UCD Ball 2011

RubberEndz

I'm merely speculating of course, but could it be possible that the SU was aware that the ball would be cancelled much earlier than they are letting on?

I know a few people involved in the organisation of the UCD Fashion Show who believed that they were actually allocated too big a budget. - Perhaps this was intended to be a successful compensation event for Cosgrove's CV...

Live4Ever

I've been to the last 3 UCD Balls. I can safely say they got worse as the years went on. I'm out of UCD for 2 years.

End of the day, it is 100% the SU's fault. Every other year the license and agreements with the college and gardai were perfect. This year however its a sham. I don't know any SU members but it seems, looking from the outside in, they are highly incompetent.

****e acts, then a ticket 'security breach' and they cancelled. Whatever about the ****e acts, they have clearly known for a while it would have to be cancelled.

I feel sorry for the 4th year students, this would have been their last Ball, now they have nothing.

UCDEnts is crap. Everyone should face facts. It's the same crap in the bar every year.

hatrickpatrick

HughOrBrady wrote: »

The key part is actually who in UCD the SU are saying agreed to it. Was it one side of the admin/services? Did the SU fail to inform the other? Did the SU not go to the top levels for permission?

Clear answers to these questions will show who failed.

Of course, I'm merely suggesting that if UCD simply gave an agreement and then cancelled it, they are in the wrong - no matter what justification they try to use. No issues such as lectures being on, people needing to study etc are new issues, they all could have clearly been seen at the time of the agreement so if UCD simply gave an agreement without thinking through the implications and then went back on it when they realized what they had signed up to, it is their fault. Once you give an agreement, that's it. If you later discover that you wish you hadn't, tough sh*t.

And of course I agree, it is absolutely of paramount importance to always get something like this in writing and signed by somebody with authority to do so.

To be honest I really would love it if the SU would publish whatever documentation they have to prove that the college did indeed agree to this.

CMoonheadNo1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course, I'm merely suggesting that if UCD simply gave an agreement and then cancelled it, they are in the wrong - no matter what justification they try to use. No issues such as lectures being on, people needing to study etc are new issues, they all could have clearly been seen at the time of the agreement so if UCD simply gave an agreement without thinking through the implications and then went back on it when they realized what they had signed up to, it is their fault. Once you give an agreement, that's it. If you later discover that you wish you hadn't, tough sh*t.

And of course I agree, it is absolutely of paramount importance to always get something like this in writing and signed by somebody with authority to do so.

To be honest I really would love it if the SU would publish whatever documentation they have to prove that the college did indeed agree to this.

It has been clear now for months that UCD had no intention of shutting down campus. Just like Good Friday where normal lectures are lost and have to be re-timetabled it should have been done here. The SU should be involved in that process. They organise the ball and should make sure that any lecture time lost is found elsewhere. After all one of the officers is an Education officer along with Ents (organising the actual ball) and the rest. Joined up thinking, where was it?

We all knew lectures were going ahead, nobody was aware though that they weren’t supposed to be going ahead, only the SU were with their agreement in December. Why weren’t they on top of UCD from January if UCD really did agree to such an all encompassing closure?

melekalikimaka

Gingy wrote: »

or even (dare I suggest) Good Friday itself.

no serving of beers might be a bit of a down buzz

ucds first straight edge ball...

irelands even

mloc

I would assume that the cancellation announcement was delayed pending completion of the SU elections.

Most likely, the ticket security incident was a delaying tactic, with the SU aware at that stage that the ball would not be going ahead.

While it's hard to pin blame, I think it's probably a combination of lack of proper communication between the SU and UCD, failure to secure the appropriate arrangements in due time, and potentially a budget issue related to the fashion show.

In my last undergrad year (2007), there wasn't much of a ball. We just hung out on one of the pitches for the day and had a few drinks; TCD students get to do that all the time.

