Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…107108110112113…265

Comments

  • Options
    #3272
    sjb25
    Registered Users Posts: 3,382 ✭✭✭sjb25


    That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy wrote: »
    This could be the beginning of a civil war.quote="]

    Garth brooks supporters going to take over the four courts during there protest? And the army going to shell them out :) this has escalated


  • Options
    #3273
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    Right lets say(for talks sake)that he did his job correctly.
    Why on Gods earth did he choose the biggest entertainment event in at least a decade, involving the biggest and best entertainer on the planet, and knowing how much 'serious' trouble he was going to start and how many people he was going to upset! why oh why pray tell did he chose this event to do his job correctly??

    This thread has been comedy gold :D

    Amazing how the GB fans blame everyone else but GB/Aiken for all of this. Fact of the matter is simple. CP had planning permission for 3 concerts per year and after that they would need special licences for any further concerts. An bord pleanala foresaw the disruption that concerts and large events would cause the local residents and put these restrictions in place for exactly the situation like the GB debacle.

    Fast forward a few years and Croke park plays host to One direction for 3 nights which uses up their "allowance" of concerts, any more will now have to be licenced and go through the proper procedures laid down. Aiken/Croke park/Garth Brooks announce 3 concerts then four then five. Licences (eventually) get applied for and two of them are rejected due to the disruption they would cause to residents/businesses in the area around Croke park.

    That's all.it is, the city manager did the job he was hired to do. I have been in stitches reading the comments in here about people demanding he gets sacked for doing his job and how the government (Obama? Mexico?? God?????????) Should overthrow the decision that was made and allow the concerts go ahead. :eek:

    Here's what all the Brooks fans need to understand, Licences were applied for.......licences were (rightly imo) rejected. Just because you apply for permission to do something does not mean you automatically will get the licence. For the genuine fans who are missing out due to GB's stubborn attitude and diva like demands i feel sorry for you. For the trolls in here (you know who you are) who didn't even have tickets to any of the concerts and just wound the situation up i say HA HAAAAAAAA:D


  • Options
    #3274
    OldGoat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,637 ✭✭✭✭OldGoat


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    Right lets say(for talks sake)that he did his job correctly.
    Why on Gods earth did he choose the biggest entertainment event in at least a decade, involving the biggest and best entertainer on the planet, and knowing how much 'serious' trouble he was going to start and how many people he was going to upset! why oh why pray tell did he chose this event to do his job correctly??
    Ehhh, because it's his job?
    Because it was the right thing to do?
    Because he is putting the law above all else?

    DCC are in a tough spot at the moment facing down the indignation of a huge amount of people and bearing the pressure being brought by other councilors, mediation groups, press, TD's, hoteliers et al andeven the might of the White House was being dragged in to line up against them. That's is a whole lot of pressure. The question you should be asking is why would they face that?
    Why would they give themselves that grief when it would be so easy to just give in. Why take the flak when they could spin it to look like last minute heroes? Do they stand to make a pile of money for the City? No.

    They are doing what is right in law by putting the Rights of those who complained before the cries of those who believe that this is a numbers issue, who believe that money should win out or who just want to see Garth no matter what.

    Any discussions, changes of mind, interference by vested parties or on your knees pleading cannot - CANNOT - change the announced decision of 3 dates. That is the law as it currently stands. To back down from their position will be to the detriment of the office, council and the country in terms of law and correct procedure.

    My sympathies to the fans. My understanding to wants of the business about to lose out. My seething indignation to self-serving politicos who are trying to circumvent the law of the land. My respect to the Council for doing their job.

    I'm older than Minecraft goats.



  • Options
    #3275
    Funnyonion79
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Funnyonion79


    Since the residents have withdrawn their objections now and everyone just wishes the 5 concerts could just go ahead - why doesn't Owen Keegan go to Enda and say look, everyone wants this to happen and since there are no longer any objections, I think the best thing now is for the Dail to bring in emergency legislation to change the planning laws and allow for an appeals process. My original decision can then be appealed and the 5 nights can go ahead!

    Problem solved!


  • Options
    #3276
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Funnyonion79 wrote: »
    Since the residents have withdrawn their objections now and everyone just wishes the 5 concerts could just go ahead - why doesn't Owen Keegan go to Enda and say look, everyone wants this to happen and since there are no longer any objections, I think the best thing now is for the Dail to bring in emergency legislation to change the planning laws and allow for an appeals process. My original decision can then be appealed and the 5 nights can go ahead!

    Problem solved!

