No revote for 2011 RWC hosts, say IRB

No Irish deal with New Zealand, says Murphy

An article in the Sunday Times of London on Sunday containing allegations emanating from Asia of a deal between Ireland and New Zealand has led the IRB to issue a statement denying improprieties in the voting procedure that unnamed New Zealand hosts of the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

The IRB has also stated that there will be no revote on the matter.

The IRB was reacting to the article in the Sunday Times. It contains an allegation that Ireland had been "encouraged" to vote for New Zealand as host country in 2011 in exchange for the All Blacks' playing at Lansdowne Road for the opening of the new ground.

The Sunday Times article claims that the allegation "has been made by the Asian Rugby Football Union (ARFU), which represents Japan, one of the losing candidates. Japan has questioned the entire voting process, claiming that it 'appears to have been open to abuse'.

"The ARFU's lawyers wrote last week to the International Rugby Board (IRB), the sport's governing body, asking that the result be declared null and void and suggesting another ballot take place. The ARFU said it may take legal action failing a response by January 16.

"The letter, sent last Thursday to the Dublin-based IRB, said: 'We are aware . . . that the two Irish members were encouraged to vote for New Zealand by being promised the appearance of the All Blacks at the opening ceremony of the redeveloped Lansdowne Road ground.'"

The letter was apparently a fax sent to Syd Millar, the chairman of the IRB.

The Irish representatives to the IRB for the voting on 17 November 2005 were Noel Murphy and Peter Boyle. Murphy is quoted as denying any agreement with New Zealand.

He is quoted as saying: "There is no truth at all in that, none whatsoever. It was never discussed one iota whatsoever about fixtures or anything like that with the New Zealand Rugby Union."

Murphy denied knowledge of the letter from the ARFU to the IRB.

There is an allegation that Ireland had agreed to vote for South Africa, which was the understanding of the South African delegation in the bidding process.

The claim is made that the change of the destination of the Irish vote eliminated South Africa at the first ballot. In that ballot, New Zealand received eight votes, Japan seven and South African four. South Africa had previously declared that if it were eliminated in the first ballot it would vote for New Zealand. The voting in the second ballot was 12-9 in favour of New Zealand.

Murphy refused to name the recipient of Ireland's two votes and denied any promise made to South Africa before the voting. The South African delegation clearly had reason to believe that Ireland would vote for South Africa and was disappointed when the vote was changed, appatrently to New Zealand.

The allegations in the Sunday Times prompted a statement by the IRB late on Sunday, which reads:

"As a result of unfounded allegations printed in an English newspaper today (Sunday January 8), the IRB today stated that there would be no revote for the host union for Rugby World Cup 2011 and takes exception to any suggestion that the vote was not carried out in a proper and professional manner.

"The voting procedure and process was communicated to the thee tendering unions in advance of the vote on November 17, 2005. The process and procedure was approved by the Directors of Rugby World Cup Limited and the IRB Council.

"The vote itself was verified by independent auditors from PriceWaterhouse Coopers who informed the IRB on the day, as reported to Council at the time, that the vote took place correctly and professionally.

"A letter containing various unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations has been sent to the IRB from an English firm of solicitors purporting to act on behalf of the Asian Rugby Football Union (the Asian Regional Association of the IRB) and was printed in part in an English newspaper.

"The democratically elected officials of the Asian Rugby Football Union (ARFU) have informed the IRB that the letter should not have been sent as it does not represent the views of ARFU and that the person who it seems engaged the solicitors did not have the constitutional authority to do so.

"The Secretary General of ARFU has written to the solicitors stating that they must cease and desist purporting to act for and on behalf of the Asian Rugby Football Union. "

The New Zealand Herald quotes Chris Moller, the CEO of the New Zealand Rugby Football Union as dsimissing the allegations. He is quoted as saying: "In a word they're nonsense, in two words they're complete nonsense, and in three words they're absolutely complete nonsense.

"There is no way that the New Zealand Rugby Union was involved in any discussions whatsoever with the Irish Rugby Union or any other rugby union about offering additional matches against the All Blacks.

"Quite frankly those claims are scurrilous and completely without foundation."