Oasis_Dublin

http://saveourball.com/ campaign has begun. Apparently stalls to go up all over campus from tomorrow and online petitions etc.
Source: Belfield FM

EduKate

Screw the ball.

Go to the off-licence > buy booze > drink on the pitches en masse.

That's how it used to be done pre-ball.

It's also the reason UCD started giving consent for the ball - to try and stop the DIY'ers.

Reclaim the Campus Party
Police, Services, Bonfires and Buckfast
University of Complete Disorder

As the old VP for students said

“You can’t have a standing army of security just for situations where you have over 200 students causing trouble.

“All you can do is contain the situation which, I think, Services do very well.”

damselnat

EduKate wrote: »

Screw the ball.

Go to the off-licence > buy booze > drink on the pitches en masse.

This I like....cheaper, so much more fun and someone else said, no having to listen to Republic of Loose.

HughOrBrady

EduKate wrote: »

Screw the ball.

Go to the off-licence > buy booze > drink on the pitches en masse.

That's how it used to be done pre-ball.

It's also the reason UCD started giving consent for the ball - to try and stop the DIY'ers.

Reclaim the Campus Party
Police, Services, Bonfires and Buckfast
University of Complete Disorder

As the old VP for students said

The articles are merely socialist party dreamy sh1te. I saw lake 2 after "the cleanup", the place was destroyed, the rubbish bags were thrown in the lake, and the whole grass area was covered in cans and bottles.

As for the pitches - Why should sports clubs have to cancel their matches because the pitches are destroyed by people who aren't content with a house party/going to the pub?

EduKate

HughOrBrady wrote: »

As for the pitches - Why should sports clubs have to cancel their matches because the pitches are destroyed by people who aren't content with a house party/going to the pub?

For 1 day a year.

gubbie

Heh, Johnny Cosgrove misspelled his name on the petition.

The ball is absolute awful crap. Closing down the whole university means that your only option for celebrating the end of uni days is in a over packed ball full of squeezed in louts.

I was glad to have had two years where the student union didn't ruin my end of year.

*For the record I was a class rep/programme officer for 3 years so I was at the event and got a free ticket every year - I used it for about 30 minutes one year and vowed never to waste such precious moments again.

WeeBushy

EduKate wrote: »

For 1 day a year.

In fairness, the pitches take a lot longer than one day to recover.

mloc

EduKate wrote: »

Reclaim the Campus Party
Police, Services, Bonfires and Buckfast
University of Complete Disorder

What a load of pseudoanarchic crap.

melekalikimaka

mloc wrote: »

What a load of pseudoanarchic crap.

your not hipster enough, its not pseudoanarchic... you just don't get it...

Healium

Oasis_Dublin wrote: »

http://saveourball.com/ campaign has begun. Apparently stalls to go up all over campus from tomorrow and online petitions etc.
Source: Belfield FM

Interesting to see if anything happens after this. Considering the months of planning and permissions required, I doubt it (at least, not the Ball in it's current form). Perhaps there could be an alternative venue?

But, petitions and twibbons alone won't get a 2011 Ball.

ironclaw

Healium wrote: »

Interesting to see if anything happens after this. Considering the months of planning and permissions required, I doubt it (at least, not the Ball in it's current form). Perhaps there could be an alternative venue?

But, petitions and twibbons alone won't get a 2011 Ball.

Good point. Its a feel good "hey look we tried" attempt. Its not going to save it at this stage. Put it to bed for another year.

As regards the "alternative ball" I love the mentality of "They can't punish us all" Who said they had to? They'll just punish who they can collar on the day, most likely the poorly informed idiot who saw a FaceBook event and went along with it. The Gardai ain't so stupid and they dealt with the May Day / Student Protests pretty effectively.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Show us the printed tickets and the headliners. If the ball was ever going to go ahead then they are the proof.

lydiac

im so disappointed about the cancellation of the ball, all year ive been looking forward to it and i thought the ball last year was great!! Realistically most students don't take part in many ents events throughout the year and the Ball is the one event that guarantees a vast student interest. I personally think johnny shouldn't have spent so much time and money on the fashion show and spent more of his time dealing with the ball. Poor show Johnny, its what your paid to do.

upandcumming

ironclaw wrote: »

Good point. Its a feel good "hey look we tried" attempt. Its not going to save it at this stage. Put it to bed for another year.