    Because not everyone wants 5 nights to go ahead! If that happened then there would be fresh objections and you would be back to square one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3277
    bobrawn20
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭bobrawn20


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    the biggest entertainment event in at least a decade, involving the biggest and best entertainer on the planet

    LOL


  • Options
    #3278
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,204 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Eh yes, you're absolutely right, I have and have been all week. You imply contradiction with your tone here but the above quote in NO way contradicts the 9 week figure.



    I know alright, but I'm 100% sure you don't..



    Let me try and make this really simple for you:

    Aiken applied for the licence 14 weeks before the concerts. Five weeks is the actually figure the council have to wait before they can officially refuse an application, not ten. Ten would be illogical, no matter how many people on this thread keep repeating it. 14 - 5 = 9! Or at least it did when I was at school. Ten weeks would not make sense. Ten weeks is the deadline. If the deadline was the same amount of time as the time that the council had to wait before they could make a decision, that would mean that applications lodged just before the deadline, could only be granted or rejected on.the.day.of.the.bloody.event.

    But, don't just take my word for it:





    Even the bloody BBC are aware of that:

    5 weeks is the time they allow for people to object and they say that all applications have to be made at least 10 weeks before the event, but they don't say that they will take between 5 and 10 weeks. I haven't seen anywhere it states that DCC have to reply within a certain time.
    Besides, after the 5 week consultation period it had to take a few weeks to review any protests that were lodged.


  • Options
    #3279
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,204 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    OldGoat wrote: »
    DCC are in a tough spot at the moment facing down the indignation of a huge amount of people and bearing the pressure being brought by other councilors, mediation groups, press, TD's, hoteliers et al andeven the might of the White House was being dragged in to line up against them. That's is a whole lot of pressure. The question you should be asking is why would they face that?

    I'm sure they probably second guessed themselves loads before they released their decision. they probably double checked everything 50 times before realising they had no choice.


  • Options
    #3280
    Jamsiek
    Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Jamsiek


    Sam Quentin wrote: »
    biggest entertainment event in at least a decade, involving the biggest and best entertainer on the planet

    This comment has got to be a joke right?


  • Options
    #3281
    Funnyonion79
    Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Funnyonion79


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Because not everyone wants 5 nights to go ahead! If that happened then there would be fresh objections and you would be back to square one.

    I thought the residents were on board with the 5 nights now, no..? Thought I heard they were organisig a petition at some stage to let the 5 nights go ahead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3282
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    The real elephant in the room here is the Croke Park stadium.
    Back in the 90's when they started to build the modern facility [with some of our money by the way] a decision should have been made to move the whole caboodle out to City West, or somewhere like it.

    Then they could hold events in it 365, if they could get the bums on the seats,
    [which should really be the only consideration].


  • Options
    #3283
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    I must preface my comments by stating that I am not intimately aware of every minor detail.


    However, if we look at every group involved


    Garth Brook
    Ticketholders
    Local Residents
    The GAA
    Dublin City Council
    The promoter.


    As far as blame goes, the first three are scot free. Its not difficult to see a number of court cases resulting from this, even if the concerts now go ahead that involve the GAA, Council and/or the promoter.


  • Options
    #3284
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I must preface my comments by stating that I am not intimately aware of every minor detail.


    However, if we look at every group involved


    Garth Brook
    Ticketholders
    Local Residents
    The GAA
    Dublin City Council
    The promoter.


    As far as blame goes, the first three are scot free. Its not difficult to see a number of court cases resulting from this, even if the concerts now go ahead that involve the GAA, Council and/or the promoter.

    explain how the council are at fault when they are the ONLY ones in this whole fiasco who done things by the rule book and not bent to popular or political pressure?


  • Options
    #3285
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    OldGoat wrote: »
    Ehhh, because it's his job?
    Because it was the right thing to do?
    Because he is putting the law above all else?

    DCC are in a tough spot at the moment facing down the indignation of a huge amount of people and bearing the pressure being brought by other councilors, mediation groups, press, TD's, hoteliers et al andeven the might of the White House was being dragged in to line up against them. That's is a whole lot of pressure. The question you should be asking is why would they face that?
    Why would they give themselves that grief when it would be so easy to just give in. Why take the flak when they could spin it to look like last minute heroes? Do they stand to make a pile of money for the City? No.

    They are doing what is right in law by putting the Rights of those who complained before the cries of those who believe that this is a numbers issue, who believe that money should win out or who just want to see Garth no matter what.

    Any discussions, changes of mind, interference by vested parties or on your knees pleading cannot - CANNOT - change the announced decision of 3 dates. That is the law as it currently stands. To back down from their position will be to the detriment of the office, council and the country in terms of law and correct procedure.

    My sympathies to the fans. My understanding to wants of the business about to lose out. My seething indignation to self-serving politicos who are trying to circumvent the law of the land. My respect to the Council for doing their job.



