UCD Ball 2011

delta_bravo

I wonder how Hugh Brady and the rest of the UCD authorities that represent "The Man" react when they see such rousing messages of support like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CKbgkBqxYY&feature=player_embedded

ghostdancer

Fad wrote: »

If the authorities in UCD will comply with the original license, that was granted, it can go ahead as planned.

there's no proof that UCD agreed to this. the license is (presumably) dependant on certain factors, the closing of the campus being one.
i find it hard to believe that UCD agreed to shutdown a campus where 1000s of staff/postgrads/visitors would still be working/using on the day, and public traffic must use, just to facilitate the ball.

if there was an actual signed contract, which has so far not been produced by the SU, then they should be talking about legal action against UCD for breach of contract.

this whole "oh we had an email promise from someone" nonsense is an absolute joke and if that's all they had, then the SU are a bunch of utter fukwits.
in this email, who exactly agreed to shut down the campus, and when exactly did they agree to it?

and i don't believe for a second the "authorities" have stopped them from showing this email to students, yet it can be shown at a meeting. :rolleyes: if it was confidential, then the SU have ****ed up, if it wasn't (more likely), then the SU should release it and stop bullsh1t-ing.

ghostdancer

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

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.

and what about staff who still need to work on that day?
and postgrads/researchers who still need to work?
and non-UCD visitors for events/meetings scheduled that day?

what were the provisions made for them?

Zuffer

The letter that the SU received from UCD that effectively cancelled the ball is now published on the ucdsu website.

- We can put to bed the crazy 'they cancelled it because they had no headliners' argument
- We know that the ball wasn't officially dead until Thursday 31 March
- However, we know that the SU knew that it was in jeopardy before then, as it is obvious that this letter is 'written confirmation' of previous verbal discussions.

I'd be very curious to know what the time line was from
- Garda say campus must be closed (december, sometime?)
- Someone in UCD tells someone in SU 'ok' (Yet to hear something definitive on this)
- At some point someone (UCD or SU?) says 'hang on we have a problem'
- Lynam and SU get down to serious talk with Philip Nolan and UCD
- 31 March: Nolan says no.

It's obvious that the outgoing SU officers knew that there was a potential problem with the ball, knew for some time before the official announcement. They had gotten to the stage where they were looking at off campus options, which would suggest to me that they knew the possibility of UCD authorities changing their mind was low.

I would severely criticise their PR handling of this. They should have been far more open about what was going on. Rather than being up front with the students they represent, they were deliberately withholding the facts. When ticket sales were put postponed, people wondered why. Now we know. In terms of secrecy and incompetence, I'd draw parallels with the previous govt, the guys we kicked out last month.

Bluefox21

melekalikimaka wrote: »

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?

Don't even need to break them down! Just ask any of the organisers of the balls before last year which were done on less than that! Don't forget about other revenue the ball brings in.

The only other factor I can think of is that they had no headliners and therefore knew that they wouldn't even be able to sell 5000 tickets. Care to provide an alternative reason?

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

There was only 1,500 tickets sold @ €25 with another 6,500 sold @ €35. Thats an overall 23% increase if the imaginary ball was to happen [(40 - 25)/25*1500/8000]+[(40 - 35)/35*6500/8000].

If you're going to be pedantic about someone being pedantic, be right.

Ducks head and waits for someone to be even more pedantic.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

There was only 1,500 tickets sold @ €25 with another 6,500 sold @ €35. Thats an overall 23% increase if the imaginary ball was to happen [(40 - 25)/25*1500/8000]+[(40 - 35)/35*6500/8000].

If you're going to be pedantic about someone being pedantic, be right.

Ducks head and waits for someone to be even more pedantic.

Twas in response to this post

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

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.

So for almost a quarter of the people at the ball, it was a proposed 60% increase.

There's being a pedant, and there's being a pain. (Certainly not mutually exclusive! )

Foxtrol

ghostdancer wrote: »

and what about staff who still need to work on that day?
and postgrads/researchers who still need to work?
and non-UCD visitors for events/meetings scheduled that day?

what were the provisions made for them?

Its a university, events such as this should be expected and welcomed. As someone mentioned earlier Trinity have no problems doing it. The postgrads/researchers/non-UCD visitors/staff all survived when the college was shut early/full days during the snow. All UCD had to give was 3 hours of a working day and they went back on their word.

Oasis_Dublin

Blut2 wrote: »

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.

They had plans for a some form of amusements. The two stage format of last year had cost more than the one stage format of 2009.

You don't know the headliners so the rest of your point is moot.

Oasis_Dublin

HavingCrack wrote: »

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.