As regards the "alternative ball" I love the mentality of "They can't punish us all" Who said they had to? They'll just punish who they can collar on the day, most likely the poorly informed idiot who saw a FaceBook event and went along with it. The Gardai ain't so stupid and they dealt with the May Day / Student Protests pretty effectively.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Show us the printed tickets and the headliners. If the ball was ever going to go ahead then they are the proof.

I was about to post that. Nothing is going to come of it, they're just going to do it and when it inevitably fails, "ah sorry lads..."
And great idea about showing the printed tickets...

Deeluu

Also, the SU did know about the Ball being cancelled during the elections as I heard it from a source that the news editor of The College Tribune was informed by Gary Fox on Thursday afternoon that "he had some very big news for him" and then on Sunday released the official statement!

Offside

Deeluu wrote: »

Also, the SU did know about the Ball being cancelled during the elections as I heard it from a source that the news editor of The College Tribune was informed by Gary Fox on Thursday afternoon that "he had some very big news for him" and then on Sunday released the official statement!

There was a big Sabbat meeting on the Wednesday so they would have known then at the latest. Could it be they delayed announcing the cancellation in order to help De Brún out? He surely would have been punished at the ballot boxes.

parker kent

EduKate wrote: »

For 1 day a year.

Have you ever seen the damage to grass after an event like that? There was virtually no grass left on the lawn beside Quinn last year. It is a completely impractical idea. The damage caused would cost a lot of time and money to repair.

EduKate

oh noes, not the precious lawn by Quinn.

HughOrBrady

EduKate wrote: »

For 1 day a year.

Actually it's a bit longer, as all the pitches would have to be checked for broken glass.

Pierce_1991

OSI wrote: »

Where do you live? We'll all show up on the last day of term seeing as you clearly don't mind making **** of any open space you won't mind us destroying your garden. No?

The lawn beside Quinn is your garden?

melekalikimaka

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

The lawn beside Quinn is your garden?

the point that was being made was lost on you?

Pierce_1991

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the point that was being made was lost on you?

Nah it wasn't, no points are lost on me

parker kent

EduKate wrote: »

oh noes, not the precious lawn by Quinn.

Did you miss the point? The lawn beside Quinn was destroyed. Yet you seem to think sports clubs should give up their pitches to be equally destroyed.

Bluefox21

parker kent wrote: »

Did you miss the point? The lawn beside Quinn was destroyed. Yet you seem to think sports clubs should give up their pitches to be equally destroyed.

Saying they were destroyed is a gross exaggeration! I was playing soccer on them a week later and they were no worse than usual. I'm sure the clubs would be more than happy to take the money for using the pitches. The amount of money needed to restore them is very insignificant compared to most of the other costs for a ball of this size. It's not as if they'd have to pay this clean up bill themselves.

Sierra Oscar

parker kent wrote: »

Did you miss the point? The lawn beside Quinn was destroyed. Yet you seem to think sports clubs should give up their pitches to be equally destroyed.

Destroyed? I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. It seemed to recover quite quickly if I remember correctly. I don't even think there was a need for new grass to be sown. When the exams were finished it looked pretty healthy again.

All the same I cannot see clubs giving up their pitches. There is a big difference between a pitch and a lawn.

parker kent

Bluefox21 wrote: »

Saying they were destroyed is a gross exaggeration! I was playing soccer on them a week later and they were no worse than usual. I'm sure the clubs would be more than happy to take the money for using the pitches. The amount of money needed to restore them is very insignificant compared to most of the other costs for a ball of this size. It's not as if they'd have to pay this clean up bill themselves.

