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

Phoebas

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

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

Because promoters in the past viewed licencing as a rubber stamping exercise.

bumper234

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

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.

And that's where things started going wrong. When 3 concerts were announced the residents were pissed off but said nothing. When concert #4 was announced there was grumblings of discontent but nothing said. When Aiken announced concert #5 that was the final straw and that's when the objections started.

salmocab

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.

All outdoor gigs with more than 5000 need a license any agreement between GAA and residents can't take precedence over the laws of the land

paulheu

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

bumper234

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

I have no issue with someone making an honest living

I do have an issue when that person tries to bully/blackmail and threaten to get their way and want laws changed to suit them just because of who they are.

Daith

salmocab wrote: »

All outdoor gigs with more than 5000 need a license any agreement between GAA and residents can't take precedence over the laws of the land

And nor can Brooks

Phoebas

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates.

This was originally organised as three gigs. When they sold out another was added on and then another, so it simply isn't credible that it couldn't make money with three gigs.

salmocab

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

To be fair in the press conference the other day he said it was meant to be 3 gigs so if he was planning on doing 3 then he was planning on making money on 3

Happyman42

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

Maybe so, but the fans didn't mess up here. If Aiken/Brooks think so much of them, and would do 'anything'...let them take a loss.
It's funny, in almost any other situation where you buy something and it goes wrong, the consumer doesn't have any problem chasing and penalising the vendor.
Here though, it is different...the consumers want everybody else to pay for this shambles except the people who aren't fulfilling their contracts with them.

Peppa Pig

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses.

One Direction only needed three a few weeks ago.

Actually nobody has ever needed 5 concerts in a row to make money, including Garth Brooks himself.

They announced 2 then 3 then 4 then 5. They must have figured they could make money only doing 2 shows.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Peppa Pig wrote: »

One Direction only needed three a few weeks ago.

Actually nobody has ever needed 5 concerts in a row to make money, including Garth Brooks himself.

They announced 2 then 3 then 4 then 5. They must have figured they could make money only doing 2 shows.

One Direction weren't shipping equipment, stage, crew, staff etc almost 5000 miles for a one off set of concerts.

eamonnq

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses.

Do you understand the economics of concerts on this scale ?

Titzon Toast

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

Why did they originally only plan 2 concerts then?
Was he going to play at a loss because he's such a nice guy?

salmocab

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

One Direction weren't shipping equipment, stage, crew, staff etc almost 5000 miles for a one off set of concerts.

But they have to split the money 4 or 5 ways

Phoebas

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

One Direction weren't shipping equipment, stage, crew, staff etc almost 5000 miles for a one off set of concerts.

When Brooks was selling two concerts he was going to be shipping the equipment, so its clear that he could make money on just two concerts.
In any case, a lot of this is a sunk cost now anyway (the boat is on its way) so cancelling the three concerts that did get the go ahead isn't going to recover it.

connemara man

Phoebas wrote: »

This was originally organised as three gigs. When they sold out another was added on and then another, so it simply isn't credible that it couldn't make money with three gigs.

And as has been reported as the amount of gigs went up the show got bigger and so more expensive to run.
Garth is more than likely saying all or none not because of fans but 1 the loss he will now incur/loss in profit doesn't make it viable for him. Or 2 he has insurance that we don't know about that protects him in a broken agreement.

IMO the 5 concerts should of gone ahead and then a more future looking agreement for the use of Croke Park put in place. A lot of people have messed up but no laws havw been broken yet. The agreement with the residents was 3 concerts allowed a year before an application for licence. And the GAA got them with 1D. Aiken and the GAA really pushed it here. But the countries licencing laws are ridiculous to say the least.
Croke Park is a great stadium and an asset to Dublin and should be used more than 3 times a year for concerts. I do feel for the local community in these situations. And I don't doubt it's tough living there. But something has got to give.

muddypaws

salmocab wrote: »

All outdoor gigs with more than 5000 need a license any agreement between GAA and residents can't take precedence over the laws of the land

I didn't know that, and this is the first time that I've heard it mentioned, do you have a link to that please, as I'm sure I've read in statements from DCC that no licence is required at Croke Park for the first 3 non sporting events of the year (but there has been so much posted, that I could be wrong on that)

paulheu wrote: »

Anyone here who understands the economics of concerts on this scale should understand that it's likely that the five gigs were needed to cover all expenses. These are multi million euro events which can't be paid from three dates. Also I find it amusing that the people who were the loudest in their complaining and b*tching now seems to try the hardest to express their disbelief they got their way and finding out they will cost the city around €50M on lost income because of it.

Major artists like Brooks have to make their living off of these gigs, recording really doesn't bring home the bacon anymore and hasn't for years.

You have a very valid point, but its not purely from the ticket sales that they make their money, the production costs go a long way to negate profit from that, but rather from the merchandising. 400,000 tickets may have been sold, but there aren't 400,000 people going, there seem to be a lot of people going to more than one night, I doubt that they will buy merchandise each night, so 3 gigs could cover it, and allow a profit.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Calina wrote: »

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

And Brooks contention is that it's not really great to cancel any concerts when you can cancel none.

