New Zealand are set to be re-instated as World Cup co-hosts in Dublin tomorrow according to newspaper reports.

The International Rugby Board (IRB) Council meet in Dublin to confirm the venue of the showpiece event in 2003 after months of political wrangling but news of the decision will not be released until Thursday.

The Times reported that the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) are optimistic about a positive result on their part due to their belief that the five man board of Rugby World Cup Ltd, which met last Friday, voted to recommend that New Zealand should play a part alongside Australia.

This news follows the events that led to the NZRFU being stripped of their involvement in March for failing to sign the host union agreement.

A source told the newspaper, "From what we hear the recommendation is that New Zealand should be reinstated. In one regard that should be an end to the story. But in another it could only be the start of even greater antipathy between the Aussies, who will be incensed by the decision, and the Kiwis."

The Australian Rugby Union countered the newspaper reports with an angry statement, "It is extraordinary that somebody will put that in the public domain," said Australian spokesman Strath Gordon.

"I can tell you without a shadow of doubt that the Rugby World Cup board has recommended that Australia be the sole hosts."

Australian Rugby Union chief executive John O'Neill is likely to be livid if such a decision is made having spent time and money preparing a revised schedule as sole hosts for the RWC.

In their bid to regain their place as co-hosts of the tournament New Zealand called on heavyweight support from major international sponsors.

Major World Cup sponsors Heineken, Coca Cola and Visa have told Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) officials they are not happy with Australia having sole hosting rights. Their deal with the IRB includes New Zealand as sub or co-hosts.

NZRFU officials have also lobbied other unions for their support, which O'Neill described as "the grubbiest of politics."

A simple majority of 11 is required from the two votes each from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, France, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand and one each from Italy, Canada, Argentina, Japan and the FIRA which represents the rest of Europe.

South Africa is behind Australia but France is known to be sympathetic to New Zealand's cause and England has leant the way of the Kiwis who have done enough lobbying for the other votes to give them some hope.

"The whole notion of lobbying at various levels, you've got to be careful how far you take the exercise," O'Neill told AAP.

"We haven't lobbied. They've pulled out all stops. They've chosen to play the last 18 months in their own unique way. We want justice to be seen to be done."

O'Neill said it would be unusual if the IRB council rejected the recommendations of the high powered RWCL board made up of IRB chairman Vernon Pugh, vice chairman Rob Fisher of New Zealand, treasurer Jacques Laurans of France and South African and English powerbrokers Rian Oberholzer and Malcolm Phillips.

"I don't think it's ever been a formality," O'Neill added. "The RWC has approved our bid, but once the IRB council is involved we can't take anything for granted.

"That's who New Zealand has been targeting to find a way back in, they've used every means available. We've stuck to the main game of following the process triggered off by them on March 8.

"We are not presuming anything, we are not predicting anything. The fact is that there is only one proposal on the table and that is for Australia to act as sole host. There is no other alternative."

Australia originally offered New Zealand 5.20 million dollars compensation after the NZRFU complained it would lose 2.92 million dollars as sub-host.

But O'Neill has said that offer would be rescinded if New Zealand's bid was reinstated.

"Our view is as of the 8th March everything is off the table so any concessions, any compromises, any subsidies that were part of the previous bid involving Australia and New Zealand disappeared on that day and will not be put back on the table," said O'Neill.

"Delegates should be able to vote on the merits of the case rather than
under instruction, particularly from governments."

The International Rugby Board were scheduled to make a statement at 1100 BST on Wednesday but have put that back 24 hours.