotiation followed.
How likely is it to happen now?
In the provinces there's still some "greedy pricks" feeling. The sale price has been slashed from $387.5m to $200m, but nevertheless unions will get $20m under the new terms, and clubs $7m. Provincial officials are concerned too great a slice of future profits will go to the elite players, and not enough to the amateur heartland. But in blunt terms, can the unions, in these cash-strapped times, afford to veto the deal?
When would it happen?
The NZR has called a special general meeting on June 2 in Auckland to vote on the deal.
How good is the idea?
The bean counters at a major accountancy firm, PWC, like it. The Players' Association, who had concerns about Californian mini-Elon Musks leeching off the game, now like it, and so does NZR. Given that the more money Silver Lake generates in the agreement, the more money comes to rugby here, it seems worthwhile.
TE KAHA IN CHRISTCHURCH
What is it?
A multi-purpose, but mostly rugby, 30,000 seat stadium. Recently leaks from inside the Christchurch City Council have revealed they're facing another $50m in building costs on top of the announced $553m budget.
What is likely to happen?
There will, God forbid, be more reports and more meetings. That's hugely exasperating because back in June 2013 an agreement was signed between the Government and the Christchurch City Council that named 14 anchor projects to revitalise the city after the devastating 2011 earthquake.
Along with the central library and the town hall, one was a "rectangular" stadium for 35,000 people. Nine years later the other anchor projects are in use. The stadium is, again, effectively on hold.
When will it actually be finished?
How long is a piece of string?
How good is the idea?
In February 2016 a survey of 770 people conducted by the Research First company for Canterbury rugby found 94 per cent favoured a new multi-purpose stadium, and 88 per cent of those people accepted it could mean an increase in rates. Yes, the survey was commissioned by rugby officials, but the people surveyed voted for a multi-purpose stadium.
Research First is a well regarded company, established in 2005, which had also worked for the Government (when National was in power), and the Christchurch City Council. Build the stadium and Christchurch gets rugby tests and the concerts. Hopefully enough backbones can be found at the Christchurch council to get on with a job that gets more expensive every time it's delayed.
