UCD Ball 2011

LUPE

melekalikimaka wrote: »

if you base your opinions on assumptions and hearsay...yes. if you go by facts and evidence and statements from firsthand sources over boards.ie...no

Statements from first-hand sources being Ents, who have no credibility thus putting in doubt whether this evidence is, indeed, fact.
These were posted a few pages back and it hasn't stopped any debate or rumours, only fueled it. Just because it's on their website hasn't doesn't mean it's black and white. Why? Because Ents has zero credibility at this stage.

melekalikimaka

LUPE wrote: »

Statements from first-hand sources being Ents, who have no credibility thus putting in doubt whether this evidence is, indeed, fact.
These were posted a few pages back and it hasn't stopped any debate or rumours, only fueled it. Just because it's on their website hasn't doesn't mean it's black and white. Why? Because Ents has zero credibility at this stage.

didnt really say much there bar your original comment so i'll leave you be

Pierce_1991

I think I'm satisfied with the reasons Ents have put forward for the cancellation. I don't believe they'd just make all that up. I'd love to know who they had lined up as the headliners though

Gingy

I;m not satisfied with that at all. When you're running an event like this, every minor detail should be gone over thoroughly, including this. The University should have been informed about the Thursday event months ago and got in writing that they were willing to close the campus.

Also, I am aware that it is a bit late now, but surely the Friday before/after could have been suggested...or even (dare I suggest) Good Friday itself.

Oasis_Dublin

Gingy wrote: »

Also ...(dare I suggest) Good Friday itself.

This is against the ethos of the Catholic University of Ireland and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Bluefox21

Facebook wrote: »

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.

What kind of an explanation is that? Statutory agencies???? As you yourselves have highlighted you do not need a license for an event with less than 5k people attending. Capacity too limited? With the acts you had announced a 5000 capacity would have been more than adequate. Really disagree with all the personal insults but the cancellation is a blatant cop-out. This should be going ahead albeit with a smaller capacity than last year.

Quote taken from their facebook page. Anyone have a legitimate reason as to why it could not have gone ahead with a reduced capacity???

hatrickpatrick

To everyone saying it's reasonable for them to refuse to close the campus, it isn't.
What it for, why they're closing it, and what closure would mean, are all completely irrelevant.

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.

Key part is in bold. UCD agreed to do this. Reneging on such a commitment, whatever the reasons, is an absolute disgrace. If you're not willing to do something then that's fine, but don't f*cking say you are and allow other people's plans to subsequently get completely bollocksed up when you suddenly turn around and say "I've change my mind, I'm not doing it".

UCD gave a commitment that they were going to do it. They didn't do it.
Ergo they ARE in the wrong here. Period.

Bluefox21

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To everyone saying it's reasonable for them to refuse to close the campus, it isn't.
What it for, why they're closing it, and what closure would mean, are all completely irrelevant.


Key part is in bold. UCD agreed to do this. Reneging on such a commitment, whatever the reasons, is an absolute disgrace. If you're not willing to do something then that's fine, but don't f*cking say you are and allow other people's plans to subsequently get completely bollocksed up when you suddenly turn around and say "I've change my mind, I'm not doing it".

UCD gave a commitment that they were going to do it. They didn't do it.
Ergo they ARE in the wrong here. Period.

Wouldn't mind seeing this so-called commitment. In this day an age it would be incredibly naive of the SU not to have a contract with UCD so this kind of thing can't happen. Very easy to just say UCD went back on their commitment. It's up to the SU to form an agreement whereby one can't simply decide against a prior commitment. We're talking about very simple business concepts here. Concepts that seem to be beyond the current union. Here's hoping Pat de Brún has the ability to shake things up next year. At least he'll have studied contract law:P

Regardless, a license isn't needed for a 5k capacity. Still cannot understand why a smaller ball could not have been held.

melekalikimaka

5000 still has a huge amount of costs involved, they ball runs on a economy of scale of sorts, tickets would need to be circa 70 to cover costs I think, will cause more hissyfits from the moany marys and just a bad buzz. there is in general a negative buzz towards the su right now, i dont think a ball can take place this year unless its organised by non su members in an almost opposition way

HughOrBrady

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To everyone saying it's reasonable for them to refuse to close the campus, it isn't.
What it for, why they're closing it, and what closure would mean, are all completely irrelevant.


Key part is in bold. UCD agreed to do this. Reneging on such a commitment, whatever the reasons, is an absolute disgrace. If you're not willing to do something then that's fine, but don't f*cking say you are and allow other people's plans to subsequently get completely bollocksed up when you suddenly turn around and say "I've change my mind, I'm not doing it".

UCD gave a commitment that they were going to do it. They didn't do it.
Ergo they ARE in the wrong here. Period.

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.

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!