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

miju

Tigger99 wrote: »

The refund aspect is going to be a nightmare for Ticketmaster. I'll get a refund without having to do anything as I bought it online. People that have hard copies can post them off to get a refund. But there will be people that sold them on, how will ticketmaster make sure that they aren't refunding the same ticket twice I wonder?

Quote from the Ticketmaster website FAQ on the refunds for Garth Brooks -

10. Question - I purchased tickets from unauthorised ticketing sellers. How can I get a refund?

Answer - Individuals who purchased tickets from unauthorised ticket sellers will need to contact that ticket seller to obtain a refund.

Or in laymans terms fuck off your problem not ours and the money is going to the card that bought them, I'd say the amount of people who wont be getting any refund at all for their tickets will be VERY high

BaZmO*

Tigger99 wrote: »

The refund aspect is going to be a nightmare for Ticketmaster. I'll get a refund without having to do anything as I bought it online. People that have hard copies can post them off to get a refund. But there will be people that sold them on, how will ticketmaster make sure that they aren't refunding the same ticket twice I wonder?

If you bought online, your name is printed on the ticket, but you will get refunded automatically.

If you bought from a shop there will be no name on it just the price, then you have to send it back with the refund form. These tickets are almost like cash, in the sense that it just transfers from one person to another and the last person that has it can get a refund.

TM won't entertain a refund for a ticket sent back that was bought online as it'll be refunded automatically.

j8wk2feszrnpao

princemuzzy wrote: »

unbelievably childish response i go to a lot of concert/events mcd scrimp on security and staff in my opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion it doesn't make me Mr Aiken or anything got to do with him people are blaming him because he is a face to direct their anger at ... he isn't completely blameless but far bigger factors in this than him

You're praising Aiken to the hilt and hitting out at MCD at every opportunity.
You are fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to wonder about your vested interest.

rubadub

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Licences were applied for 14 weeks before the concerts were due to take place.. and then eleven weeks later, just three weeks from the concert dates, when preparations were in full swing, trucks loaded, producers hired, flights and hotels book.. DCC suddenly phone the promoter and announce they can't have licences for two of the concerts.

And for YEARS it was common knowledge that there was 3 night limit in croke park, whether the 3 night "rule" was legally binding is a moot point, it was certainly known that it was almost guaranteed that there would be complaints.

It was a big deal when U2 got a third gig allowed in croke park, bringing it to 4 in one year. Now they were chancing their arm to double that, knowing that it was very lucky to get 4, no doubt hoping they could blackmail the authorities with the threat of upsetting people & the economy.

There was a big deal about slane too, another venue where it is common knowledge that it is going to be subject to complaints from residents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slane_Concert#2000s

Unusually, two concerts were held during 2001 (the Taoiseach asked the Minister for the Environment to fast-track some new legislation to allow the second concert to happen), both headlined by U2

horseburger wrote: »

People here are criticising Aiken with regard to selling tickets before getting approval for the license application.

Denis Desmond of MCD was on Newstalk today and he mentioned about the licensing process saying that all major outdoor shows apply for it the same way.

I have never heard of anything like this happening before.

rubadub wrote: »

can you give similar incidences?

By similar remember in this case the promoter knew fine well the maximum concerts ever here before were 4 in a year, and that there was widespread coverage of the fact that this was allowed, since it was known the max was to be 3

So by similar incidences I am looking for promoters chancing their arm and attempting to sell tickets for at least double the amount of days a venue previously maximally held, which also had widespread knowledge of being under opposition. Or instead of double it could be 4 more, e.g. did any promoter ever attempt to get 6 nights in Slane? let alone go selling tickets, slane is another venue which has a well documented history of opposition.

Aiken was refused insurance for these gigs? I am wondering if this is also "standard practice" or do they in fact give insurance for other outdoor gigs when they know permission is very likely to be granted.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

rubadub wrote: »

And for YEARS it was common knowledge that there was 3 night limit in croke park, whether the 3 night rule was legally binding is a moot point, it was certainly known that it was almost guaranteed that there would be complaints.

It was a big deal when U2 got a third gig allowed in croke park, bringing it to 4 in one year. Now they were chancing their arm to double that, knowing that it was very lucky to get 4, no doubt hoping they could blackmail the authorities with the threat of upsetting people & the economy.

