Garth Brooks Comeback Special *ALL 5 SHOWS CANCELLED* READ FIRST POST

horseburger

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Clearly there is demand for the concert, this became apparent as soon as they began selling the tickets.
So the question you should be asking is why did the promoter wait so long to apply for the licence?
Yes, it's normal practice to sell the tickets while pending a licence. But the promoter didn't even apply when they knew they had 5 gigs sold out.
They knew that it would cause an issue. They knew it would lead to objections. They knew there was a risk/chance that 5 nights wouldn't get approved. They still took the fans money and built up expectation.



GB isn't left in a situation where he has to disappoint those on the Mon and Tues. That decision wasn't his to make.
GB is disappointing the Fri/Sat/Sun fans.


Those gigs were never given a licence to be cancelled.
They never actually existed.
The three approved gigs are now been threaten to be cancelled by GB.

I was making a reference to the comment Garth Brooks made with regard to preferring to go ahead with all five planned, or none at all, rather than not playing the last two.

He was being criticised for the analogy of choosing one child over another but I can understand the point he was making.

That considering the efforts fans went to get tickets, the days and hours queuing at the ticketmaster outlets, that I can understand him saying he'd much prefer play all five or none at all, otherwise those that managed to get tickets for Monday or Tuesday would then feel very dissapointed, if the first three shows go ahead.

baaba maal

ghostdancer wrote: »

they didn't submit it in the "minimal amount of time", they did it a month before it was required (which is 10 weeks prior to any event).

pretty much every single outdoor concert/festival submits their licence not long before the deadline as it takes time to put in place staffing plans/facilities plans/security agreements/policing agreements etc.
they certainly couldn't have done it 6 months ago as it takes time to contrct companies etc.

the process has been shown to be flawed in that it takes forever for licences to be granted. many of the current Marley Park gigs didn't have a licence until the day before the gigs due to the amount of time it takes for the councils to bother doing it.

It was already the most contentious venue in the country in terms of vocal, local opposition- or at least, I can't think of any other? Therefore, they should have applied far in advance of that- I accept that it was somewhat in advance, but clearly not by enough. I also accept the process is unwieldy, but it is the process as Aiken was already aware. If we are to look at legislative changes it should include the requirement that tickets cannot be sold until the event has it's licence granted. One of the possible positive outcomes from this debacle is that the legislators might amend the regs to streamline the process (I don't mean by that that they weigh the decision-making in favour of the promoter, just that the timeframes be more sensibly set). I would further suggest that a highly-charged and public decision as this was arrived at the last minute because the officials didn't "bother" to decide.

8-10

Any news on refunds yet?

ghostdancer

hynesie08 wrote: »

C'mon now this is a bit of a paper argument, aiken have been around long enough now that this stuff should be second nature to them. Croker hasn't changed shape since last year so they should know what they need in terms of staff/security/arrangements.

There's no way they couldn't have done it 6 months ago.

same with Punchestown/Marley Park/Phoenix Park/Stradbally/etc/etc.

so why does it take MCD/POD so long to apply for licences to them?

surely they can apply for the licence the day they announce gigs?

nxbyveromdwjpg

ghostdancer wrote: »

same with Punchestown/Marley Park/Phoenix Park/Stradbally/etc/etc.

so why does it take MCD/POD so long to apply for licences to them?

surely they can apply for the licence the day they announce gigs?