The area where the stage was did not recover a week later. It was much longer before that area was the same. The other areas did but they didn't suffer the same damage. Then factor in that the actual pitches would be much more vulnerable to stages and general wear and tear from crowds.

Sierra Oscar

The pitches could be covered with that protective material that is used whenever concerts are held in stadiums. That may add extra expense, although I have heard that such material would have been used at the original venue in anycase in order to protect the running track.

Healium

Ah, apparently Pat De Brún/the SU are running this Save Our Ball thing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At least, Pat posted a comment on the Facebook page, and the next post was from the owner of the page, saying the exact same thing. Oops.

I figured it was organized by some random student(s), and it wasn't really going to go anywhere. If this is what the SU is doing, it's a bit disheartening. I figured they'd be trying to organize another event, not getting you to put a twibbon on your avatar :rolleyes:

P.S. Twibbons are stupid.

Fad

Healium wrote: »

Ah, apparently Pat De Brún/the SU are running this Save Our Ball thing. Correct me if I'm wrong.

At least, Pat posted a comment on the Facebook page, and the next post was from the owner of the page, saying the exact same thing. Oops.

I figured it was organized by some random student(s), and it wasn't really going to go anywhere. If this is what the SU is doing, it's a bit disheartening. I figured they'd be trying to organize another event, not getting you to put a twibbon on your avatar :rolleyes:

P.S. Twibbons are stupid.

It's being run by the SU, apparently the headliner issues and the permissions being withdrawn are a horrible conincidence, so they're trying to sort something out*

*Dont shoot the messenger, this is just what my program officer has relayed.

Bluefox21

This is so ridiculous. Trying to save a ball that isn't going ahead due to their own incompetence. Instead, they should be learning how to draw up a proper contract and figuring out how to get an event with 4999 people going.

Theresalwaysone

An event similar to the one on May Day 2007 would be a great success.

Admittedly the sunshine that day made it what it was, but the buzz about the forum bar was great.

Probably not a runner now given the Forum is closes and the SU Bar's location makes it hard but I think that end of term day in 2007 proves that it doesnt need to be all bells and whistles.

IMO anyway.

Ahoyhoy

The reason this is such a disaster is because UCD was so determined to be able to beat Trinity and say that the UCD Ball is Europe's largest private party. The huge capacity of the ball meant they had to have a special agreement and now look. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Also people who say that if Trinity can shut down for the day then UCD should be able to, have you seen either of the campuses? UCD is freaking huge with loads of roads running through it with public traffic and even public transport going through it. Trinity on the other hand allows vehicle traffic through one gate and one gate only and even then they allow bugger all cars in. It's incredibly easy to shut down that campus, especially given that there's a big ass wall around most of it.

Also I do think the whole "Save Our Ball" is an absolute sham. Even the FAQ page like, if you had a bloody headliner why not tell people who it was? If they were any good it would sure add steam to the campaign and get people pissed off and keen to join in because they're annoyed they missed such an awesome act.

And even if it was ultimately the fault of the "authorities" they should at lease admit that it was a welcome coincidence and saved them from having to admit they had no headliner!

upandcumming

Now they're wasting time and money on this campaign, with card and t-shirt printing. Load of arse the whole lot.

hatrickpatrick

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

The pitches could be covered with that protective material that is used whenever concerts are held in stadiums. That may add extra expense, although I have heard that such material would have been used at the original venue in anycase in order to protect the running track.

This is an extremely good point - how long was it before matches could be played in Croker after U2 360?

AIR-AUSSIE

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is an extremely good point - how long was it before matches could be played in Croker after U2 360?

Didn't they have to completely re-sod the pitch after that concert? Or was it just a coincidence that it occurred afterwards?

stop

EduKate wrote: »

Screw the ball.

Go to the off-licence > buy booze > drink on the pitches en masse.

The argument against drinking on pitches started in this thread because of the above comment - i.e crowds showing up, drinking on pitches, lighting bonfires, and leaving rubbish/broken glass behind.

