UCD Ball 2011

dublin daz

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

They need to sell 80% of the 8,000 tickets to break even under the currently proposed acts. 4,999 would not suffice therefore, unless ticket prices were to go up further.

So then why accuse UCD Authorities for the unions inability to make a few calculations?

Bad management and now we're still paying for the unions disastrous event management.

Oasis_Dublin

dublin daz wrote: »

Why did you get t-shirts printed for the radio? I doubt only 100 were printed.

If the SU think I am happy to have my union fees squandered then they are mistaken. Utter waste of money, even if it is only €2.

To give out to people at the start of the year. You may doubt it, but I'm afraid you would be wrong.

The money that would be spent on the ball is being spent on the campaign. If it sells out then profits will be made either way. UCD Ball profits are used for other Ents weeks, such as Breast Cancer Awareness Week and Rainbow Week. I hate the Union but people need to look at the bigger picture here.

Oasis_Dublin

dublin daz wrote: »

So then why accuse UCD Authorities for the unions inability to make a few calculations?

Bad management and now we're still paying for the unions disastrous event management.

Why can't the authorities be honest to the students who pay their salaries? Why did they wait so long to say they were not happy to close down the campus? Hugh Brady took a pay increase this year by the way and he had no problem closing down UCD in December 2009 when it was proposed that his pay might be cut. Why are you implicitly defending the authorities who have screwed over the students for so long?

You clearly don't understand how the ball is paid for. You clearly don't know all the facts available. It's far easier to be a cynical boards hack I suppose.

dublin daz

I shouldn't have to understand how the ball is run, isn't that why we pay the union and specifically the so called ents officer. Again, more value for money given they couldn't even pull the ball off.

When you pay someone to do a job the minimum you can expect is to have it done with some level of competence.

Whether that's running the ball to completion or foreseeing this type of situation the union are responsible for this failure, I don't think its UCD.

Oasis_Dublin

dublin daz wrote: »

I shouldn't have to understand how the ball is run, isn't that why we pay the union and specifically the so called ents officer. Again, more value for money given they couldn't even pull the ball off.

When you pay someone to do a job the minimum you can expect is to have it done with some level of competence.

Whether that's running the ball to completion or foreseeing this type of situation the union are responsible for this failure, I don't think its UCD.

What do you propose they do now though? UCD authorities have let the student body down big time and you wan't to defend their salary increases and back them up based on what you "think" and your "doubts." I'm using factual information which has debunked all of your points so far. Yes, without question, they should have gotten some form of contract from the authorities. They do have written proof, in the form of an email, that the authorities had supported this view. Is it ok for Hugh Brady and the lads to go back on decisions they have made, just like that?

hatrickpatrick

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

What do you propose they do now though? UCD authorities have let the student body down big time and you wan't to defend their salary increases and back them up based on what you "think" and your "doubts." I'm using factual information which has debunked all of your points so far. Yes, without question, they should have gotten some form of contract from the authorities. They do have written proof, in the form of an email, that the authorities had supported this view. Is it ok for Hugh Brady and the lads to go back on decisions they have made, just like that?

No it absolutely isn't, my only question is, why don't they publish the proof they have in order to publicly shame whoever lied to them? The only way to accomplish things in this day and age is through negative publicity.

Oasis_Dublin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No it absolutely isn't, my only question is, why don't they publish the proof they have in order to publicly shame whoever lied to them? The only way to accomplish things in this day and age is through negative publicity.

It was presented at Council last night. Apparently the authorities have blocked them from sending an email around to the students. I don't see why they would show it to us and not show it to everyone else, unless they were being prevented in doing so.

PLEASE NOTE: I WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL LAST NIGHT AS A STUDENT. I'M NOT A CLASS REP. OR ANY OTHER FORM OF UNION HACK.

Apologies that I had to shout, but the argument had to be pre-empted!

dublin daz

Well Martin Butler will have to address this in his bulletin - I am sure he will mention why the ball was cancelled from a UCD point of view.

I honestly wouldn't know what to do now.

The union are responsible because they are elected and paid to do a job which they have not done. They should have had a contract with UCD for the event and made sure the deal was water tight then this wouldn't have happened.

Its a shambles all round. But the propaganda the union are spewing is such a waste of money. If UCD said no then they are not going to change their mind if people have a protest. So its up to the union to make alternative arrangements for the ball, why can't they hire an alternative venue?

AIR-AUSSIE

What was presented?

