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

BuilderPlumber

I don't know who is right or wrong originally here but it is yet another show of incompetence from Ireland's powers that be. I can't imagine this happen in another country!

Aiken was greedy granted to book 5 concerts without seeking permission first. But it should have been dealt with better afterwards. Have the 5 concerts some place else. It is embarrassing yet again for Ireland and who in their right mind would come here after this?

Or is this all a grand plot to keep Garth out to protect our overrated and overhyped country boyfolk idiots like Denver and Ryan?

Happyman42

Reekwind wrote: »

DCC had three months in which to table these concerns and raise the possibility that, in contrast to typical practice, additional licencing conditions may not e sufficient and that dates would have to be cancelled. They got back to Aiken less than a month before the event. Well done, planners.

Of course it was five nights. That was the number requested on the initial application of 17 April. That's entirely within industry practice.

Dublin City Council has been consistent (since it was confirmed that tickets were sold for five 
concerts) in informing the Promoter and his agents that its main concern was the impact that 5 
consecutive concerts would have on the local area. 
  
It should be noted that the Promoter could have lodged the licence application at any stage, 
including before the tickets went on sale last February. 

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2014/07/dccgbstatement.pdf

baaba maal

cython wrote: »

On the bold section: Seriously?? At this stage of the planning, they had to work towards a plan of 5 gigs going ahead, as trying to get the remaining 2 gigs worth of stuff sorted post approval might not have been viable if they just shipped the three initially. Not to mention that why would they assume 3 would be granted and not just 2 if they were going to go that route? It's not like this stuff has been on a container ship since January or February before the gigs were announced at all, after all.

That is my point- they apparently always planned five, they gambled on drip-feeding the number of gigs as a strategy- it backfired. Spectacularly.

baaba maal

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I don't know who is right or wrong originally here but it is yet another show of incompetence from Ireland's powers that be. I can't imagine this happen in another country!

Aiken was greedy granted to book 5 concerts without seeking permission first. But it should have been dealt with better afterwards. Have the 5 concerts some place else. It is embarrassing yet again for Ireland and who in their right mind would come here after this?

Or is this all a grand plot to keep Garth out to protect our overrated and overhyped country boyfolk idiots like Denver and Ryan?

Do expand on the last point please- I'm wearing my tinfoil stetson:P

cython

baaba maal wrote: »

That is my point- they apparently always planned five, they gambled on drip-feeding the number of gigs as a strategy- it backfired. Spectacularly.

Define always? I have only seen speculation up to now that 5 were planned at the time of the initial announcement, so has anyone directly involved with the organisation come out and stated this explicitly that you can cite? If not, then I can just as easily say that they decided to scale up the performances due to the the economies of scale offered by 5 nights rather than 3, and it's equally valid.

Ultimately, equipment for 5 gigs being on a ship 3 weeks before the concert, and 5-6 months after initial announcement indicates absolutely nothing about original intentions or what was "always planned" so I fail to see how you are making a point, to be honest

scudzilla

WTF is everybody moaning about, 5 gigs cancelled, 400,000 people upset, but according to Sky News it's only cost us 250quid, maybe we could all chip in a couple of euro each :pac::pac:

latynova

Reekwind wrote: »

Well there will have to be a public announcement, no? All those hundreds of thousands of people who are planning on attending events throughout the rest of the year should have their tickets refunded. Then the promoters should be fined. So much for Electric Picnic.

This is of course inconceivable. Yet every other promoter has done the exact same as Aiken. Should we be bureaucratic killjoys and drive them all out of business?

Again, you speak from ignorance. Let me be clear: strict adherence to the Council timetable is impossible. Simple as.

If you had your way then the concert would not have been announced or tickets put on sale until the licence had been accepted - July 3. That would have provided less than a month to sell the tickets, make the necessary logistical arrangements and actually set-up a show for hundreds of thousands of people. The punters would then have had a month to actually plan attendance (rearrange holidays, take time off work, etc).

It is not possible to do all the above in the space of 3-4 weeks. Hence why promoters agree a venue in advance and proceed 'subject to licence'. The idea that this is a crime or a subversion of the State's planning laws is nonsense.

Again, it would take all of five minutes for someone to learn this independently.

