Garth Brooks concerts cancelled - **READ FIRST POST FOR MOD NOTES**

Dyr

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Allow us to be clear here, he is, in fact, a greedy egotistical yank

You just don't want to admit that you worship greedy egotistical yanks :P

jack presley

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Wooooossssssssh!!

That all you got? Well done. Thanks again for playing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Gringo180

Rasheed wrote: »

It was announced on the tv3 news there anyway. They said residents and fans that want the concerts to go ahead

Sad Sad People :rolleyes:

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Wooooossssssssh!!

Give us one good reason why he waited so late?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tarzana

Bambi wrote: »

You just don't want to admit that you worship greedy egotistical yanks :P

I think Permabear is pretty open about the fact that he worships greedy, egotistical yanks! :pac:

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow! Just wow!:eek:

Garth should take up preaching.

Larry Wildman

It's pretty obvious what's going on.

An artist like Brooks couldn't do two shows a day so that idea is nonsensical.

The plan was for five concerts. 400,000 people at around €75 on average. Let's call that an even €30m. Brooks and the team put together a package that costs (say) €20m, so the profit on the series of gigs was going to be €10m. Cutting the series to three gigs means a take of circa €18m. Meaning a loss of €2m on the exercise.

Just allow the five concerts and stop the gombeenery...this whole episode is a national embarrassment.

TeddyTedson

Maybe the government could arrange to play a few of his CDs in the phoenix park. It will be like when the pope came over and could be just what the country/economy needs.
Have they started line dancing in Coppers yet?

Tarzana

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Aye, but not necessarily in his or his ilk's favour, which is the point jack presley was trying to make, I think. It will likely mean planning and licensing law are tightened up instead.

TeddyTedson

Gringo180 wrote: »

Any truth in people marching to the GPO for the concert to go ahead, few people on social network have been saying there is one :eek:

It's like 1916 all over again almost 100 years later.

Piliger

Tarzana wrote: »

Aye, but not necessarily in his or his ilk's favour, which is the point jack presley was trying to make, I think. It will likely mean planning and licensing law are tightened up instead.

No. It'll mean they will become more democratic and less dictated by tiny bullying groups.

Happyman42

Larry Wildman wrote: »

It's pretty obvious what's going on.

An artist like Brooks couldn't do two shows a day so that idea is nonsensical.

The plan was for five concerts. 400,000 people at around €75 on average. Let's call that an even €30m. Brooks and the team put together a package that costs (say) €20m, so the profit on the series of gigs was going to be €10m. Cutting the series to three gigs means a take of circa €18m. Meaning a loss of €2m on the exercise.

Just allow the five concerts and stop the gombeenery...this whole episode is a national embarrassment.

Well he said he would do 'anything' for his fans and he is wealthy...take a hit?
Ireland didn't **** this up...some Irish people and Brooks ****ed this up.

My name is URL

muddypaws wrote: »

But he mentioned matinees first, then Aiken put the proposal to DCC.

Whatever about lighting etc, and Garth being able to cope, I don't get the argument about backstage crew, vendors etc. Festivals seem to manage it pretty well

Would it be ironic to mention planning at this stage? :P

Festival organisers plan for festivals.. Brooks and his crew planned to do five shows over five nights.. there wouldn't be enough manpower to ensure effective shift-work for such a large show.

TeddyTedson

The GPO march might go a bit like this....

"What do we want"

"Garth Brooks"

"When do we want him?"

"Friday 25th of July, Saturday 26th of July, Sunday 27th of July, Monday 28th of July and Tuesday 29th of July"

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tarzana

Piliger wrote: »

No. It'll mean they will become more democratic and less dictated by tiny bullying groups.

This is what *you* want to happen. And it's not the viewpoint of everyone that it's undemocratic. The rights of the few etc. etc.

The laws will be tightened up. I've no doubt this will displease you. Continue seething, I guess.

The initial decision made perfect sense and was a decent compromise.

Gringo180

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Its a concert for jaysus sake. Is there not more pressing matters going on in the country and the world for that matter that they could focus there energy on :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Bambi wrote: »

Allow us to be clear here, he is, in fact, a greedy egotistical yank

You just don't want to admit that you worship greedy egotistical yanks :P

Just want to point out that I'm ignorant of Garth Brooks to the point of not being 100% confident naming even one or two of his songs, and I agree with Permabear 100% (Agreeing with Permabear? It's the end of the world, hide yo kids, hide yo wife :pac:) - this isn't just about Garth Brooks or these particular gigs, it's about a culture of over-bureaucratism of Irish licensing.

To be clear: My view here is that at the most fundamental level, requiring planning permission for an event, with all the unbelievable sh!te that comes with engaging with Ireland's planning process, is batsh!t insane. There should be a special category of license for events, which is entirely separate and operates under entirely different rules to the planning process. That's the reason I'm interested, not for these gigs on their own but the principle that underlines this whole debacle, that in the capital city of a modern country it shouldn't be even nearly this complicated to organize something like a concert.