Nah, they were 35 last year. 25 in 2009.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I was correct. No mention of pre-sale tickets in your post I'm afraid. The tickets were 35€ last year and 25€ in 2009. If you're going to be self-righteous, please be right.

Foxtrol

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Don't even need to break them down! Just ask any of the organisers of the balls before last year which were done on less than that! Don't forget about other revenue the ball brings in.

The only other factor I can think of is that they had no headliners and therefore knew that they wouldn't even be able to sell 5000 tickets. Care to provide an alternative reason?

I can think of a tonne. Running/selling a ball for 5,000 people and running/selling a ball for 8,000 people are completely different propositions. Everything from (off the top of my head) budget, event plan, number of stages, acts, size/position of the venue, concessions, pricing all have to change. These all make a difference between running a successful ball & one that makes a crippling loss and to make such a massive change in scale 2 weeks out is at best risky but more likely suicidal.

Oasis_Dublin

ghostdancer wrote: »

and what about staff who still need to work on that day?
and postgrads/researchers who still need to work?
and non-UCD visitors for events/meetings scheduled that day?

what were the provisions made for them?

Staff would have been given a half day. Those with work before 1PM would still have had to show up. The lecturers had no problem taking time off when their pay was threatened.

Work until 1PM and then give yourself the day off. A little bit of planning would avert this problem. Surely, they could think of the student body at large for one day.

Non-UCD visitors with meetings that had to be held after 1PM? You will have to elaborate on this one for me.

Oasis_Dublin

carlowboy wrote: »

I heard Elvis was playing. :rolleyes:

LAWLZ

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I was correct. No mention of pre-sale tickets in your post I'm afraid. The tickets were 35€ last year and 25€ in 2009. If you're going to be self-righteous, please be right.

Is this a joke?

Oasis_Dublin

Zuffer wrote: »

The letter that the SU received from UCD that effectively cancelled the ball is now published on the ucdsu website.

- We can put to bed the crazy 'they cancelled it because they had no headliners' argument
- We know that the ball wasn't officially dead until Thursday 31 March
- However, we know that the SU knew that it was in jeopardy before then, as it is obvious that this letter is 'written confirmation' of previous verbal discussions.

I'd be very curious to know what the time line was from
- Garda say campus must be closed (december, sometime?)
- Someone in UCD tells someone in SU 'ok' (Yet to hear something definitive on this)
- At some point someone (UCD or SU?) says 'hang on we have a problem'
- Lynam and SU get down to serious talk with Philip Nolan and UCD
- 31 March: Nolan says no.

It's obvious that the outgoing SU officers knew that there was a potential problem with the ball, knew for some time before the official announcement. They had gotten to the stage where they were looking at off campus options, which would suggest to me that they knew the possibility of UCD authorities changing their mind was low.

I would severely criticise their PR handling of this. They should have been far more open about what was going on. Rather than being up front with the students they represent, they were deliberately withholding the facts. When ticket sales were put postponed, people wondered why. Now we know. In terms of secrecy and incompetence, I'd draw parallels with the previous govt, the guys we kicked out last month.

The ok from the UCD authorities came in the form of verbal agreements and further assurances made via email. Of course they should have gotten a written contract, but it is poor form that the authorities would go back on a promiss to the Union. They should be pulling in the same direction but they are not. The big losers here are the students.

The previous verbal discussions took place on the 29th, two days before that letter, dated the 31st, was sent. They looked at alternative options thereafter.

The BS about the security breach was a poor show on the SU's part.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Is this a joke?

Well you hadn't quoted anything. Where I wrote, "No mention of pre-sale tickets in your post I'm afraid" it should have read, "No mention of pre-sale tickets in previous post I'm afraid."

Oasis_Dublin

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

Well you hadn't quoted anything. Where I wrote, "No mention of pre-sale tickets in your post I'm afraid" it should have read, "No mention of pre-sale tickets in previous post I'm afraid."

Oh so its my fault?

Must have been all the self righteousness evident throughout my posting.

Get the **** over yourself and don't think you're above the rest of us because you have an "in" on the ents crew.

Its embarrassing.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh so its my fault?

Must have been all the self righteousness evident throughout my posting.

Get the **** over yourself and don't think you're above the rest of us because you have an "in" on the ents crew.

Its embarrassing.

There was no mention of pre-sale ball tickets in any of the posts I had replied to. You need to relax and learn how to properly communicate with people. Embarrassing indeed.

When you say 'in' with the ents crew, I presume you mean 'informed.' Public meetings were held and I bothered my arse to attend them in order to understand the issue better. It's embarrassing when self-righteous imbeciles come onto internet forums and spout their uninformed opinions about the place. Perhaps you should get over yourself.