Which is why I have said that the council should have banned the GAA from hosting concerts for the next two to three years for their role in this. Aiken perhaps also, perhaps not, as the GAA should have been the ones telling him not to bother applying for licences, they won't be granted.

The way to deal with the mess was not to leave the applications sitting on your desk for 11 weeks and then 3 weeks before the concerts take place, when all tickets have been sold, hotels and flights booked, decide to phone the promoter and tell them two of the concerts won't be getting licenced. If it was as straight forward as you are suggesting, that three concerts had already taken place (1D) and that they were only going to consider going to the planning folks with three of the concerts, then they should have done that within one or two weeks of receiving the applications.

Keegan has stated that he offered to put the four concerts to the planners if Brooks guaranteed he would play them, but that was the July 2nd. Why did he wait 11 weeks to do this?

hynesie08

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You're praising Aiken to the hilt and hitting out at MCD at every opportunity.
You are fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to wonder about your vested interest.

I have no vested interest one way or the other but yeah, when it comes to outdoor gigs in my experience, Aiken are miles ahead of mcd.

hynesie08

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Which is why I have said that the council should have banned the GAA from hosting concerts for the next two to three years for their role in this. Aiken perhaps also, perhaps not, as the GAA should have been the ones telling him not to bother applying for licences, they won't be granted.

The way to deal with the mess was not to leave the applications sitting on your desk for 11 weeks and then 3 weeks before the concerts take place, when all tickets have been sold, hotels and flights booked, decide to phone the promoter and tell them two of the concerts won't be getting licenced. If it was as straight forward as you are suggesting, that three concerts had already taken place (1D) and that they were only going to consider going to the planning folks with three of the concerts, then they should have done that within one or two weeks of receiving the applications.

Keegan has stated that he offered to put the four concerts to the planners if Brooks guaranteed he would play them, but that was the July 2nd. Why did he wait 11 weeks to do this?

They were not sitting on a desk for 11 weeks though. There was a five week period to lodge observations, Then everything including objection was sent to the necessary channels, then when all that came back he made his decision. Check any outdoor gig and i'd say your looking at the same timeframe.

princemuzzy

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You're praising Aiken to the hilt and hitting out at MCD at every opportunity.
You are fully entitled to your opinion, as I am to wonder about your vested interest.

really vested interest? do you think Aiken has people doing pr work for him on message boards? laughable really

hynesie08 wrote: »

I have no vested interest one way or the other but yeah, when it comes to outdoor gigs in my experience, Aiken are miles ahead of mcd.

ah another Aiken employee ill meet ya by the water cooler for lunch :D

j8wk2feszrnpao

princemuzzy wrote: »

really vested interest? do you think Aiken has people doing pr work for him on message boards? laughable really

I don't think that Aiken has people working for him on message boards, never claimed that they did.
I do think it's laughable (to put it mildly) that you repeatedly defend him, while continuously moaning about MCD, given the mistakes made by Aiken in all of this.

Tigger99

Hardluckwoman, 8-10 etc apologies, I was wondering how people who bought tickets online could be stopped getting another refund with the actual ticket and the logistical nightmare with double-checking 400,000 tickets. Of course I just realised that people that buy tickets online won't have an actual ticket, just a printout. Doh!!!!!

Disappointed myself that he's not coming over but think DCC made the right decision from a planning perspective.

EyesClosed

Tigger99 wrote: »

Hardluckwoman, 8-10 etc apologies, I was wondering how people who bought tickets online could be stopped getting another refund with the actual ticket and the logistical nightmare with double-checking 400,000 tickets. Of course I just realised that people that buy tickets online won't have an actual ticket, just a printout. Doh!!!!!

Disappointed myself that he's not coming over but think DCC made the right decision from a planning perspective.

That is not true, you can have a ticket sent out to your address.

8-10

Tigger99 wrote: »

Hardluckwoman, 8-10 etc apologies, I was wondering how people who bought tickets online could be stopped getting another refund with the actual ticket and the logistical nightmare with double-checking 400,000 tickets. Of course I just realised that people that buy tickets online won't have an actual ticket, just a printout. Doh!!!!!

Not everybody, you could choose to have hard copies sent out. But as I said in my reply the length of time to refund hard copies means the automatic refunds will already be made and they can cross-check. The mere fact that they'd lose a lot of money if they didn't consider this means I'm sure that it's not possible! :P

Tigger99

Yes but they wouldn't have been posted out yet, or would they?