We had an incident like this with the UCD Ball a couple of years ago in which it had to be re-sheduled because of planning permission crap. It's completely daft. In a large, modern city, outdoor events should be easy to hold and regularly held. If people don't want that, then they shouldn't live in the middle of the city. I'm not even taking the "people knew they were living near a stadium" argument that's been done to death already, I'm making a more basic "people knew they were living in the biggest city in a modern country" argument. You choose to live in the city, you choose to live amongst busy, vibrant activity. It's for this same reason that I vehemently oppose the Gardai imposing curfews on crowds congregating on places like Grafton St when nightclubs close on weekend nights - it's one of the main streets in the city centre, if you choose to live in such a place in the middle of a city then you have to accept that, being a city, there may or may not be a constant buzz around it.

Now I'm not completely unsympathetic to the residents here - one of the issues residents complained about apart from the activity was the imposition of road blocks, requirement to have "passes", etc. This is also absolutely ridiculous as far as I'm concerned and completely unnecessary - if people have a ticket they can go through the turnstyles at the stadium, if they don't they can't. I don't see the need to impose "checkpoints" further afield than this, and if this is indeed something which is done and causes headaches for residents, I agree 100%.

All of these issues combined make it sound like we're trying to host a nuclear bomb test or something like that. It's a concert. It doesn't need that level of babysitting.

secman

end of the road wrote: »

no, they must be able to use them when they see fit, infact they must be able to use the venues to the full potential

And while we are at it lets scrap traffic lights and speed limits , use cars and roads to their full potential.......

Tarzana

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

JTo be clear: My view here is that at the most fundamental level, requiring planning permission for an event, with all the unbelievable sh!te that comes with engaging with Ireland's planning process, is batsh!t insane. There should be a special category of license for events, which is entirely separate and operates under entirely different rules to the planning process.

And if there was to be this special category of licence of events, it should still come with restriction to protect the *rights* of the immediate population of the area, taking into account infrastructure etc.

So, yeah, it's not like it should be a special category where you can do as you please.

hatrickpatrick

secman wrote: »

And while we are at it lets scrap traffic lights and speed limits , use cars and roads to their full potential.......

Ridiculous analogy. It's more like, "Let's scrap laws which say traffic is only allowed on the N11 at certain times of the day". If such laws existed, they would indeed be ridiculously stupid.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

jack presley wrote: »

I love the way you selectively pick which parts of my post to quote.

From the chap who quoted my whole post and said it was cut and paste, you've some cheek moaning about someone not addressing one of the points you put.

You conveniently chose to ignore the question about Aiken's integrity when he said Brooks said he wanted to do the afternoon shows. So who's lying? The honourable Peter Aiken or Saint Garth?

I have already answered it. In fact, I was talking about Brooks suggesting that before anyone else on the thread, long before yesterday's press conference but if you can somehow manage to find the RTE news clip, you'll see that although it was mentioned, it was not considered a viable option. It was said to show that Garth was trying to come up ways to do the five concerts. You have to remember, just because Brooks thinks he can do something, doesn't mean his director and producer does. Aiken's opinion is the last one that would matter. He's a promotor, end of story.

As for the rest of your tripe, if you want to keep coming on here and embarrassing yourself with ridiculous statements, plough on..!!

I haven't posted any ridiculous statements. I've addressed many though.

hatrickpatrick

Tarzana wrote: »

And if there was to be this special category of licence of events, it should still come with restriction to protect the *rights* of the immediate population of the area, taking into account infrastructure etc.

So, yeah, it's not like it should be a special category where you can do as you please.

Again, if you choose to live in a city, you implicitly accept that you're living amongst vibrant activity. If you want a rural existence, don't live in a city centre. I argue extensively on every political thread about individual rights, but I don't see how that extends to the right to demand restrictions on a city being a city.

secman

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I heard from another source that there are protests planned outside Croke Park on the dates of the cancelled concerts.

Depends on what's on the telly

Tarzana

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again, if you choose to live in a city, you implicitly accept that you're living amongst vibrant activity.

Simply doesn't matter. You cannot ignore that part of the city cannot take huge events that well due to their geography. So no, I really don't accept the "You live in a city" viewpoint personally.

muddypaws

My name is URL wrote: »

Would it be ironic to mention planning at this stage? :P

Festival organisers plan for festivals.. Brooks and his crew planned to do five shows over five nights.. there wouldn't be enough manpower to ensure effective shift-work for such a large show.

Touché

He is on stage for 2 hours (nobody has corrected that, it may be less) You honestly don't think his crew could do 4 hours work in one day, lets allow for an hour each side of each performance, 8 hours work? The shift work would be the security staff, vendors, AGS. Hey, just think of how much money it would bring into the economy, more people would have to be employed, so its actually better, how can anybody argue?

bucketybuck

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is also absolutely ridiculous as far as I'm concerned and completely unnecessary - if people have a ticket they can go through the turnstyles at the stadium, if they don't they can't. I don't see the need to impose "checkpoints" further afield than this, and if this is indeed something which is done and causes headaches for residents, I agree 100%.

You haven't a single clue what you are talking about. Go and learn something about crowd management for gods sake.

hatrickpatrick

Tarzana wrote: »

Simply doesn't matter. You cannot ignore that part of the city cannot take huge events that well due to their geography. So no, I really don't accept the "You live in a city" viewpoint personally.

Such as?