Again:

160,000 people using an area over two days.. "over intensification".

320,000 people using an area over two days.. "neh bother".

As the man says: Fix what caused this mess (namely an idiotic system, all round) after the concerts. Don't treat 160,000 people so poorly just cause a bunch of pen pushers created a fiasco.

tigger123

Phoebas wrote: »

This was originally organised as three gigs. When they sold out another was added on and then another, so it simply isn't credible that it couldn't make money with three gigs.

It is credible. When the show went from 3 to 5 nights he could very easily have scaled everything up, making the production more epic.

Now, why he didn't scale it back down, or play 5 shows over the 3 days I don't know.

If we introduced emergency legislation (The Plastic Stetson Act 2014?) to allow these gigs to go ahead we''ll be a laugh s
I really wish this story would just die already.

tigger123

Phoebas wrote: »

This was originally organised as three gigs. When they sold out another was added on and then another, so it simply isn't credible that it couldn't make money with three gigs.

It is credible. When the show went from 3 to 5 nights he could very easily have scaled everything up, making the production more epic.

Now, why he didn't scale it back down, or play 5 shows over the 3 days I don't know.

If we introduced emergency legislation (The Plastic Stetson Act 2014?) to allow these gigs to go ahead we''ll be a laughing stock in Europe and internationally.

I really wish this story would just die already.

Peppa Pig

muddypaws wrote: »

I didn't know that, and this is the first time that I've heard it mentioned, do you have a link to that please, as I'm sure I've read in statements from DCC that no licence is required at Croke Park for the first 3 non sporting events of the year (but there has been so much posted, that I could be wrong on that)

They are "pre-licensed" for 3 gigs, but need to get the event management plan approved

Phoebas

connemara man wrote: »

And as has been reported as the amount of gigs went up the show got bigger and so more expensive to run.

If that's the case then the simple solution is to scale the show back to make the three gigs economically viable.
If it isn't possible to do that at this late stage then its all a sunk cost that he isn't going to recover by cancelling the three licenced gigs anyway. If he can recover the cost through insurance by cancelling the gigs then it rather puts the lie to his assertion that he just can't choose between his children.

El Weirdo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

160,000 people using an area over two days.. "over intensification".

320,000 people using an area iver two days.. "neh bother".

Incorrect.

It's actually 320,000 over 3 days. Three days of the weekend, I might add. The other 2 days are weekdays and I would imagine that traffic management would have played a sizeable part in the decision to not allow them to go ahead.

Evoaps

WhAts the latest on this?
It's an absolute disgrace leaving so much uncertainty this close to the gig

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

And Brooks contention is that it's not really great to cancel any concerts when you can cancel none.

Again:

160,000 people using an area over two days.. "over intensification".

320,000 people using an area iver two days.. "neh bother".

As the man says: Fix was caused this mess (namely an idiotic system, all round) after the concerts. Don't treat 160,000 people so poorly just cause a bunch of pen pushers created a fiasco.

Who says that 'over intensification' is the planning issue? Does it really matter how many people are causing the problem for you as a resident? Absolutely not...silly point.

And on the issue of the concert, I have run many gigs, big and small and have seen many artists perform after facing great challenges, including loosing kit, power issues etc.
I remember his fellow countryman Jackson Browne hiring his own venue in Dublin and playing for his fans after his gig got cancelled. In his mind the fan was TRULY the king.
Adapt Garth and fulfill your legal contracts with punters, do whatever it takes (and it isn't that hard) you are letting down every other artist who will genuinely move heaven and earth to perform.

Happyman42

Evoaps wrote: »

WhAts the latest on this?
It's an absolute disgrace leaving so much uncertainty this close to the gig

Gigs are still off, the ball is in the Brooks court.

Titzon Toast

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

And Brooks contention is that it's not really great to cancel any concerts when you can cancel none.

Again:

160,000 people using an area over two days.. "over intensification".

320,000 people using an area iver two days.. "neh bother".

As the man says: Fix was caused this mess (namely an idiotic system, all round) after the concerts. Don't treat 160,000 people so poorly just cause a bunch of pen pushers created a fiasco.

The fact remains though, Garth himself is letting the most amount of people down here by refusing to play the three gigs he was given permission for.

nxbyveromdwjpg

connemara man wrote: »

IMO the 5 concerts should of gone ahead and then a more future looking agreement for the use of Croke Park put in place.

Definitely would have been the best option

connemara man wrote: »

Croke Park is a great stadium and an asset to Dublin and should be used more than 3 times a year for concerts. I do feel for the local community in these situations. And I don't doubt it's tough living there. But something has got to give.
use of Croke Park put in place.

The sacred 'agreement' needs to be reviewed

Pumpkinseeds

Another day another round of desperate posts from delusional GB fans. Face it people, he doesn't give a rats ass about his fans, if he did this wouldn't have happened. The sooner the refunds start the better, then we can put this nonsense behind us.

I rang ticketmaster on Wednesday because I had bought tickets on my danske bank account, and since those accounts were closed in February, I phoned them to register my new bank account for my refund.

I received my refund this morning- does this mean it's definitely over?