Gerry Thornley On RugbyThursday is D-Day in Dublin, and nothing will so vex the minds of the powerful and influential in rugby's global community. The annual meeting of the International Rugby Board takes place this week, culminating in a meeting of the council on Thursday at which the 21 members will decide the venue for the 2007 World Cup.

In opposite corners are France and England. The IB had been due to make a decision last November but neither England's or France's bids complied with the tender document, and so both have resubmitted their preferred proposals along with alternate bids which are in compliance with the Rugby World Cup module.

England's original bid was the more contentious of the two, proposing as it did a radical reshaping of the World Cup from 20 to 16 (i.e. five pools of four to just four pools of four) and, as a sop to the developing countries who would thus miss out on the main event, a secondary competition, of 20 countries, running simultaneously. Proposing to play the finals in the summer of 2007, their bid also came with the carrot of a projected profit of £100 million (the 1999 World Cup yielded £44 million).

France's more orthodox go-it-alone bid, comprising 20 finalists, merely failed to comply with the IB's suggested windows in June/July or October/November, by opting instead for September.

That there will now effectively be four bids complicates the matter further, never mind the political manoeuvring, bargaining and inducements. In so much as it was possible to gauge the council's mood, the feeling was that France were favourites prior to the deferred vote last November, but that Twickenham have since closed the gap and a close vote is envisaged.

The 21 voting members of the council are made up of two each from the eight founding members of the IB, namely France, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. The other five, who may well sway the decision, are Argentina, Japan, Canada, Italy and FIRA, the regional association drawn from European member countries.

Everybody will be looking for a slice of the cake if they can get it. The IRFU, for example, have strongly intimated that they will be voting for the French bid, given they have been offered - as was the case in 1991 and 1999 - one of the five pools.

The Welsh and the Scots are also being lured by the French offer of pool matches, though in mitigation of the celtic unions' desire for sub-hosting rights, otherwise they would have to wait until 2015 - a 16-year gap.

Furthermore, their need to accrue gate receipts from the World Cup is accentuated by them losing out on the traditional autumn matches at home to the Southern Hemisphere big three, who themselves would be aghast to have finals which would oblige them to move the Tri-Nations from their summer timeframe.

An autumnal tournament is also deemed preferable in the European unions, save for England, given an autumnal event would come pretty much on top of a Six Nations.

For the players, therefore, it would be a hellish itinerary, coming at a time when they usually have a notional off-season.

Presumably England's preference for a summer finals is partly at the behest of the English club owners, whose domestic campaign could carry on uninterrupted in the autumn. They seem intent on shifting the goalposts until finally they're the only ones left on the pitch.

It might also be because they would have more access to superior football stadiums during the summer (including, they propose, a rebuilt Wembley) for their rugby grounds are ill-equipped to cope with a World Cup, given Leicester are the only club with their own 15,000-plus capacity.

England's bid would also necessitate doing away with the qualifying process. While bigger financial handouts to the lesser rugby nations are all well and good, their future development hinges on more than just money.

They need games too, and the success of the qualifying campaigns (which began after the last finals in, of all places, Norway) can be measured in the attendances of 40,000 and 20,000 at matches such as Georgia v Russia and Tunisia v Cameroon.

Even if England's bid was modified to incorporate a 20-team World Cup, as well as taking place in the autumn, there is still a superior argument for holding the tournament in France.

After all, they have given as much to the game and to the World Cup, reaching two finals, yet have never even hosted a semi-final, whereas Twickenham has already hosted two semi-finals and a final (1991). Ideally, not only is it their turn, but France should be allowed to hold the thing lock, stock and barrel.

As they proved when they hosted the football World Cup finals in 1998, France has the infrastructure. They also have the grounds, organisational ability, national pride and passion for the game. They would be inspired by it, and France on its own could be the best World Cup ever.

The previous World Cups in Europe, especially 1999, suffered for being spread too thinly in five host countries, and frankly, the lazy, limp efforts of Scotland and Ireland (with the honourable exception of Limerick) don't warrant them hosting pool stages in 2007.

But in the heel of the hunt compromise and self-interest will most probably again hold sway, and we'll end up with another World Cup divvied up between various European countries, with France as 'hosts'.

Either way, it ought to be France's turn. Presuming an autumnal slot is generally agreed upon, which seems likely, then the weather would be better in France at that time of year also. And I haven't even mentioned the food or the wine.