EyesClosed

Tigger99 wrote: »

Yes but they wouldn't have been posted out yet, or would they?

Yeap, sure I have two

Mrs Garth Brooks

Tigger99 wrote: »

Hardluckwoman, 8-10 etc apologies, I was wondering how people who bought tickets online could be stopped getting another refund with the actual ticket and the logistical nightmare with double-checking 400,000 tickets. Of course I just realised that people that buy tickets online won't have an actual ticket, just a printout. Doh!!!!!.

No, if you bought online, you can also get a hard copy ticket posted out to you. Touts can cancel those tickets and sell them on again.

The print out is the e-ticket.

Proper mess.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Can we get our tickets back after giving to ticketmaster?

Kill me to part with them

Tigger99

Not sure what you mean that touts can cancel tickets but agree that it is a mess. I'd imagine that cross checking thousands of tickets to see.that they haven't already been refunded will take a lot longer than 21 days.

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy

The injunction has been dropped and the dublin lord mayor asked gb to reconsider the 3?

Any hope?

KoolKid

The refund has to be made back based on how the tickets were purchased.
Anything on a card is automatically returned to that card and I presume those tickets are automatically marked refunded on their data base. After that you request a refund from your point of purchase and it is then paid to you by EFT after its been verified.

8-10

Again there is no way Ticketmaster will set up a refund system with a loophole that would result in them making more than 1 refund on the same ticket. Not a chance they would allow that to happen on potentially 100,000's of tickets

DrPhilG

Tigger99 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean that touts can cancel tickets but agree that it is a mess. I'd imagine that cross checking thousands of tickets to see.that they haven't already been refunded will take a lot longer than 21 days.

I believe that if you have hard copy tickets, you can contact Ticketmaster and get reprints if you have lost/damaged them etc.

The old tickers would be cancelled and the poor sucker who bought them would know nothing until they arrive.

Personally I never understand people buying tickets that are printouts. I could print them out a dozen times surely? I have bought tickets on eBay a few times. Not over face value, but I have gone to UFC events a number of times through buying in the last week before the fight. Some bargains to be had. But I would never buy print out tickets, or arrange to meet and collect.

I got 10th row Michael Buble tickets for the O2 for less than face value too.

lordgoat

DrPhilG wrote: »

I believe that if you have hard copy tickets, you can contact Ticketmaster and get reprints if you have lost/damaged them etc.

The old tickers would be cancelled and the poor sucker who bought them would know nothing until they arrive.

Personally I never understand people buying tickets that are printouts. I could print them out a dozen times surely? I have bought tickets on eBay a few times. Not over face value, but I have gone to UFC events a number of times through buying in the last week before the fight. Some bargains to be had. But I would never buy print out tickets, or arrange to meet and collect.

I got 10th row Michael Buble tickets for the O2 for less than face value too.

This right here. Unless you know the person or have some way to get your money back after if the tickets aren't legit, don't buy e-tickets.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

hynesie08 wrote: »

They were not sitting on a desk for 11 weeks though. There was a five week period to lodge observations, Then everything including objection was sent to the necessary channels, then when all that came back he made his decision. Check any outdoor gig and i'd say your looking at the same timeframe.

Hang on, if they were being refused because Croke Park only allows three concerts a year, then there would be no reason to wait for any possible further objections, as that in itself would have been enough to refuse the licences.

Even if that is the case, that still means it took six weeks after that for the planners to look at the licence applications. Yet we are told that the DCC phoned Aiken on the July 2nd and offered three licences and when told it was five or nothing, responded ten minutes later with an offer to ask the planners to take a look at a proposal for four. Why would it take five weeks for that process before and yet the DCC imply that they would get back to them the next day when they put a new proposal to them. I mean, it either takes five weeks ir it doesn't.

The truth is they sat on their hands for weeks on end, knowing well that 400,000 tickets were sold to concerts that they were most likely not going to fully licence and that is a disgrace. It is what has caused this mess, or at least, what caused the level to which the whole fiasco has ascending to. Surely to God someone in the DCC must have thought they better move fast and make sure they refuse the licences in as quick a timeframe as possible, so that the artist and the artist's management don't get to far down the road into the production of the concerts. Or so that hotels and flights that are booked, can be unbooked so as to not cause financial headaches from people and hoteliers.