Would you lmaybe summarise the meeting? Was anything cleared up? Did the SU admit to any blame?

WeeBushy

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

What do you propose they do now though? UCD authorities have let the student body down big time and you wan't to defend their salary increases and back them up based on what you "think" and your "doubts." I'm using factual information which has debunked all of your points so far. Yes, without question, they should have gotten some form of contract from the authorities. They do have written proof, in the form of an email, that the authorities had supported this view. Is it ok for Hugh Brady and the lads to go back on decisions they have made, just like that?

Anyone with some sense should know never to rely on an email as a guarantee. Things like this should have written, signed contracts.

It was bad form on UCD to pull out at the last minute (if that's the case), but it was incompetent and naive for the SU to go ahead with everything on the back of an email.

dublin daz

That's the problem, the union won't accept any blame.

WeeBushy

Tbh, if they owned up to what I just said I'd get over it. We all make mistakes, live and learn. But its the fact that they wont accept they did anything wrong that annoys me. And then waste money on some silly campaign to back themselves up.

AIR-AUSSIE

WeeBushy wrote: »

Tbh, if they owned up to what I just said I'd get over it. We all make mistakes, live and learn. But its the fact that they wont accept they did anything wrong that annoys me. And then waste money on some silly campaign to back themselves up.

I'm the same.

Surely they could have followed the protocol of previous balls. they were organised fine.

Tayto2000

The problem is they kept getting bigger and bigger... needing planning permission opens a whole can of worms, from the gardai and health and safety to just keeping the neighbours happy. Rinse and repeat of last year wouldn't work because of the venue change and extra stipulations, it was all hinging on the campus closure which was seemingly, in fairness to the SU, reneged on.

That said, if the campus closure was the foundation for the event, surely it would have made sense to draw up a contract? I'm thinking maybe there was too much of an applicant/supplicant relationship for that to be a runner for the SU. The UCD authorities seem quite happy to just soak up whatever happens on the 21st, that suggests to me that the ball was being allowed on sufferance.

hatrickpatrick

Look there are no two ways about this, it is exceedingly bad form to make an agreement, iron clad or not, and then to simply renege on it at the last minute, particularly for a reason which could DEFINITELY have been foreseen at the time of making the agreement. (IE class schedules etc).

It begs the question in my mind whether they always planned renege and only agreed originally to shut the SU up.

Either way, it is totally and utterly unacceptable, no matter HOW unreasonable a campus closure is, to renege on an agreement involving an event this massive. There are no two ways and no excuses. If you won't do something, don't f*cking say you will. End of story. Period.

I'm frankly disgusted with the UCD authorities and with all the people here who are defending this. If you give your word, that's it. You give your word. You'd better f*cking keep it.

HughOrBrady

Ask the Ents officer when he submitted a request to the Registrar to have the campus closed for the half day.

The answer will show why the ball was cancelled.

craggles

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Not thousands at all. We ordered the t-shirts for the radio and they cost €2 each. There aren't even 100 printed, let alone the 500 that would be needed for your assumption to even begin to make sense.

They have put across the case that the UCD authorities only let them know that they were going back on their original agreement on March 29th.

100? Ha! I couldn't turn a corner in UCD today without tripping over one of those ****1ng red t shirts, they were everywhere. Had to be at least 1000. Not buying that for a second.

Oasis_Dublin

craggles wrote: »

100? Ha! I couldn't turn a corner in UCD today without tripping over one of those ****1ng red t shirts, they were everywhere. Had to be at least 1000. Not buying that for a second.

UCD Belfield? I was at the meeting and there weren't even a thousand people at it. Plenty of people had red shirts on that were not the ENTS t-shirts. They definitely did not print anything near a thousand shirts, that's the truth I'm afraid.

Oasis_Dublin

dublin daz wrote: »

The union are responsible because they are elected and paid to do a job which they have not done. They should have had a contract with UCD for the event and made sure the deal was water tight then this wouldn't have happened.

Its a shambles all round. But the propaganda the union are spewing is such a waste of money. If UCD said no then they are not going to change their mind if people have a protest. So its up to the union to make alternative arrangements for the ball, why can't they hire an alternative venue?

I'd far rather them spend money on something aimed at the entire student body like this campaign than to get The Saw Doctors into the student bar anyway.