I think I read in somewhere in one of threads that they need to detail the stage layouts and other such in the application, which may not have been decided on at that point.

ghostdancer

baaba maal wrote: »

It was already the most contentious venue in the country in terms of vocal, local opposition- or at least, I can't think of any other? Therefore, they should have applied far in advance of that- I accept that it was somewhat in advance, but clearly not by enough. I also accept the process is unwieldy, but it is the process as Aiken was already aware. If we are to look at legislative changes it should include the requirement that tickets cannot be sold until the event has it's licence granted. One of the possible positive outcomes from this debacle is that the legislators might amend the regs to streamline the process (I don't mean by that that they weigh the decision-making in favour of the promoter, just that the timeframes be more sensibly set). I would further suggest that a highly-charged and public decision as this was arrived at the last minute because the officials didn't "bother" to decide.

yes, and that's probably why they didn't leave it until the final possible day, like was incorrectly stated.

as for not selling tickets before a licence is granted, yes that would be an ideal scenario.
however it would require councils to get their act together and process applications quickly, review submissions, meet, and make final decisions, before the tickets can even go onsale, and given that it takes several months for that to happen now, i can't see the promoters wanting to wait for that, or councillors wanting an increased workload.

hynesie08

ghostdancer wrote: »

same with Punchestown/Marley Park/Phoenix Park/Stradbally/etc/etc.

so why does it take MCD/POD so long to apply for licences to them?

surely they can apply for the licence the day they announce gigs?

I don't know why it does take them so long but why should it? You really think aiken don't know who they're using for stewards/security/alcohol/staging/ambulance etc at this stage? So why would it be so hard to put in an application 6 months in advance.

Genuine question.

ghostdancer

nm wrote: »

I think I read in somewhere in one of threads that they need to detail the stage layouts and other such in the application, which may not have been decided on at that point.

yep, that's true.


apparently though Croker doesn't change so they should just be able to photocopy the application from previous concerts and submit that or something :rolleyes:

8-10

ghostdancer wrote: »

yep, that's true.


apparently though Croker doesn't change so they should just be able to photocopy the application from previous concerts and submit that or something :rolleyes:

I wonder if there's a way to get a conditional license that covers at least the main stuff causing the issue here, like number of nights, in advance of the ticket sales. And they are sold "subject to license conditions" or some such. So at least the nights/curfew/facilities/capacity stuff is all agreed on, subject to agreeing on stage sizes, catering etc etc that isn't as fundamental but won't prevent the license being fully granted as they can be negotiated later.

scudzilla

hynesie08 wrote: »

I don't know why it does take them so long but why should it? You really think aiken don't know who they're using for stewards/security/alcohol/staging/ambulance etc at this stage? So why would it be so hard to put in an application 6 months in advance.

Genuine question.

Simple answer, Complacency.

They thought it was just a case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's

ghostdancer

hynesie08 wrote: »

I don't know why it does take them so long but why should it? You really think aiken don't know who they're using for stewards/security/alcohol/staging/ambulance etc at this stage? So why would it be so hard to put in an application 6 months in advance.

Genuine question.

because they have to meet with Gardai who then have to decide themselves on policing due to "crowd profile", and then they need to make recommendations to the promoters, who then have to make arrangements for security based on those recommendations.

they have to finalise stage and production requirements to include.

they have to finalise and finish contracts with security companies, emergency services, etc. for those specific dates, all of which will take time from the point of view of those people to sort out their own requirements and staffing.

and probably a whole host of other things.

for festivals and outdoor events in non-permanent structures, there's other requirements like toilet facilities, food vendors, water points, sanitation, etc etc. that need to be included in the licence application.

just a guess, but i'd imagine Aiken, MCD/Live Nation, POD and the other promoters in the country have a better idea than you, and aren't just leaving it ages to submit applications for the hell of it....

hynesie08

ghostdancer wrote: »

because they have to meet with Gardai who then have to decide themselves on policing due to "crowd profile", and then they need to make recommendations to the promoters, who then have to make arrangements for security based on those recommendations.

they have to finalise stage and production requirements to include.

they have to finalise and finish contracts with security companies, emergency services, etc. for those specific dates, all of which will take time from the point of view of those people to sort out their own requirements and staffing.

and probably a whole host of other things.

for festivals and outdoor events in non-permanent structures, there's other requirements like toilet facilities, food vendors, water points, sanitation, etc etc. that need to be included in the licence application.

just a guess, but i'd imagine Aiken, MCD/Live Nation, POD and the other promoters in the country have a better idea than you, and aren't just leaving it ages to submit applications for the hell of it....