Raphael

The thing i find most interesting is the use of the vague, wishywashy phrase "The UCD authorities" Who, exactly, was this person at each point? We know it was Philip Noaln who said no, who initially said yes? Was it Philip, Martin Butler, Hugh Brady, some dude who works in services, who?

It could very well be that whoever in UCD said it was ok was not qualified to make that decision, and it only got vetoed when they sent owrd up and the people with the decision making power said "Eh... No." Would quite like some clarification on this

Edit: Lose the tone, you two. This has stayed perfectly civil for 19 pages, let's not ruin that now.

cool beans.

I'm not in UCD anymore, I used to help out with a lot of the events, I find this whole scenario from start to finish embarrassing, as I had always spoken well about the things we had done during college. Not long ago either.

I don't really give a **** other than that tbh. Good few of my friends still there saying its a sham, I decide to have a look here, and their thoughts are resonated throughout this thread too.

Your use of the term self righteous is exceedingly ironic btw.

Sierra Oscar

Raphael wrote: »

The thing i find most interesting is the use of the vague, wishywashy phrase "The UCD authorities" Who, exactly, was this person at each point? We know it was Philip Noaln who said no, who initially said yes? Was it Philip, Martin Butler, Hugh Brady, some dude who works in services, who?

It could very well be that whoever in UCD said it was ok was not qualified to make that decision, and it only got vetoed when they sent owrd up and the people with the decision making power said "Eh... No." Would quite like some clarification on this

I would have thought that one person could not just sign off on such a matter? One would assume that there is "behind closed doors" committee in place to deal with these sort of matters?

You raise an interesting point . . .

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Twas in response to this post



So for almost a quarter of the people at the ball, it was a proposed 60% increase.

There's being a pedant, and there's being a pain. (Certainly not mutually exclusive! )

I only posted because your post was clearly misleading. To highlight a 60% increase in price is just wrong. Not even 20% of people at the ball last year would see that sort of increase while more than 80% would see a 14% increase or as its generally known "a fiver". It would still have been about half the price as the Trinity Ball, lasts longer and any profits made go back into the SU rather than to line MCD's pockets. The fact that UCD pulled the plug on the ball is the issue not the small increase in price.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

cool beans.

I'm not in UCD anymore, I used to help out with a lot of the events, I find this whole scenario from start to finish embarrassing, as I had always spoken well about the things we had done during college. Not long ago either.

I don't really give a **** other than that tbh. Good few of my friends still there saying its a sham, I decide to have a look here, and their thoughts are resonated throughout this thread too.

Your use of the term self righteous is exceedingly ironic btw.

Tis yeah. Me being the one who thought that tickets were 25 euro last year. Even though, that was only for a quarter (if even) of the overall tickets. Clearly not a 60% rise in price but I'll still insist I'm correct. Thank God I'm not stubbornly self-righteous... wait a second!

Do you have any idea what self righteous means?

Oasis_Dublin

Raphael wrote: »

The thing i find most interesting is the use of the vague, wishywashy phrase "The UCD authorities" Who, exactly, was this person at each point? We know it was Philip Noaln who said no, who initially said yes? Was it Philip, Martin Butler, Hugh Brady, some dude who works in services, who?

It could very well be that whoever in UCD said it was ok was not qualified to make that decision, and it only got vetoed when they sent owrd up and the people with the decision making power said "Eh... No." Would quite like some clarification on this.

I think it's safe to assume that they went to someone with authority i.e. they went to Martin Butler or Hugh Brady as opposed to going to the cleaner who works in the War Memorial building. A friend of mine did interviews with Cosgrove, de Brún and Lynam on Wednesday and found out the information regarding who exactly they had gone to. I will find him tomorrow, if he is in college, and ask him.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have any idea what self righteous means?

Smarmy, condescending sh*te. "If you're going to be pedantic, be right," easily the best example.

An overwhelming belief in your own importance.

I'll leave it at that.

Goodbye again UCD

Raphael

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

I think it's safe to assume that they went to someone with authority i.e. they went to Martin Butler or Hugh Brady as opposed to going to the cleaner who works in the War Memorial building. A friend of mine did interviews with Cosgrove, de Brún and Lynam on Wednesday and found out the information regarding who exactly they had gone to. I will find him tomorrow, if he is in college, and ask him.

Doubt it was actually the cleaning staff alright, but you never know. Appreciate your looking for the info.

Oasis_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

An overwhelming belief in your own importance.

I'll leave it at that.

Goodbye again UCD

I've merely attempted to throw a few facts into the free-for-all which debates on boards can sometimes be. You have thrown a strop when your smarmy post was dismissed, and proceeded to lash personal insults my way. Good riddance, I dare say!