So, if it's not illegal for them to stage all five why aren't they doing it? Oh yeah, because it is illegal.

baaba maal

cython wrote: »

Define always? I have only seen speculation up to now that 5 were planned at the time of the initial announcement, so has anyone directly involved with the organisation come out and stated this explicitly that you can cite? If not, then I can just as easily say that they decided to scale up the performances due to the the economies of scale offered by 5 nights rather than 3, and it's equally valid.

Ultimately, equipment for 5 gigs being on a ship 3 weeks before the concert, and 5-6 months after initial announcement indicates absolutely nothing about original intentions or what was "always planned" so I fail to see how you are making a point, to be honest

But sure if it didn't matter whether it was three or five, why isn't he doing the three? Sure the boat is nearly docked at this stage....

latynova

Garth is greedy, greedy, greedy.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

latynova wrote: »

Garth is greedy, greedy, greedy.

So eh, how much money in total do you think he will make from playing no gigs here then?

PTH2009

so i will never be seeing Garth Brooks.

wonder what his annoucement is on thursday probly a world tour which excludes Ireland.

Maybe he might do a Belfast Show

Mr_Red

scudzilla wrote: »

WTF is everybody moaning about, 5 gigs cancelled, 400,000 people upset, but according to Sky News it's only cost us 250quid, maybe we could all chip in a couple of euro each :pac::pac:

A whole 250 euros

were fucked

latynova

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So eh, how much money in total do you think he will make from playing no gigs here then?

He'll get whatever amount is specified in the contract he had with the producer. One would expect it to be standard in such a contract that the performer has expenses refunded and a cancellation penalty paid by the producer if the producer isn't able to deliver the show.

In short, he'll get loads and won't have to do anything.

sporina

A few questions for those really in the know"

1. wasn't peter aiken on his way to the states to talk to Garth Brooks? what happened to that?

2. i heard that licenses were not needed for the initial 3 concerts - lies?
I assume all concerts need licenses.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So eh, how much money in total do you think he will make from playing no gigs here then?

I'd say the lawsuit will be for 20m or so. And he won't have to even pack a geetar.

nxbyveromdwjpg

baaba maal wrote: »

Btw, for all the people claiming that our global reputation is in tatters, try googling the issue and see which media outlets are covering it. You may be surprised that the only people talking about this issue is us.

Yea.. except for Sky News, CNN, Fox News, etc

Rucking_Fetard

*clicks unfollow*

Byeeeeeeeeeeeee

cython

baaba maal wrote: »

But sure if it didn't matter whether it was three or five, why isn't he doing the three?

So now you're deflecting from whatever point you had been trying to make. Ultimately none of us can say why he took the stance he did, but it is conceivable for the show to he scaled up in response to a greater number of dates (shipping of the stage is a fixed cost, but can be spread over more nights). Now maybe this wasn't the case, but it's not impossible, and none of us can confirm/deny it.

baaba maal wrote: »

Sure the boat is nearly docked at this stage....

You mean the boat that was leaving the US within the last 48 hours? Right, of course it's nearly docked now...... Unless of course you mean that it's nearly docked back in the US if you buy that he was able to turn it around :rolleyes:

horseburger

Davie89 wrote: »

It cant be dealt with

This is a fair market, its how the economy works

I bought a bike last week for 50e, I went on to sell it for 60e

Is it ethical? No its not but unfortunately this is how people make money. Its the very foundation of every transaction you carry out on a day to day basis, greater demand with reduced supply means higher prices

I still emphasise that it is one factor to take into consideration if just the first three gigs went ahead.

In the event of just the 4th and 5th gigs being cancelled and 160,000 people who had tickets - the increased touting of tickets for the first three shows, would have been one very considerable negative consequence.

ghostdancer

sporina wrote: »

2. i heard that licenses were not needed for the initial 3 concerts - lies?
I assume all concerts need licenses.

yes, licences are needed for all events over a certain size.
in this case, it needed the event licence for events of over 5000 people.

all these concerts, and the One direction concerts in Croker, and Electric Picnic in Laois, and Longitude, and Marlay Park gigs, and numerous others that have taken and still have to take place up and down the country need a licence.
many of these aren't granted a licence until the actual week of the event.
last week's Arcade Fire concert in Marlay Park (33,000 people) didn't get the licence granted until the day before.

that's why basically every event will sell tickets with "subject to licence" written on them.

latynova

Why do people care about Garth's boats?