With the only exception being the stage, why can't all that be done before they're announced? Considering they were handing in incomplete applications anyway?

salmocab

8-10 wrote: »

I wonder if there's a way to get a conditional license that covers at least the main stuff causing the issue here, like number of nights, in advance of the ticket sales. And they are sold "subject to license conditions" or some such. So at least the nights/curfew/facilities/capacity stuff is all agreed on, subject to agreeing on stage sizes, catering etc etc that isn't as fundamental but won't prevent the license being fully granted as they can be negotiated later.

great idea but its also common sense so wouldn't hold my breath on it.

baaba maal

I don't think anyone is suggesting Aiken left it late for the heck of it- I'd say he left it late to reduce the capacity of any local opposition to organise a campaign against an increase in the number of events sought. If Brooks isa saying now that it is five or nothing, that does suggest it was going to be five all along (with the proviso that the punters would roll in and buy up the first three nights)

8-10

salmocab wrote: »

great idea but its also common sense so wouldn't hold my breath on it.

I think there's such a mess going on that they might have to look at this going forward. Could see something like that happening to be honest. Wait for the dust to settle and the (insert eventual number) concerts to go ahead and then look at the process

PTH2009

Garth will cancel all the shows and then issue an apologetic statement and everyone will still love him

I will lose some respect for him if he decides to screw the fans that are going the first 3 nights

I was at the famous guns n roses concert in the O2 In 2010 when axl rose came on an hour and a half late and walked off stage after 20 mins. So I knw what it's like to be screwed over.

If Garth has any sense he will decide to play the gigs and just accept that some of his fans cannot see him (most of them are hoping on the bandwagon) he could always come back on his world tour and give people who had tickets for the Monday/Tuesday preference

Steven71

Why are people still assuming most people at the Mon and Tues concerts are jumping on some bandwagon? Speaking from experience I tried for EACH of the shows.....only got tickets for the final date. Surly I'm not alone in this?

As for him cancelling the other dates, I agree it's not exactly fair. But neither was selling tickets for shows that shouldn't be going on anyway. The whole thing is a mess.

ghostdancer

hynesie08 wrote: »

With the only exception being the stage, why can't all that be done before they're announced? Considering they were handing in incomplete applications anyway?

dunno, maybe ask MCD/Live Nation, POD, Aiken when they do it every few weeks, seeing as you believe it's apparently so easy to do it when they're announced. :rolleyes:

scudzilla

Something that's just come into my mind, dunno if anybody else has posted this.

5 dates went on sale, all subject to license, if they don't get the license for them then that's it, ya can't do anything apart from getting a refund.

Now the Mon/Tues ticket holders are in this boat, refund only.

A License HAS been granted for Fri/Sat/Sun, if Brooks decides to cancel these gigs i'm pretty sure he could be sued by concert goers for financial loss (flights & hotels). There's a lot of Americans coming over for this and i think the risk of being sued will sway him to play the 3 dates

horseburger

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Maybe a stupid question but

Does anyone know, do you have to give your tickets back when getting a refund.

They're pretty much useless and well I am the crazy fan here and would like to keep them.

Not sure, its an interesting question.

If you bought online, I think they refund the money automatically back into your account, without you having to make contact with ticketmaster, but if you bought at a ticketmaster outlet, you bring the ticket back to that particular outlet.

It'd be interesting to see can you hold on to your ticket, if it was bought at an outlet.

What does the outlet need to be able to give you the refund?

Do they just need the booking order number - which would be on the receipt given to you, when you bought the ticket - from where they can then see your transaction details, in order to give you a refund?

If so, I can't see any reason why you couldn't keep the ticket?

scudzilla

horseburger wrote: »

Not sure, its an interesting question.

