Closer to the 'heartlands', Kirklees has put their bid in

So Galpharm, Crown Flatt and Mount Pleasant would be the three grounds?

I'd say Dewsbury would hold 4k ish? And Batley 6 or 7k? Both tidy little grounds and in the heartlands, could be good choices for some of the smaller group games, get them filled up.

I think its great that towns have to bid for the right to host games. It should make them promote the games as they all know it will bring in extra cash to those towns via the hotels and ale houses.

Good point, it's in their interest to make a success of their event if they get given a game.

And Bristol are willing to make a success of it, so I'd argue this as the case for why Bristol offers something more than the Kirklees bid as an opportunity for RL.

Closer to the heartlands is definitely the way forward.

The Bristol idea hopefully will be a non starter.

When I opened this thread I'll admit I was dismissive of the idea...but reading on it genuinely seems people in Bristol are putting a lot of effort into this bid, and Bristol City publicizing the bid on its website is good PR for the game.

I don't want the games to be staged at random uninterested places like in 2000, but if a major city goes out of its way to try and get a fixture they at least deserve the RFL's attention.

Cheers mate, I think when people actually read the press release they'll see that this is a strong and serious bid - some have just seen "Bristol" and immediately dismissed it without knowing about the support behind it or the work that's been going into rugby league in the area for some time now.

Agreed, like i've said before, it's a bid. It's not doing anyone any harm, why people are getting so defensive I don't know. If Bristol can prove they have the right structure in place to host and promote a RLWC game and make it a success they get a game, just like any M62 corridor applicant will.

PM'd you by the way mate.

What kind of game are they bidding for though, out of interest? An England game? Australia game? New Zealand game? One of the lower ranked group games? Quarter final?

I can't see them getting an England game in all fairness. And would the other group games draw even close to capacity at one of the grounds at Bristol? Genuine enquiry. There's a lot of work that has been put in, and I'd love to see them rewarded with a game. Just what kind of game that's available is another matter.

Good post.

I can't see them getting an England game.

They won't get an Australia game.

A New Zealand game.... out of the big nations that would probably be the best bet.


But a lower ranked group game would be the most likely and as in 2000 not many people will bother going to those especially if it was held in bristol.


This idea is looking more and more unlikely the more we discuss it.

Quote: PHIPPS "This idea is looking more and more unlikely the more we discuss it.'" That's odd - it seems to me that the more it is discussed, the more credible the Bristol bid is looking. But there again, I don't have a trolling agenda to blind me to reality. Meanwhile, Salford have put in a bid:- www.reds.co.uk/rugby-news/salfor ... -world-cup

Quote: PHIPPS "This idea is looking more and more unlikely the more we discuss it.'" That's odd - it seems to me that the more it is discussed, the more credible the Bristol bid is looking. But there again, I don't have a trolling agenda to blind me to reality. Meanwhile, Salford have put in a bid:- www.reds.co.uk/rugby-news/salfor ... -world-cup

Excellent stuff from Salford, absolutely. That area should begin to tap into its true rugby league potential with a strong bid and the new stadium.

All of these strong bids can only be an excellent thing for the sport - we can seize on that and really build a strong rugby league presence in a multitude of receptive areas. I'll keep asserting that the Bristol bid offers a realistic chance, with all the effort being put into it, for something new which the M62 corridor can't provide. As we've said in this thread a few times, it's not just a case of plonking the game somewhere new for the sake of it; there's genuine interest and support here, a real desire to make it work and an existing rugby league presence that is going from strength to strength and will only benefit from an event like the WC.

In answer to an earlier question, we'd take any game we were given and market it accordingly. I'd like to see a Welsh game, with it being a short hop. Just one, so the others can be played in Wales. An Ireland or Scotland game would of course be good just for the "home nations" support factor. England would be superb; we realise at this stage that it's a long shot but it'd be excellent in terms of marketing and would most probably be a success with media interest in the South West and media interest in the heartlands as an example of the game growing. And Bristol is a city that is worth a stay over as there is plenty to do alongside the rugby. If we were able to get fans to travel to Cardiff, there should be no reason that we can't market Bristol to them.

Any of the Pacific Islands games could be marketed as a fiery encounter and we would be able to generate a good amount of interest. A minnows game would be a harder sell if the nations didn't have much of a rugby league background, but we'd push it through the football clubs, tourism board etc. The real coup is getting International RL back to Bristol and using that to drive the media and marketing profile and consequentially getting a good crowd.

We can cite the 2000 mishaps until we're blue in the face but this isn't just some random "on-the-road" experiment forced on the venue by the RFL. And even heartland crowds have been poor for the WC, so it's a poor frame of reference. This time it's being done differently across the board with the bidding format. Host cities/districts will actively create a strong profile to sell the games; just read our press release again and compare it with the others. With all of this considered, can anyone suggest to me a realistic reason why Bristol should not host a game?