Of course they should have had a contract but it is an extremely poor show that Martin Butler, supposed to be represnting the students, and the SU, also supposed to be representing the students, need a contract in order to keep a promise to organise something which is hugely popular to the students as a whole. UCD should not have gone back on their agreement.

Alternative venues (The Point, Marlay Park) have been looked at but the former needs to have even more tickets than SU sell for the ball to break even, while the latter would involve a whole new planning application to the DL-R CC, which could not be sorted within the 15 days remaining before the 21st.

The Union story is making sense to me. The authorities story, or lack thereof, is not.

Oasis_Dublin

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

What was presented?

Would you lmaybe summarise the meeting? Was anything cleared up? Did the SU admit to any blame?

The authorities agreed on campus closure and then went back on it. This stipulation, that the campus be closed, was not required last year so it was totally new for this year. It was introduced due to complaints from local residents and An Garda Síochána.

The Gardaí and DL-R CC are still willing to back the ball if UCD agrees to the half day, as they did back in November.

UCD only told the SU that they would not close the campus on March 29th.

Johnny Cosgrove said that he could not reveal the headliners unless the ball was OKed again. He says we wouldn't have believed the headliners he had lined up, which was greeted by hack, SU cheers. Pure BS in my opinion, and the only poor show from the Union side.

Oasis_Dublin

WeeBushy wrote: »

Anyone with some sense should know never to rely on an email as a guarantee. Things like this should have written, signed contracts.

It was bad form on UCD to pull out at the last minute (if that's the case), but it was incompetent and naive for the SU to go ahead with everything on the back of an email.

That is true but UCD and the SU are supposed to be pulling in the same direction, ie for the betterment of the experience of the student. There should not be an air of distrust between these two bodies. The authorities have let us all down.

It wasn't just an email, there had been meetings between the SU and Martin Butler, as well as further meetings with the Gardaí and the local CC.

Oasis_Dublin

Further, the UCD authorities have claimed that the veterinary surgery on campus needs to remain open all day and this is a reason to keep the campus open. This was factored into the agreement reached by the SU with the authorities in that emergency traffic is allowed into Belfield all day long.

Bluefox21

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The SU did not make a proper agreement, true enough. They did have it in writing that UCD authorities would close the campus from 1PM on the 21st though.

They need to sell 80% of the 8,000 tickets to break even under the currently proposed acts. 4,999 would not suffice therefore, unless ticket prices were to go up further.

Incredibly naive of them not to form a contract. Pretty standard thing to do if you are running an event of this size.

The second part is what I don't understand. How after a 60% ticket price increase :eek: do they need to sell over 6000 tickets just to break even? Especially considering the standard of the line up. I have experience in the industry and I can tell you prices have certainly not increased to that extent and in most areas I have actually seen a drop in prices. Even at a 5k capacity that's 5k x €40. They'd have a budget of €200,000 and that's not including sales of food and drink.

With that kinda budget you'd be able to get a very solid line up put together and considering previous expectations comfortably sell out. Even consider the acts Mike Pats brought in on the same budget (8000 x 25 = 200,000)

UCD don't need something spectacular. A return to the early days of the ball would have been fine but to cancel it all together is an absolute disgrace.

And I'm not buying the BS about the statutory authorities refusing permission for a ball of 5k. No license required for that capacity, it doesn't add up I'm afraid.

Sick of their excuses.

Oasis_Dublin

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Incredibly naive of them not to form a contract. Pretty standard thing to do if you are running an event of this size.

The second part is what I don't understand. How after a 60% ticket price increase :eek: do they need to sell over 6000 tickets just to break even? Especially considering the standard of the line up. I have experience in the industry and I can tell you prices have certainly not increased to that extent and in most areas I have actually seen a drop in prices. Even at a 5k capacity that's 5k x €40. They'd have a budget of €200,000 and that's not including sales of food and drink.

With that kinda budget you'd be able to get a very solid line up put together and considering previous expectations comfortably sell out. Even consider the acts Mike Pats brought in on the same budget (8000 x 25 = 200,000)

UCD don't need something spectacular. A return to the early days of the ball would have been fine but to cancel it all together is an absolute disgrace.

And I'm not buying the BS about the statutory authorities refusing permission for a ball of 5k. No license required for that capacity, it doesn't add up I'm afraid.

Sick of their excuses.

