Should France be sole hosts in 2007?

[Iverson]

France are going to be major hosts in 2007 with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales getting some home matches.

With the success of Australia 2003, and how the country turned out to watch the games. This is proof for the second time (1st was SA in 95), that sole host status is the better option.

France will have no problems getting in the big crowds. The stadia in France is first class, and games their will be played in great conditions.

With France hosting the whole thing, it is great for the image of rugby - it will break that english speaking mould. The rest of Europe will take notice as well, and be watching the world cup too.

Personally, I think France should run the whole thing. None of this co-hosts stuff, as momentuem seems to get lost.

 

[Dipper]

It would definitely be better if they did but it would also seem a bit unfair, England tried to break the cycle of European rugby world cups being broken up & parts distributed to other countries but couldn't pull it off, partly due to the selfishness of the other home unions & partly due to the anti English sentiments whcih exist in world rugby, France on the other hand had no hesitation in going for the votes for games policy so it would stink a bit if they now got to host the whole thing on their own.

Having said that I do think it's France's turn & whilst I disagree with games being played in Ireland, Scotland & Wales & I don't think it would be a bad thing if the odd games were played in Spain & Italy, maybe in areas close to the French border(I know in Spain this would include their rugby playign areas I'm not sure about Italy though) where they would still keep the overall feel of the thing, it would be almost like the way Tasmania got a game.