If you bought online, I think they refund the money automatically back into your account, without you having to make contact with ticketmaster, but if you bought at a ticketmaster outlet, you bring the ticket back to that particular outlet.

It'd be interesting to see can you hold on to your ticket, if it was bought at an outlet.

What does the outlet need to be able to give you the refund?

Do they just need the booking order number - which would be on the receipt given to you, when you bought the ticket - from where they can then see your transaction details, in order to give you a refund?

If so, I can't see any reason why you couldn't keep the ticket?

IF you bought online then you will automatically get a refund (happened to us with Rob Zombie's gig) and get to keep the tickets.

If you bought at an outlet you must take the ticket in for the refund and hand your ticket in

SoCal MusicLover

horseburger wrote: »

That considering the efforts fans went to get tickets, the days and hours queuing at the ticketmaster outlets, that I can understand him saying he'd much prefer play all five or none at all, otherwise those that managed to get tickets for Monday or Tuesday would then feel very dissapointed, if the first three shows go ahead.

I tried from the U.S. for the first 3 nights, but got error messages for the 1-2 hours they took to sell out. Shut out completely.

Lucked out with tickets to Monday, just before it sold out, and then Tuesday, shortly after that was added.

The demand may have been less, with fewer people trying to get for the final shows, but that by no means says it was easy. Still lots of errors, and frozen screens.

I see both sides, but I certainly see Garth's explanation as valid. Some people could not get for the first 3, but may have on the last two. Does that make their efforts any more worthy? Should the Fri-Sun ticket buyers just be rewarded for being lucky that it turned out this way, and the Mon-Tues buyers be told....too bad, didn't you realize there was a chance it would turn out this way? 40% of the people have tickets for the last 2 nights. That is pretty significant. We're not talking about a few thousand tickets sold, were talking about 160,000.

Sideshow Mark

ghostdancer wrote: »

the process has been shown to be flawed in that it takes forever for licences to be granted. many of the current Marley Park gigs didn't have a licence until the day before the gigs due to the amount of time it takes for the councils to bother doing it.

What this debacle proves is that the process works as intended. You're buying into the spin, read the article in today's independent by Lord Henry or Jim Carrols piece in the Irish Times. From those it would appear that Aiken didn't follow the rules, and hoped that DCC would not want to disappoint the concert goers. Luckily DCC saw sense and did the right thing. Five consecutive nights in a residential area is unacceptable, it's hard to fathom how Aiken thought he could get this through.

ghostdancer

Sideshow Mark wrote: »

What this debacle proves is that the process works as intended. You're buying into the spin, read the article in today's independent by Lord Henry or Jim Carrols piece in the Irish Times. From those it would appear that Aiken didn't follow the rules, and hoped that DCC would not want to disappoint the concert goers. Luckily DCC saw sense and did the right thing. Five consecutive nights in a residential area is unacceptable, it's hard to fathom how Aiken thought he could get this through.

Jim Carroll's piece confirms exactly what I said.

greasepalm

think i will demote him from garth brooks to garth crooks:D i feel for the home owners not picking up good vibrations:)

j8wk2feszrnpao

ghostdancer wrote: »

Jim Carroll's piece confirms exactly what I said.

The process works for Mountcharles as it appears that he doesn't take the "sure, it’ll be grand” approach that is mentioned in Carroll's piece.
It seems that he minimizes the risks by having a good consultation process and getting as many possible objectors 'pleased', to reduce the chance of any objections and the fallout that may ensue.

From Carroll's piece:

The GAA gave the approval to the promoter for the unprecedented run of shows knowing how hot under the collar the locals were about their behaviour and attitude.

Croker/Aiken didn't minimize the chances of the concerts receiving an objection; an objection that had a high possibility of succeeding and less than the full 5 concerts going ahead.