It's a private business venture he was running not Live Aid!

CapricornOne

It's alright lads, Brazil are taking one for the team in an effort to distract the worldwide outrage over this embarrassing saga.

martingriff

horseburger wrote: »

I still emphasise that it is one factor to take into consideration if just the first three gigs went ahead.

In the event of just the 4th and 5th gigs being cancelled and 160,000 people who had tickets - the increased touting of tickets for the first three shows, would have been one very considerable negative consequence.

a way to stop the touts is that a refund is only available by proof of ticket how they could doo that with online I am not sure though

baaba maal

cython wrote: »

So now you're deflecting from whatever point you had been trying to make. Ultimately none of us can say why he took the stance he did, but it is conceivable for the show to he scaled up in response to a greater number of dates (shipping of the stage is a fixed cost, but can be spread over more nights). Now maybe this wasn't the case, but it's not impossible, and none of us can confirm/deny it.
You mean the boat that was leaving the US within the last 48 hours? Right, of course it's nearly docked now...... Unless of course you mean that it's nearly docked back in the US if you buy that he was able to turn it around :rolleyes:

I meant it was nearly docked in Belgium where I believe it was due to land- my point wasn't at all that he had turned it around, it was that the planning, purchasing and transportation of the gear had been in the pipeline for months- Aiken and Co. had mentioned one of the problems with not having the five gigs was due to all the scaled up gear that was coming (hence the original number of gigs was not now enough)- I can't recall the exact source.

Roll your eyes all you want, the only reason Brooks has proffered for not taking up the three nights was because it was like choosing between his children. Surprisingly enough, this painfully misjudged response has led to speculation on a thread concerned with Garth Brooks concerts. Perhaps if he and the GAA could give us a rational assessment of why they took the course of action they did, it would help in moving the conversation along.

horseburger

baaba maal wrote: »

To develop this scenario, Led Zeppelin (a band that were quite popular in their day), were the main act in a benefit concert in 2007- as global demand for this gig exceeded supply (one million people pre-registered for the 20,000 tickets) should they have been told to do a second, third, fourth concert? Were they stupid to turn down the chance to do a month long residency at the O2 in London? Just because demand exceeds supply does not mean that the planning system should be turned on it's head to accommodate this.

Those referring to the word "illegal" are correct up to a point- the GAA entered into a voluntary agreement with the local community that three special events would be allowed per year, and anything above this would be submitted to DCC as an application for an event licence. The fact that the GAA chose this route is their own business (I'm not a member), but they DID broker this arrangement, the result didn't go the way they wanted but that's part of being a grown-up.

But if Led Zeppelin had planned to do a 2nd and 3rd night and sold both shows out, and then they were cancelled and the first night went ahead as planned, you can imagine how let down anyone with tickets for the other two shows would feel.

latynova

baaba maal wrote: »

. Perhaps if he and the GAA could give us a rational assessment of why they took the course of action they did, it would help in moving the conversation along.

Private business venture failed. End of.

GerardKeating

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Eh? Aiken could have made the application as much time in advance as they wanted to. Why are you stating they they legally could make it earlier than the 17th?

True, the law (S.I. No. 154/2001 - Planning and Development (Licensing of Outdoor Events) Regulations, 2001) states the Minimum period is 16 weeks, it does not seem to state a maximum period.

baaba maal

horseburger wrote: »

But if Led Zeppelin had planned to do a 2nd and 3rd night and sold both shows out, and then they were cancelled and the first night went ahead as planned, you can imagine how let down anyone with tickets for the other two shows would feel.

I wouldn't dispute that at all- I'm just not getting the significance of it, I meant it in relation to the supply and demand aspect and how this is mediated by the planning process, not the effect on individual fans.

sporina

i wonder had the government known that he really meant what he said about pulling all the gigs would they still have not allowed all licenses? a lot of money has been lost - and not to mention our rep which is priceless

mrsbyrne

joe316 wrote: »

Where is the man of the people Bono?? Surely he's all for charradee and will play instead?

Failing that, are Big Tom and Travelers still going?

Big Tom and the Mainliners you mean . Four Roads to Glenamaddy...