So the Scotland have ended their interest in hosting part of Rugby World Cup 2015.

The sport's showpiece event is tipped to return to Europe after the 2011 event in New Zealand with England in the running - but they remain concerned by the £80m hosting fee/guarantee demanded by the IRB. Unlike their likely rivals to host the 2015 competition - Italy, Japan and South Africa - England do not yet have assurances of financial backing by their government.

The IRB will confirm on May 8 which unions have bid to host the 2015 and 2019 tournaments and final presentations will be made on May 13, The venues for both will then be selected by the IRB council on July 28.

It remains to be seen whether the Rugby Football Union, who reportedly had fears about ticket sales north of the border, strike deals with their Welsh, Irish and possibly even French counterparts that will see games staged there as they plan how to recoup the massive hosting fee. But there will be no formal co-hosting deals struck.

Such arrangements would see the RFU hire venues in those countries, in the hope of tapping into strong markets, and then reap the benefits from ticket sales - their only guaranteed revenue as hosts.

The common view amongst fans and pundits is that the one-country bid is the way ahead. Australia set the standard in 2003 and that will again be the case in New Zealand. The event in France in 2007 was a huge success, although the four matches in Wales and two in Cardiff did water down the impact to a certain degree.

It appears that the horse-trading when it comes to voting means that a similar scenario is likely if it did return to the northern hemisphere, and specifically England, in 2015. The fact that Scotland, Ireland or Wales will never be in the position to host the tournament on their own adds to the mix. Joint bids make financial sense to them with the cost off-set by the substantial revenue the tournament can generate. The Rugby Football Union knows this too and can use it to their advantage.

Could the RFU muster enough support without such promises to share matches? I dare say this is being discussed behind the scenes as I write. Sadly, I fear the political history would mean that the pros and cons of their bid against that of other countries would only be part of the story.

The game does need to break new ground in terms of tournament hosts, but the IRB also need to secure the sport's future in terms of revenue and European-based tournament will provide that. But will the IRB decision-makers chance their arm and go with Italy? If the RFU were to alienate their own allies, Italy's claims could become stronger. Either way, the impact of the IRB's new hosting fees are casting a shadow over all the proceedings.

Logistically, in terms of stadia, Italy would have no problem hosting the tournament but it would require the use of football stadiums. This would also be the case in England if they opted to go it alone.

We've already seen rugby at Wembley recently (although their remain concerns over the pitch) and a bid that also included matches at impressive arenas like Old Trafford (which will also host England v Argentina later this year), City of Manchester Stadium (Commonwealth Games 7s) and the Madejski Stadium (London Irish) would be very impressive.

Where would you like to see the Rugby World Cup take place?