I wouldn't say that Aiken didn't follow rules or process. But they chanced their arm by having 5 concerts in a row. It was a gamble, and now it appears that a lot of people have to suffer because of it.

horseburger

scudzilla wrote: »

IF you bought online then you will automatically get a refund (happened to us with Rob Zombie's gig) and get to keep the tickets.

If you bought at an outlet you must take the ticket in for the refund and hand your ticket in

Hi scudzilla

what I was thinking is, why wouldn't you be able to hold onto the actual ticket, after getting the refund at an outlet, considering that the ticketmaster attendant at the outlet can verify, by checking the confirmation number on the receipt, the relevant details.

From the confirmation number, the transaction and contact details of the buyer can be confirmed, proving that the person presenting the ticket is the person that bought it originally at that outlet. I see no reason why they couldn't just then keep the ticket.

Surely afterwards it just gets thrown in the bin or shredded by the outlet?

Just curious, did you see White Zombie in 1995 in the RDS with Mudhoney and Soundgarden? I enjoyed White Zombie that day!

ghostdancer

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The process works for Mountcharles as it appears that he doesn't take the "sure, it’ll be grand” approach that is mentioned in Carroll's piece.
It seems that he minimizes the risks by having a good consultation process and getting as many possible objectors 'pleased', to reduce the chance of any objections and the fallout that may ensue.

From Carroll's piece:

Croker/Aiken didn't minimize the chances of the concerts receiving an objection; an objection that had a high possibility of succeeding and less than the full 5 concerts going ahead.

I wouldn't say that Aiken didn't follow rules or process. But they chanced their arm by having 5 concerts in a row. It was a gamble, and now it appears that a lot of people have to suffer because of it.

well for a start, Mountcharles does extremely little, he rents out his land and is a rent-a-gob. MCD run Slane concerts.

however, he/MCD does quite clearly take an "ah sure it'll be grand" approach as Slane concerts are also run "subject to licence", on the assumption that after they've sold the tickets, they'll sort out all the other bits, apply for a licence, be granted a licence, and the gig will go ahead. pretty much exactly what Aiken have done, except there would be more obections for Croker than Slane.

what you've quote from Carroll's piece has nothing to do with the licencing process. that's an agreement between the venue owners and the promoters.

Carroll's piece clearly points out that the process is flawed:

As we now know, the tickets for the show sold out before the license was granted – indeed, before the application for the licence was even made – because this is how Irish promoters have to work with the laws. They can’t wait for the licence to be granted to announce the show or put tickets on sale because it takes weeks and even months for the local county council to go through all the procedures involved in the process. Do you really think you can have the act, the stadium and the production on hold for four or five months and then put 400,000 tickets on sale three weeks out? It might work for an indoor show at the O2, but an outdoor show or series of shows attracting 400,000 people is another matter entirely.

i don't disagree that Aiken were chancing their arm and that it was a gamble, but that has nothing to do with the licencing process, and how it's a complete nonsense that it can be the day before a gig before a licence is granted for shows, as Carroll specifically mentions in the case of the Arcade Fire shows last weekend.

the Arcade Fire show could have been refused a licence 24hours before the gig after the stage was built, security brought from abroad, and fans had already started travelling from all over for it, not to mention the band and their crew themselves already being in the country for it.....

if that isn't a flawed process, i don't know what is.

gerbilgranny

Hearing the good news that Sinn Féin is to table an emergency motion at DCC's meeting on Monday (and let's face it, that was a political football only screaming out to be picked up, and taken straight to the goal)...I am still hopeful, and would like to think that on Tuesday 29th, I might hear this song sung at the GB concert...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLkCWT2neuI&feature=kp

hynesie08

gerbilgranny wrote: »

Hearing the good news that Sinn Féin is to table an emergency motion at DCC's meeting on Monday (and let's face it, that was a political football only screaming out to be picked up, and taken straight to the goal)...I am still hopeful, and would like to think that on Tuesday 29th, I might hear this song sung at the GB concert...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLkCWT2neuI&feature=kp

An emergency motion for what?