    Can they use the justification that they were just doing their jobs. I don't know what kind of basis they'd have for the decision they made but presumably there is some legal back up for it.


  • Options
    #3286
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,345 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Curly Judge wrote: »
    The real elephant in the room here is the Croke Park stadium.
    Back in the 90's when they started to build the modern facility [with some of our money by the way] a decision should have been made to move the whole caboodle out to City West, or somewhere like it.

    Then they could hold events in it 365, if they could get the bums on the seats,
    [which should really be the only consideration].

    Suburban stadiums don't make for good stadiums. For sporting events especially of the regular variety people like to have a few drinks before and after the game and its very difficult when the stadium is away from the pubs. A trip to Cardiff where the stadium is slap in the middle of the city would show this. Croker isn't in a perfect location with so much residential around it but its still far better than having it out in the suburbs.


  • Options
    #3287
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,184 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I must preface my comments by stating that I am not intimately aware of every minor detail.

    I do not think you are aware of any detail never mind every minor detail


  • Options
    #3288
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    explain how the council are at fault when they are the ONLY ones in this whole fiasco who done things by the rule book and not bent to popular or political pressure?



    I didn't say they were at fault. I said they may be involved in legal proceedings, should they be issued.


    Presumably the promoter will bear the brunt of most of this. But to assume that he wont blame the council in turn is difficult to see


  • Options
    #3289
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    I do not think you are aware of any detail never mind every minor detail



    So which part(s) are completely wrong


  • Options
    #3290
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,184 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    So which part(s) are completely wrong

    Putting Mr Brooks top of the blame free table and putting DCC 2nd last


  • Options
    #3291
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I didn't say they were at fault. I said they may be involved in legal proceedings, should they be issued.


    Presumably the promoter will bear the brunt of most of this. But to assume that he wont blame the council in turn is difficult to see
    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I must preface my comments by stating that I am not intimately aware of every minor detail.


    However, if we look at every group involved


    Garth Brook
    Ticketholders
    Local Residents
    The GAA
    Dublin City Council
    The promoter.


    As far as blame goes, the first three are scot free. Its not difficult to see a number of court cases resulting from this, even if the concerts now go ahead that involve the GAA, Council and/or the promoter.

    How can you claim Brooks is an innocent party in all of this:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3292
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    Putting Mr Brooks top of the blame free table and putting DCC 2nd last



    You might want to read my post again.


  • Options
    #3293
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    How can you claim Brooks is an innocent party in all of this:confused:



    On what grounds is he "guilty". I fail to see how you could blame him his fans or the local residents for any of this.


  • Options
    #3294
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,184 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    You might want to read my post again.

    I have and the blame free table is still there with Brooks in top position and DCC 2nd last


  • Options
    #3295
    muddypaws
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭muddypaws


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    On what grounds is he "guilty". I fail to see how you could blame him his fans or the local residents for any of this.

    His refusal to play the 3 licensed gigs?


  • Options
    #3296
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    On what grounds is he "guilty". I fail to see how you could blame him his fans or the local residents for any of this.

    He is guilty of trying to force a change in our laws to facilitate his ego! He is guilty of trying to blackmail the country with his "All or nothing" attitude and he is guilty of greed for refusing to play the 3 concerts. But keep looking at his posters through your rose tinted glasses along with the rest of the "Garth can do no wrong" crowd.


  • Options
    #3297
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    muddypaws wrote: »
    His refusal to play the 3 licensed gigs?



    Who told him he could play five?


  • Options
    #3298
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,184 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Who told him he could play five?

    His ego


  • Options
    #3299
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Who told him he could play five?

    Clue: it wasn't Dublin City Council.


  • Options
    #3300
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    He is guilty of trying to force a change in our laws to facilitate his ego! He is guilty of trying to blackmail the country with his "All or nothing" attitude and he is guilty of greed for refusing to play the 3 concerts. But keep looking at his posters through your rose tinted glasses along with the rest of the "Garth can do no wrong" crowd.



    I'm not a particular fan of Garth Brooks. The way I see it is that if someone isn't entitled to play 5 concerts at a particular venue, then you don't sell tickets for it prior to getting it all sorted..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3301
    muddypaws
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭muddypaws


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Who told him he could play five?

    No idea, but some posters on here apparently are in rooms when conversations take place between some really high powered people, so they may have the answer.

    Aiken Promotions applied for licences for 5 nights, perhaps Peter Aiken told Brooks that he was playing 5 nights, rather than that 5 nights had been applied for? Or maybe he didn't, I'm sure Brooks' management would have known exactly what the situation was. And Brooks has been in the business long enough himself to know how things actually work.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement