Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UCD Ball 2011
Options
Comments
-
Killer Pigeon wrote: »Well there's your solution. MCD should organise the UCD Ball in the future, not the incompetent UCD Ents.
Lol! IncomopetENTS!0 -
FiendishFriend wrote: »Seems UCD Authorities are to blame after all, know from somebody working in UCD that the facebook page was being closely monitored by authorities in UCD and probably boards too. Apparently UCD thought from all the comments on the page there would be trouble on the day and so cancelled it !! So really all those morons posting the sick comments are to blame. I was really disappointed to hear it was cancelled and thought the line up was piss poor and the tickets waaaaaaaay too expensive but ya can't go sending death threats to someone. One guy said he was gonna send the IRA after jonny !!! NOT COOL!!! All because of a few bands????
Complain all you want but do it in a reasonable way. UCD really did have to take those comments seriously because if it had gone ahead and trouble did break out there would have been no excuses !!! Also all those retarded comments on the facebook page made us look like the biggest bunch of ignorant pigs ever... We're supposed to be highly educated, articulate people, some of the brightest in the country they'd have us believe yet we leave comments like " I'm gonna f**k you up "
Also must add this is a first for me defending anything the union do
From what I heard from around the campfire the SU werent being too clever in getting permission to run the ball and getting the relevant licences etc. Most likely nothing to do with what the SU calls "UCD Authorities" - which is a wonderfully ambiguous phrase....what "Authorities"? If it WAS their fault the SU would surely name them to deflect all the blame thats bound to come....0 -
Killer Pigeon wrote: »Well there's your solution. MCD should organise the UCD Ball in the future, not the incompetent UCD Ents.
The reason UCD ball is cheaper, is because MCD is not involved. People are giving out about the 5e increase from 35-40. To get MCD onboard would cost another 30-40 on top of that. So it'd be 70-80 for MCD run UCD ball, and at that, it's the acts that MCD dish out, and who is available at the time.0 -
FiendishFriend wrote: »I don't think they could get away with blatantly blaming the UCD Authorities like that though, Surely UCD wouldn't put up with that right?? There would be serious repercussions for the union if they stated in and white on their website that UCD Authorities were to blame when it was in fact their own fault. I don't think they are that thick to try and do that.. Also know for a fact that academic and admin staff in ucd were monitoring that page and will not be surprised if some of those people have to face disciplinary action
the college will set there position out when someone is actually there i expect.but the main point is if your being told for weeks that ya cant have the ball but announce a lineup?i fail to make any sense of that0 -
Killer Pigeon wrote: »The fact is the union have some of the blame for not getting there act together on time.
I would say the majority of the blame. The way the lineup was announced and ticket sales postponed was terrible.
Not having the ball may in fact increase the chance of trouble. 6000 students with no ball to go to may cause more trouble.0 -
Advertisement
-
itll cause awful trouble. people will still get drunk all over campus on the day the ball was scheduled for!!!0
-
FiendishFriend wrote: »Seems UCD Authorities are to blame after all, know from somebody working in UCD that the facebook page was being closely monitored by authorities in UCD and probably boards too. Apparently UCD thought from all the comments on the page there would be trouble on the day and so cancelled it !! So really all those morons posting the sick comments are to blame. I was really disappointed to hear it was cancelled and thought the line up was piss poor and the tickets waaaaaaaay too expensive but ya can't go sending death threats to someone. One guy said he was gonna send the IRA after jonny !!! NOT COOL!!! All because of a few bands????
Complain all you want but do it in a reasonable way. UCD really did have to take those comments seriously because if it had gone ahead and trouble did break out there would have been no excuses !!! Also all those retarded comments on the facebook page made us look like the biggest bunch of ignorant pigs ever... We're supposed to be highly educated, articulate people, some of the brightest in the country they'd have us believe yet we leave comments like " I'm gonna f**k you up "
Also must add this is a first for me defending anything the union do
Embarassing excuse, embarassing. If this is another SU backdoor excuse it is as lame as the other one. The whole organisation of the Ball this year has been pathetic.
El Presidente must be ****ting himself that this could dent his Seanad chances. He shouldn't have been running in the first place whilst still in charge of such a large Union. Their eyes have been off the ball in the SU.0 -
ucd will be absolutely nuts on the 21st0
-
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »
Not having the ball may in fact increase the chance of trouble. 6000 students with no ball to go to may cause more trouble.
Doubt it! I'd say the clubs in town are salivating at this prospect! They'll make a killing that night i think!0 -
there closing at 12 though n i dont fancy being in a nightclub in the daytime0
-
Advertisement
-
rebecca1988 wrote: »itll cause awful trouble. people will still get drunk all over campus on the day the ball was scheduled for!!!
That is why the lame ass excuse posted above holds no water.
UCD instead of having the students themselves paying for extra security needed through their tickets and all being confined to one area of the campus will have students littered accross campus drinking and they are going to have to hire extra security for that.0 -
The UCD Ball appealed to me because of the cheaper ticket (in comparison to Trinity Ball) and the casualness of it. I went last year, didn't listen to a single act and had a fantastic time. Sure, black tie events are fun but there are dozens of balls throughout the year - plenty of opportunity to get dressed up!
For me, the UCD Ball was different and you could make a whole day out of it. We had a BBQ last year and pre drinks in a nearby house, then hit up the ball around 4pm. The weather was awesome and chilling out with friends in a field, drinking and messing was a nice change from the usual pre-drinks, hit a nightclub, out till 4am thing.
Of course the ball wasn't perfect - but most people were having too much fun to notice. The bar was a mess, jammed and served only beer for most of the day. The acts weren't great (but better than this year's selection anyway) but there were few people who even passed any heed of them.
I'm not in UCD anymore and hence sorta out of the loop but where were they planning on holding it this year? Last year's venue (which is now a carpark I think) was perfect. Miles better than the concrete in front of the student centre the previous year. It'd be hard to beat last year's set up.
Anyway, long and short of it is, I'm not surprised it was cancelled this year but it is a pity for those looking forward to it. I also think the UCD Ball as a festival is a better idea than a black tie event and can only hope next year's SU does a better job at organising it!
This is why the UCD Ball is better as a casual event. It is just a far better day. I've been to a black tie UCD Ball and it sucked. It was based in and outside the student centre and was just crap. Whereas last year was perfect. It is just like one long BBQ with drinks, friends and some music with the backdrop of UCD behind you.
And as I and a few others have said, there are more than enough black tie events throughout the year.0 -
Doubt it! I'd say the clubs in town are salivating at this prospect! They'll make a killing that night i think!
While true I believe most people will start drinking VERY early and in UCD either naker drinking in fields or in residences. Drinking will probably start in the afternoon with no nightclubs to go to.0 -
wonder if they will even get somewhere in town organised from lik 4-12 to stop all the hassle thats going to happen on campus!0
-
CMoonheadNo1 wrote: »Embarassing excuse, embarassing. If this is another SU backdoor excuse it is as lame as the other one. The whole organisation of the Ball this year has been pathetic.
El Presidente must be ****ting himself that this could dent his Seanad chances. He shouldn't have been running in the first place whilst still in charge of such a large Union. Their eyes have been off the ball in the SU.
How would you know anything about the organisation behind the ball unless you were involved? Like i said it was a poor line-up and i'm generally an anti union head but it seems to me people are making ill judged assumptions about the organisation of the ball with regards permits and the likes based purely on the fact that the line-up was shoddy!! Nobody really knows but people just want jump on the "i hate ents" bandwagon, theres no defending some of those comments and i wouldn't be at all surprised if they had some act or part in the cancellation of the ball!! People need to wait until the facts become available and stop levying this ridiculous stream of hate against one man! Its gone way too far!! Must also reiterate how anti union i am, I am a habitual RON voter and am all too familiar with cronyism in the union but i personally think no matter how unpopular it may be that the students reaction to the line up did play a contributary factor in the cancelling of the ball
* awaits backlash0 -
rebecca1988 wrote: »wonder if they will even get somewhere in town organised from lik 4-12 to stop all the hassle thats going to happen on campus!
Doubt it! Where would they get with sufficient capacity at this short notice?0 -
FiendishFriend wrote: »How would you know anything about the organisation behind the ball unless you were involved? Like i said it was a poor line-up and i'm generally an anti union head but it seems to me people are making ill judged assumptions about the organisation of the ball with regards permits and the likes based purely on the fact that the line-up was shoddy!! Nobody really knows but people just want jump on the "i hate ents" bandwagon, theres no defending some of those comments and i wouldn't be at all surprised if they had some act or part in the cancellation of the ball!! People need to wait until the facts become available and stop levying this ridiculous stream of hate against one man! Its gone way too far!! Must also reiterate how anti union i am, I am a habitual RON voter and am all too familiar with cronyism in the union but i personally think no matter how unpopular it may be that the students reaction to the line up did play a contributary factor in the cancelling of the ball
* awaits backlash
Ah yes criticising us for our "assumptions" while your argument was based on hearsay from someone you "know" who "works in UCD". :rolleyes:
I work in UCD, does that mean my opinion on the matter holds more weight? Didn't think so :rolleyes:0 -
AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »Ah yes criticising us for our "assumptions" while your argument was based on hearsay from someone you "know" who "works in UCD". :rolleyes:
I work in UCD, does that mean my opinion on the matter holds more weight? Didn't think so :rolleyes:
The interest in the event page became almost viral of course it was gonna come to the attention of UCD staff. The title of the page was UCD BALL 2011! For that reason alone its under the jurisdiction of UCD. Any comments on it reflect back on the college and can potentially bring the college into disrepute, When it contains the colleges name it IS the responsibility of UCD to keep an eye on it. And the comments contained on that page to any reasonable person were concerning!!!0 -
whats ur argument exactly of course ucd monitor everything ucd related but for you to come out with a claim from an in the know saying it was over the reaction to the lineup. Although the su admit on the website permission had not been granted for weeks but they still pushed on with the idea how cant the ucdsu not be blamed0
-
whats ur argument exactly of course ucd monitor everything ucd related but for you to come out with a claim from an in the know saying it was over the reaction to the lineup. Although the su admit on the website permission had not been granted for weeks but they still pushed on with the idea how cant the ucdsu not be blamed
The statement on the website doesn't say weeks it says "over the last week" which does put it in the same time frame as the announcement of the line up which is when the backlash started. I also never said i knew for a fact this was the reason for the cancellation, I said i knew for a fact the page was being monitored as my aunt is an administrative staff member at UCD and she told me that they were concerned, not concrete evidence i'll agree but thats how I formed my conclusion. she told me the college was aware of the events page and reminded me to be very careful about keeping my page private and not to leave a comment on the page. My argument is i guess that while there may have been some issues with permits (i have no idea if there were or not) , the college was probably reluctant to let the ball proceed in light of the comments and so in other years may have let it slide but this year probably looked for any excuse to cancel it to prevent any outbursts of trouble on the day
Which i think was stupid anyway cos there is more chance of a riot now than before cos people are so pissed off about it being cancelled0 -
Advertisement
-
You've gone from this;FiendishFriend wrote: »Seems UCD Authorities are to blame after all, know from somebody working in UCD that the facebook page was being closely monitored by authorities in UCD and probably boards too. Apparently UCD thought from all the comments on the page there would be trouble on the day and so cancelled it !!
To this;FiendishFriend wrote: »i wouldn't be at all surprised if they had some act or part in the cancellation of the ball!!
So you've gone from giving us hearsay which you probably made up to an opinion.
I don't like the very personal abuse of JC but it is his job (which he is elected and paid for doing) to get this organised. It is the cornerstone of Ents.
It isn't just him either, plenty of officers in the SU need to take a good long look at themselves including the President.
I don't need to be party to the organisation to know they made a **** up of this.
They have either done this or addmitted the following:
(1) Not announced headliners when trying to flog tickets
(2) Not having adequate security in place for selling tickets (an ENTS admission) thus delaying sales.
(3) Not having properly organised with Authorities for the event and thus cancelling just 19 days before it goes ahead. (Another ENTS admission).
There is a recession on but that should make this event easier to organise tbh. Compared to 3/4 years ago prices accross the bored are down. Such is the nature of this being the last day of term, this event only needs passable acts to sell out but they couldn't even organise that or at least organise acts in time that they wouldn't have had the initial ****storm over the Ball.0 -
where do ents admit they didn't properly organise the event properly with UCD authorities? They certainly didn't do that in their statement on the website quite the opposite in fact, as i said before I didn't intend to imply i knew for a fact that was the reason although my wording is ambiguous i accept, I did mean to say i know for a fact that UCD were watching the page believe that or not i don't really care . I do agree with you the union is a load of ****e read my first ever posts on boards and you'll see, in fact i only ever really set up a boards account to vent my frustration about the corruption in the union as i know its a stomping ground for anti-union folk. But that doesn't mean that its fair just to lay complete blame at their door when in my opinion which i am entitled to have there is evidence that the nature of the comments left on the facebook event page may have influenced UCD's decision to prevent the ball from going ahead0
-
You've gone from claiming that was the reason to saying it is your opinion.
Not having organised properly with UCD that they had the relevant clearance from authorities for Campus closure before they started advertising and supposed to be selling tickets (they were due last week) is an admission in my book.
If I'm organising a 21st, I make sure I have all the clearances with the venue I want it in before I go ahead to try publicize and try to sell tickets for it (which they tried but have admitted not having adequate security in place).
The buck stops with the Ents officer. He doesn't deserve personal abuse but his performance in this job was shocking I'm really sorry to say. The President who has been an officer before and really knows the ropes deserves a lot of criticism here.0 -
Someone needs to keep an eye on Lynam... jk.
Not Johnny's fault, and he really doesn't deserve the abuse he's getting, as Pat de Bruin said, It's disgusting.0 -
FiendishFriend wrote: »where do ents admit they didn't properly organise the event properly with UCD authorities? They certainly didn't do that in their statement on the website quite the opposite in fact, as i said before I didn't intend to imply i knew for a fact that was the reason although my wording is ambiguous i accept, I did mean to say i know for a fact that UCD were watching the page believe that or not i don't really care .
I heard from my friend who works in UCD that the SU neglected to inform an aspect of the administration about the event.
They wanted to close campus for half a day, this means giving a few thousand staff in UCD a half day. The staff may want this, their bosses may not have. But the bosses have to be consulted on it, something the SU did not do.0 -
HughOrBrady wrote: »I heard from my friend who works in UCD that the SU neglected to inform an aspect of the administration about the event.
They wanted to close campus for half a day, this means giving a few thousand staff in UCD a half day. The staff may want this, their bosses may not have. But the bosses have to be consulted on it, something the SU did not do.
Shocking if true but I can't believe it anymore that can I believe the other person with their other insider in UCD staff. It does make much more sense though for several reasons.
Tuesday: Acts announced and derision at the lack of headliners announced comes from many quarters.
Wed: Sale of tickets suspended until Monday Coming
Saturday: Event cancelled due to the renaging of an agreement, apparently.
The events don't stack up imo and we aren't being told the full story.
Why would UCD wait until after (Saturday) tickets were supposed to go on sale to tell the SU they were pulling the plug? UCD would surely have told them before they started publicizing and supposed to sell tickets that it was a no go.
The SU can't argue that the push back in tickets which we were originally told was due to security was because they were actually negotiating with UCD as they announced part of the lineup on Tuesday in anticipation of selling tickets the next day.
The person above who said UCD might have pulled the plug because they were fearful of trouble due to that FB doesn't make sense either. This will cost them more to hire extra security for Black Thursday and have more drunkards all over campus.
Through all the various theories we have on here there is in each one a huge **** up in the SU and somebody needs to be held accountable.0 -
-
Source-UCDENTS.COM
UCD Ball - FAQ's
Why was the UCD Ball cancelled?
The FAQ's below have been compiled as a result of questions posed on the internet and questions that have been sent directly to the Students' Union. It is important to point out that under Irish Law (Planning and Development (Licensing of Outdoor Events) Regulations 2001) any event that has a capacity of over 4999 people requires planning permission from a local authority. As part of this process and in line with previous years, conditions are laid down by the Gardaí, HSE, Dublin Fire Brigade, the Environmental Unit of Dún Laoghaire and observations from local residents. UCD Students' Union hired diffusion events (the event management team behind Oxegen, Marley Park and Dún Laoghaire Festival of World Cultures) to both manage the event and to apply for the event licence on behalf of UCD Students' Union. In December 2010, following agreement from UCD, UCD Students' Union lodged its application for an event licence which includes:
"UCD Campus will close to both pedestrian and vehicle traffic except emergency services and event related transport from 13.00 on Thursday, April 21st.'
As part of the application process UCDSU, advertised its intention to apply for such a licence in both local and national print media (Evening Herald, Irish Independent).
On February 11th, Dún Laoghaire County Council granted a license to UCD Students' Union to hold the UCD Ball based on the licence application submitted in December, in addition to 30 other conditions (in line with 2010)
In late March, the Students' Union were made aware that the University felt that they could not close the campus at 1pm as previously agreed and the university was therefore not in a position to comply with the licence for the UCD Ball 2011.
Following consultation with the professional event management team, the Students' Union immediately proposed the following modification to section 4.3 of the event licence application, any deviation from the initial application requires approval from the statutory agencies. (Gardaí, HSE, Dublin Fire Brigade)
"The campus will not be closed and normal campus activities lectures and sports activities will occur but there will be no vehicular access onto the campus from 1:00pm except for emergency or ball related traffic, however vehicles already on the campus will be allowed to leave through one designated exit on campus. Pedestrian access through all gates will be maintained."
This proposal was rejected by the Gardaí on health and safety grounds. As the university would not close the campus at 1 pm despite their previous commitment to doing so, the licence for UCD Ball 2011 was therefore null and void meaning the event is not legally allowed to proceed.
What alternatives did the Students' Union propose?
1. The Students' Union proposed an amendment to the application which was rejected. See previous question.
2. The Students' Union proposed an unlicensed 4999 capacity event (as per UCD Ball 2008 and 2009). For health and safety reasons this was rejected by the statutory agencies (see above) as they felt the capacity would be too limited based on previous experience.
3. Both the University and the Students' Union consulted the event management company to investigate the feasibility of having an off campus event (O2, RDS etc)
This was not possible given the short time frame for a number of reasons both logistical & financial.
The projected cost for an off-campus event was in excess of €250,000.00 (costs provided by Diffusion Events). UCD SU would have needed to sell 7240 tickets to break even for an off campus event based on the additional costs and no revenue from beverage and food sales. In light of this, and the fact that we would not satisfy the demand of the student body, this event was not a viable option.
What happened to the budget?
The SU does not set aside a budget for the UCD Ball. The budget is based on an eighty percent sell-out rate of the ball and the projected alcohol and food sales. As no tickets have been sold for this event, there is NO outstanding budget. The only cost associated to the ball thus far is the cost of promotion and preparation of the event license.
Why the original increase in price?
Many factors contributed to the increase in cost from previous years. The change of location (which was necessary due to the fact that last year's venue was no longer available, it is now the site of the Sutherland school of Law) meant that there was a cost difference that unfortunately must be covered in the ticket price. As the site used last year is now a construction site there was no costs relating to returning the site to its original condition. This was not to be the case this year as the running track would have been required for its original purpose as soon as possible.
The second factor which must be considered is relating to the stipulations laid down by the Gardaí. This year the Gardaí have insisted that increased security and an additional Garda presence would be necessary for the event to be licensed. UCD Students' Union would need to cover this cost. The final factor which contributed to the increase in cost price was the fact that the capacity has been limited, again by a stipulation enforced by the Gardaí (see answer to question above).
Was campus closed in previous years?
In previous years only the areas of the campus directly affected by the ball were closed early however during the 2010 Ball it became necessary to close large parts of the campus for operational reasons.
In light of the need to close the campus during the 2010 Ball, it was a stipulation in the event license application (see above) that the campus must be closed.
A campus closure would involve the shutting down of buildings and the cancellation of teaching hours. Last year was the first year that a licence was necessary for the event due to the numbers attending. In previous years a licence was not required as the capacity was well below that which deems a licence necessary.
What is the plan now?
The Students' Union Executive will meet on Monday to plan the next steps. Negotiations will continue until a satisfactory outcome is worked out. Following the Executive meeting on Monday UCD SU will announce details of the next steps.
Was this a result of unconfirmed headline acts?
No. When the line-up was released on Tuesday 29th March, it was stated explicitly that these were the support acts only. As in previous years the headliners or main support acts were announced initially. (This process is standard throughout the music industry and students will be familiar with this process from Oxegen etc. where acts are announced in stages). Students unfortunately assumed that this was the final line up.
A specific plan was laid out in terms of promotion and this was being followed. The announcement of headline acts was due to take place the week commencing April 4th.
Will you not still have to pay all the bands, resulting in a waste of students' money?
UCD SU inserted a stipulation into the contract between UCDSU and all acts that the contract could be terminated by UCD SU if the SU was unable to gain the necessary legal approval for the Ball.
For further information, Students' Union Council will take place on Tuesday April 5th. Please contact your class rep in order to pass on any input. Council will take place at 6pm in FS01, AG Building.0 -
Somebody is telling porkies.
Why would UCD only inform them this week of a change of mind?
I am curious to the agreement they made to shut down campus. I have had regular lectures for the Thursday still timetabled. We asked the lecturer if it could be rescheduled, she was unable to fufill that request. If UCD had agreed to shut down campus in December, then surely automatically in January our timetable would have been amended and just like for Good Friday, alternative slots found. Clearly none of the lecturers or staff knew that campus was supposed to be shutting down. If UCD did make that commitment in December, then it is of course a spectacular **** up on their part. However, Why hadn't UCDSU, after agreeing with UCD in December to shut down at 1 that day, an active role in rescheduling lectures?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah-ha: so it's the Garda's fault, for thinking the threat of violence is serious enough to require the closure of the whole bloody campus, on the last day of lectures before exams? Remind me again, what does the "U" stand for in "UCD"?
The UCD Ball is dead, killed by students too thick to know how to enjoy themselves safely. If the Tribune needs someone to write an obituary, I'd be happy to volunteer at no charge, since it would be a very quick job.Death has this much to be said for it:
You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
Wherever you happen to be
They bring it to you—free.— Kingsley Amis
0
Advertisement