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…108109111113114…265

Comments

  • Options
    #3302
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    I have and the blame free table is still there with Brooks in top position and DCC 2nd last



    You might want to try again.


  • Options
    #3303
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Calina wrote: »
    Clue: it wasn't Dublin City Council.



    Question: Who Then?


  • Options
    #3304
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    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..

    So why would DCC be facing possible court action for following the rules and laws of the land?


  • Options
    #3305
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,184 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    You might want to try again.

    You are not getting your point across then

    Blame free table is still there

    Maybe have another shot at what you were meant to say


  • Options
    #3306
    Ranchu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Ranchu


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    You might want to try again.

    He's dead right though. No one is stopping Brooks playing three dates but himself. If he can't get over not being able to play the two extra on week nights causing huge disruption someone should direct him towards the 5 lamps.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3307
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    muddypaws wrote: »
    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.



    I think it's safe to assume that nobody knows what's going on for sure.


    My guess is that the promoter is going to take one hell of a kicking for this whole saga. The whole episode stems form the fact that tickets were sold without having finalised things. Therein lies the nub of the problem.


  • Options
    #3308
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I think it's safe to assume that nobody knows what's going on for sure.


    My guess is that the promoter is going to take one hell of a kicking for this whole saga. The hole episode stems form the fact that tickets were sold without having finalised things. Therein lies the nub of the proble

    As things stand, the dude was licensed to play three out of the five concerts applied for. He's refusing to play any.


  • Options
    #3309
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Question: Who Then?

    I have no idea and I really don't care. Ultimately, DCC do not bear blame for that side of things.


  • Options
    #3310
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »
    You are not getting your point across then

    Blame free table is still there

    Maybe have another shot at what you were meant to say



    Where did you get this "blame free table" from? It's a list of the parties involved


  • Options
    #3311
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Calina wrote: »
    I have no idea and I really don't care. Ultimately, DCC do not bear blame for that side of things.



    So the council are out of the picture. Therefore, we are down to the promoter and the GAA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3312
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    So the council are out of the picture. Therefore, we are down to the promoter and the GAA.

    and Brooks........don't forget Mr Brooks.


  • Options
    #3313
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Calina wrote: »
    As things stand, the dude was licensed to play three out of the five concerts applied for. He's refusing to play any.



    The "dude" has 160,000 extra ticketholders that he could play to. My whole contention is that it's remarkably stupid to sell 160,000 tickets for something unless you have he relevant permission in place.


    This is not the fault of Garth Brooks or the ticketholders concerned.


  • Options
    #3314
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    and Brooks........don't forget Mr Brooks.



    I imagine that court proceedings will result from this whole thing.


    Will Garth Brooks be sued as a result of this whole episode?


    If, so why?


  • Options
    #3315
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I imagine that court proceedings will result from this whole ting.


    Will Garth Brooks be sued as a result of this whole episode?


    If, so why?

    Depends if he signed a contract to play 3 concerts or not. More reason for him to be sued than DCC that's for sure


  • Options
    #3316
    Ranchu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 709 ✭✭✭Ranchu


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I imagine that court proceedings will result from this whole thing.


    Will Garth Brooks be sued as a result of this whole episode?


    If, so why?

    You don't have to break the law to be in the wrong.


  • Options
    #3317
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,204 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Depends if he signed a contract to play 3 concerts or not. More reason for him to be sued than DCC that's for sure

    The residents lodged a complaint as they're entitled to do (And I think they were right to, but that's besides the point). DCC evaluated all the evidence and came to a fair decision. Everyone else, including the media, are to blame for the circus that followed.


  • Options
    #3318
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    The "dude" has 160,000 extra ticketholders that he could play to. My whole contention is that it's remarkably stupid to sell 160,000 tickets for something unless you have he relevant permission in place.


    This is not the fault of Garth Brooks or the ticketholders concerned.

    And my contention is it's not really great to cancel 5 concerts when you only need to cancel 2.


  • Options
    #3319
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Depends if he signed a contract to play 3 concerts or not. More reason for him to be sued than DCC that's for sure



    If there had a contract in place for three gigs (that's a very big if and there has never been any mention of this), surely he had no grounds for holding out for five.


    One can only assume that no such contract exists given his position.


  • Options
    #3320
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Grayson wrote: »
    The residents lodged a complaint as they're entitled to do (And I think they were right to, but that's besides the point). DCC evaluated all the evidence and came to a fair decision. Everyone else, including the media, are to blame for the circus that followed.

    And Mr Brooks..........Let's not forget Mr Brooks :D:D


  • Options
    #3321
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    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 are the first three scot free? Both Garth Brooks and the residents both had a massive hand in this mess. The ticketholders are the only innocent bystanders in the whole thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3322
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    If there had a contract in place for three gigs (that's a very big if and there has never been any mention of this), surely he had no grounds for holding out for five.


    One can only assume that no such contract exists given his position.

    Amazing what the thoughts of an extra few $$$$$ will do to someone.


  • Options
    #3323
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Calina wrote: »
    And my contention is it's not really great to cancel 5 concerts when you only need to cancel 2.



    There were only to be three concerts in Croke Park this year in total.


    They have already taken place.


  • Options
    #3324
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Amazing what the thoughts of an extra few $$$$$ will do to someone.



    Greed isn't a crime.


  • Options
    #3325
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    There were only to be three concerts in Croke Park this year in total.


    They have already taken place.

    Those would be the concerts that didn't need licences.


  • Options
    #3326
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,952 ✭✭✭Daith


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    There were only to be three concerts in Croke Park this year in total.


    They have already taken place.

    No there was three gigs and then more subject to planning permission.

    I do wonder on the planning permission if it specified that all five shows would need to be okayed?


  • Options
    #3327
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    Greed isn't a crime.

    Never said it was a crime.


  • Options
    #3328
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,371 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    muddypaws wrote: »
    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.

    Aiken was asked about this during the week and he said that he hadn't told Brooks that the gigs were 'subject to licence' - presumably its the role of the promoter to sort out all of the local issues and insulate the artist from all of the nitty gritty.
    Aiken must have known that there was a chance he wouldn't get the licence. It was clear that this was an unprecedented set of events to be held in Croke Park, breaking previous numbers for gigs held in a year and for consecutive gigs. In fact, Aiken printed 'Subject to license' on the front of every ticket that he sold, so he was perfectly willing to use this possibility to protect himself.


  • Options
    #3329
    muddypaws
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭muddypaws


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    There were only to be three concerts in Croke Park this year in total.


    They have already taken place.

    Not quite, there were 3 concerts to be held in Croke Park this year that didn't need an events licence - they were the 1D gigs. Anymore than that had to apply for a licence.


  • Options
    #3330
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    nm wrote: »
    How are the first three scot free? Both Garth Brooks and the residents both had a massive hand in this mess. The ticketholders are the only innocent bystanders in the whole thing.



    The residents have stated on a number of occasions that the GAA had agreements in place to host three concerts per year. We've already had three concerts in croke park this year. Isnt it reasonable to assume that the GAA would stick to their word. If people are to accuse Garth Brooks of greed, it's all too easy to level the same accusation at the GAA.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3331
    Wacker The Attacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    muddypaws wrote: »
    Not quite, there were 3 concerts to be held in Croke Park this year that didn't need an events licence - they were the 1D gigs. Anymore than that had to apply for a licence.



    Again, this begs the very obvious question, why sell tickets with no licence?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement