The contentious issue of the Host Union Agreement for Rugby World Cup 2003 has reportedly been resloved but the exact details of the tournament still remain undecided.

The Times reported that pen was apparently put to paper this month, but the core issue at the heart of the delay, the division of games between the two countries, has still to be resolved and may not be before March.

Australia has maintained that it be the main host but New Zealand is standing firm against attempts to move its semi-final to Australia, despite powerful logistical and economic arguments in favour of such a decision.

Australia's original bid in 1997 called for it and New Zealand to host one semi-final each. But O'Neill today admitted there had been "contemplation" about having both matches in Sydney after it successfully staged the 2000 Olympics.

In previous attempts to get their desired result the Australian Rugby Union have offered to underwrite any New Zealand Rugby Football Union losses in exchange for the second semi-final.

The report claims that the NZRFU now want what they were originally promised: two pools, two quarter-finals, the coveted semi-final and the third and fourth place play-off.

The issue has rumbled on for much of 2001 and at one stage reports in the UK suggested England and France had been put on standby to stage the tournament unless host nations Australia and New Zealand can settle their differences.

In September ARU chief executive John O'Neill commented, "We are in the final stages of negotiating the Host Union Agreement, which will be completed well in advance of similar negotiations for the 1999 Cup in Wales and the 1995 Cup in South Africa. The negotiation is robust, as you would expect, but we are on track."

Similar reassuranaces followed in October and Novemeber but no official statement has yet been mde regarding the conclusion of the matter.