I've already explained that they need to sell 80% of the available tickets to break even ie 8,000/10 x 8 = 6,400. Hence, a 4,999 person ball is of no use to them, unless they want to run the ball at a loss of roughly 56,000 € (6,400-4,999 = 1,401 x 40€ = 56,040)

I agree that they should have had a contract but, to quote me, "UCD and the SU are supposed to be pulling in the same direction, ie for the betterment of the experience of the student." If the college agrees, verbally and in writing, to close the campus at 1PM, except to emergency traffic, then they really should stick to that promise. They have let us down.

60% increase in ticket price is wrong. Last year, tickets were 35€. This year, they are €40. Hence, the increase in ticket prices is 14% (40/35 = 1.14 x 100 = 114%. 114-100 = 14%). People can question why ticket prices went up considering the acts that were on offer, but let's at least get the figures correct.

The rumour, a strong one at that, was that Snow Patrol were going to headline. The ball would have sold out either way.

Bluefox21

I'm almost sure the tickets were €25 last year? Maybe I got mine early.

HavingCrack

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

The rumour, a strong one at that, was that Snow Patrol were going to headline. The ball would have sold out either way.

To be fair if they managed to get Snow Patrol I'd say hats off to them. I have to admit I find it unlikely though.

Blut2

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I've already explained that they need to sell 80% of the available tickets to break even ie 8,000/10 x 8 = 6,400. Hence, a 4,999 person ball is of no use to them, unless they want to run the ball at a loss of roughly 56,000 € (6,400-4,999 = 1,401 x 40€ = 56,040)

How were costs so high that 6400 ticket sales were required? Thats another question that has to be asked. This is the weakest UCD Ball lineup in the last 3 years but has the most expensive ticket price - how does that add up? Surely without a headline act the cost of the current lineup cant be that extensive, I'd be very surprised if 4999 x 40e tickets didnt cover them and associated running costs.

carlowboy

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I've already explained that they need to sell 80% of the available tickets to break even ie 8,000/10 x 8 = 6,400. Hence, a 4,999 person ball is of no use to them, unless they want to run the ball at a loss of roughly 56,000 € (6,400-4,999 = 1,401 x 40€ = 56,040)

I agree that they should have had a contract but, to quote me, "UCD and the SU are supposed to be pulling in the same direction, ie for the betterment of the experience of the student." If the college agrees, verbally and in writing, to close the campus at 1PM, except to emergency traffic, then they really should stick to that promise. They have let us down.

60% increase in ticket price is wrong. Last year, tickets were 35€. This year, they are €40. Hence, the increase in ticket prices is 14% (40/35 = 1.14 x 100 = 114%. 114-100 = 14%). People can question why ticket prices went up considering the acts that were on offer, but let's at least get the figures correct.

The rumour, a strong one at that, was that Snow Patrol were going to headline. The ball would have sold out either way.

I heard Elvis was playing. :rolleyes:

Early Bird ticket offerings of €25 were not replicated, and can easily be seen as having a 60% increase [(40 - 25)/25].

If you're going to be pedantic, be right.

melekalikimaka

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Incredibly naive of them not to form a contract. Pretty standard thing to do if you are running an event of this size.

The second part is what I don't understand. How after a 60% ticket price increase :eek: do they need to sell over 6000 tickets just to break even? Especially considering the standard of the line up. I have experience in the industry and I can tell you prices have certainly not increased to that extent and in most areas I have actually seen a drop in prices. Even at a 5k capacity that's 5k x €40. They'd have a budget of €200,000 and that's not including sales of food and drink.

With that kinda budget you'd be able to get a very solid line up put together and considering previous expectations comfortably sell out. Even consider the acts Mike Pats brought in on the same budget (8000 x 25 = 200,000)

UCD don't need something spectacular. A return to the early days of the ball would have been fine but to cancel it all together is an absolute disgrace.

And I'm not buying the BS about the statutory authorities refusing permission for a ball of 5k. No license required for that capacity, it doesn't add up I'm afraid.

Sick of their excuses.

if you don't mind could you break down the costs for a festival of 5k, in open field, and show how it could be done for 200k including acts fees? bearing in mind we would run on the assumption the acts would be of a higher standard then the non headliners announced, i tried working it out myself and its a hell of alot more, insurance, field car, fencing, barriers, event control sub contracting, pre planning, security... its a mine field, and limiting it to 5k will end in tears, yu'll have to fence them in to prevent others getting in for free, and good luck finding a venue over 5k in that budget off site

and you dont believe to bs about not being permitted a licence for a 5k festival? do you perhaps think that maybe theres other factor it might be rejected?