There's a big difference between that and a planned event that will possibly have the pitch covered, and a planned timeframe to return the pitch to normal use.

I don't think most folk will have a problem with a planned event on a pitch, but a lot will have a problem with selfish SP folk sticking it to the man in ucd by showing up and destroying a pitch of their choosing.

Pierce_1991

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Didn't they have to completely re-sod the pitch after that concert? Or was it just a coincidence that it occurred afterwards?

They were planning on relaying the surface anyway but rather intelligently waited until after the concert and I think made the organisers pay a bit of the cost. There's concerts in Croker regularly without pitches being relayed. Take That are doing two dates in June, right in the middle of the championship. Doesn't cause much damage, just like the Ball last year didn't cause much damage

WeeBushy

Pierce_1991 wrote: »

They were planning on relaying the surface anyway but rather intelligently waited until after the concert and I think made the organisers pay a bit of the cost. There's concerts in Croker regularly without pitches being relayed. Take That are doing two dates in June, right in the middle of the championship. Doesn't cause much damage, just like the Ball last year didn't cause much damage

Planned events probably don't cause too much damage, but what happened at the end of term in 2007, when people just turned up on the pitches opposite the sports centre and went mad, did.

parker kent

stop wrote: »

The argument against drinking on pitches started in this thread because of the above comment - i.e crowds showing up, drinking on pitches, lighting bonfires, and leaving rubbish/broken glass behind.

There's a big difference between that and a planned event that will possibly have the pitch covered, and a planned timeframe to return the pitch to normal use.

I don't think most folk will have a problem with a planned event on a pitch, but a lot will have a problem with selfish SP folk sticking it to the man in ucd by showing up and destroying a pitch of their choosing.

Yeah I should have added that to my points, I thought it was self-explanatory though. The Ball last year was used as an example of what can happen to unprotected grass when drunken goons are trampling all over it. Not as an example of what would happen if an actual pitch was pre-prepared, covered etc. The 2007 example is a better like-for-like comparison.

So to repeat, planned events with protected pitches are OK. Ideas like EduKate's and the 2007 events are selfish, idiotic and damaging.

melekalikimaka

that stuff is a demon to put down, weighs a mighty ton and is not cheap. cant remember the name offhand, theres white pastic used at croke and walkways at oxegen then steel used at outdoor gigs to really protect the soil, i cant see the budget stretching that far, if you work out the costs roughly, its amazing they ran it the last few years

gubbie

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

An event similar to the one on May Day 2007 would be a great success.

Admittedly the sunshine that day made it what it was, but the buzz about the forum bar was great.

Probably not a runner now given the Forum is closes and the SU Bar's location makes it hard but I think that end of term day in 2007 proves that it doesnt need to be all bells and whistles.

IMO anyway.

That was an incredible year.

ironclaw

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that they managed to print 100's of "Save our Ball" T-Shirts and Flyers within a day? Seeing as most if not all printers are closed on weekends.

stop

ironclaw wrote: »

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that they managed to print 100's of "Save our Ball" T-Shirts and Flyers within a day? Seeing as most if not all printers are closed on weekends.

They've known for some time the ball would be cancelled. It was delayed until after the elections, then until after april fools :rolleyes:

Conor108

ironclaw wrote: »

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that they managed to print 100's of "Save our Ball" T-Shirts and Flyers within a day? Seeing as most if not all printers are closed on weekends.

Jesus they've actually printed t-shirts? There's like 2 weeks until when the ball should've been, sure they know nothing can be done from scratch at this stage. Just wasting money so they can look like they're doing something.

ironclaw

ironclaw wrote: »

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that they managed to print 100's of "Save our Ball" T-Shirts and Flyers within a day? Seeing as most if not all printers are closed on weekends.

The printer service that the SU and most societies use can get print runs pulled through in less than 12 hours no problem. They're also open at the weekends.

That being said, what a waste of money