No, they just sauntered along at their own pace and decided to phone the promotor three weeks before the concert dates, offering three licences and then offered maybe four, but only if you bow down before us and promise to be a good boy. Honestly, how anyone can think Keegan behaved well in this whole saga baffles me. The man is incredulous.

calex71

TV3 reading out a letter from Brooks to Aiken, saying ship is still on route and that if there is anyway the 5 gigs can be played still yada yada ...... it rumbles on

Mrs Garth Brooks

calex71 wrote: »

TV3 reading out a letter from Brooks to Aiken, saying ship is still on route and that if there is anyway the 5 gigs can be played still yada yada ...... it rumbles on

Its a sinking ship

Corholio

To be honest I hope the gigs can be played and got over with so a lot of bitterness towards the wrong people can be lessened a bit.

He should be doing the 3 at least, hopefully he grows up and ends up playing some anyway.

His letter is quite sly though "....how people should be treated". Ain't no one treating people bad except the ones who broke the permissions.

karaokeman

As far as I'm concerned, Aiken, Garth, the GAA and DCC are partners in crime. This situation was a complete shamble, and could have been prevented if there was more co-operation from the earliest stages of planning the shows.

It's still painful to think of the economic gain our country would have experienced had the concerts gone ahead, but the damage it's done to us and our tourist potential will take some years to heal.

Hopefully this will be a wake up call for anyone involved in such a massive event to have more responsibility and consideration for the aftermath.

hynesie08

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Hang on, if they were being refused because Croke Park only allows three concerts a year, then there would be no reason to wait for any possible further objections, as that in itself would have been enough to refuse the licences.

Even if that is the case, that still means it took six weeks after that for the planners to look at the licence applications. Yet we are told that the DCC phoned Aiken on the July 2nd and offered three licences and when told it was five or nothing, responded ten minutes later with an offer to ask the planners to take a look at a proposal for four. Why would it take five weeks for that process before and yet the DCC imply that they would get back to them the next day when they put a new proposal to them. I mean, it either takes five weeks ir it doesn't.

The truth is they sat on their hands for weeks on end, knowing well that 400,000 tickets were sold to concerts that they were most likely not going to fully licence and that is a disgrace. It is what has caused this mess, or at least, what caused the level to which the whole fiasco has ascending to. Surely to God someone in the DCC must have thought they better move fast and make sure they refuse the licences in as quick a timeframe as possible, so that the artist and the artist's management don't get to far down the road into the production of the concerts. Or so that hotels and flights that are booked, can be unbooked so as to not cause financial headaches from people and hoteliers.

No, they just sauntered along at their own pace and decided to phone the promotor three weeks before the concert dates, offering three licences and then offered maybe four, but only if you bow down before us and promise to be a good boy. Honestly, how anyone can think Keegan behaved well in this whole saga baffles me. The man is incredulous.

Owen Keegans solicitor told him he didn't have to take the agreement into account when making his decision.

It took the planners 5/6 weeks to make their recommendation, whatever happened afterwards is still up in the air.

They did not "sit on their hands" they took roughly the same amount of time they always do. And it doesn't matter, because the number of tickets sold should not be a factor, and absolutely nothing should be said until the planners recommendations are in, that kind of wink and nudge bollocks should have died with haughey.

The truth is, if aiken had applied 8 weeks earlier, this would've been fixed and a new license application put in before the ten week guidline.

We're never going to agree on this, but I commend Owen Keegan for making a very difficult decision.

redarmy

the concerts will go ahead , how many i dont know but ty will go ahead ,

dixiefly

karaokeman wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, Aiken, Garth, the GAA and DCC are partners in crime. This situation was a complete shamble, and could have been prevented if there was more co-operation from the earliest stages of planning the shows.

It's still painful to think of the economic gain our country would have experienced had the concerts gone ahead, but the damage it's done to us and our tourist potential will take some years to heal.

Hopefully this will be a wake up call for anyone involved in such a massive event to have more responsibility and consideration for the aftermath.

I am sure they know that they royally screwed up.

The statement from Brooks is positive, a compromise may be now arranged with Mon and Tues moved out to the following Fri and Sat with more money for local stuff, max 3 a year etc agreed upon