England hope money can talk

World Cup 2007: Bottom line of £110m profit is Twickenham's trump over France

England, genuine contenders to become the first country from the northern hemisphere to win the World Cup in Australia in seven months' time, will discover next week whether they will host the showpiece in 2007. Les Rosbifs or Les Bleus?

It is a straight but, of course, heated contestbetween the English and the French. The International Rugby Board will announce the result at their Dublin headquarters on Thursday. And the winner is... "It's too close to call,'' a Rugby Football Union insider said. "It could go down to one or two votes.''

There are 21 votes. The eight established countries, England, France, Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, get two votes each, with Canada, Japan, Argen-tina, Italy and Fira (the body representing the developing unions) one apiece. The campaigning reaches its climax on Wednesday, when the rivals make their final presentations.

In the white corner will be Francis Baron, chief executive of the RFU, and his team; in the blue Bernard Lapasset, president of the French Federation. It has already got personal, with Lapasset describing England's bid as "pure demagogy''. He went on: "For a few weeks the lesser rugby nations will be under the illusion that they exist, but what will happen to them after that? I am not surprised at the attitude of the English. They have always harboured an élitist ideal. They attempt to modify competitions to suit their own interests. It is a grave violation of the International Board's policy of openness and development.''

The governments of both countries have given their respective support, so it would be tempting to summarise it as the representatives of Blair versus Chirac, the pound against the euro.

One reason for Lapasset's anger, aside from a natural suspicion of the English, is that he believed the deal was a fait accompli. France, who are understood to have come to an agreement with Australia not to bid for this year's Cup, thought it was their "turn''. However, in a game strapped for cash, the IRB have a responsibility to extract every penny from the most competitive bid for an event that is their sole provider.

If money talks, then it probably has an English accent. The RFU say their bid will generate profits of around £110m compared to France's £50m. The figures include gate receipts but not TV and sponsorship, which would be sold by the IRB, earning another £50m.

England are giving the hard sell not just to the balance sheet but to what they call their rugby argument. With the slogan "putting rugby first'', the RFU propose a change to the existing format of four pools of five. They want 16 countries qualifying for a "super eight'' to decide the World Cup winners. The grand show would be accompanied by a sort of matinée, with 20 countries providing the supporting cast for the Rugby World Nations Cup.

France's bid will suit more conservative members of the IRB Council. There is no radical departure from the status quo, although in the horse-trading that has taken place in recent months, the Celtic nations have been offered several carrots in exchange for their votes. Lapasset has told Wales, Scotland and Ireland they can host pool matches and therefore enjoy home advantage. The southern hemisphere, not to mention England, argue that this bestows an unfair edge and expect the IRB to kick this part of the French plan into touch.

France, pointing to the success of the football World Cup they hosted and won in 1998, offer a string of top-class venues and stadiums. They say they have the technology to side-step the ban on alcohol advertising in their country.

England have beefed up their revised bid by adding a spanking new Wembley Stadium, which is expected to be completed in January 2006, to their portfolio.

Four years ago, five countries staged matches and the gate receipts were divided between England, France, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Although Wales were the principal hosts, the semi-finals were staged at Twickenham. As a quid pro quo, the WRU would receive 20 per cent (more than £20m) from England's proposal.

With Twickenham – they want to redevelop the South Stand and increase capacity from 75,000 to 82,000 – the centre of affairs, the RFU would rent Wembley and other football grounds, including Old Trafford. They have also included Cardiff's Millennium Stadium and Murrayfield. The difference from the French bid is that neither Wales or Scotland would be able to play at home.

Another innovation is to offer compensation to unions who would lose money through the timing of the World Cup. If it was held in the summer, the southern hemisphere would have to reschedule or lose the Tri-Nations and the Super 12. The date for 2007 will be decided by the IRB.

This year's competition (only the second World Cup in the professional era) in October and November means that the northern-hemisphere nations will lose about £30m, and there is no compensation. England, who will lose lucra-tive autumn internationals, expect to go from handsome profit into the red. The RFU can take it; Wales and Scotland, who are already making redundancies, cannot.

England have probably not helped their cause by their desire to tinker with the rota of the Six Nations and talk of launching their own tri-nations event at Twickenham, moves seen as arrogant by the IRB.

World Cups in England or France are regarded as high earners and have to be balanced between lower-revenue affairs in New Zealand, Argen-tina and Japan, who should play host sooner or later.

"In terms of preparation 2007 is like tomorrow,'' said our man at Twickenham. "Everybody should be looking at 2011. We are confident we've put in the best bid, but God knows what will happen when politics raises its ugly head in the smoke-filled rooms.''

England, like William Webb Ellis, have the ball and are running with it. Whether they score remains to be seen.