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

Calina

amkin25 wrote: »

I would agree with you Aiken is to blame as much or more,but just because Aiken was wrong doesn't mean the DCC had to be as bad as him,they knew the tickets were sold as the whole place knew whether the application was made or not,and they said nothing to nobody it seems.

DCC really aren't obliged to do anything until they get an official application for a licence. They are not in the business of being baby sitters and phoning up a company who've been promoting concerts for years, who are aware there there was discontent as soon as concert 5 was annouched, just to say "Heuston, we may have a problem here" is not their job. Their job is to evaluate the licence application when it comes.

I don't know about you but I've seen a lot of screaming and whinging and moaning about how over regulated we are, this saga as example. The idea that the council has to ring a promoter to flag issues to them is evidence of wanting more interference, not less.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Calina wrote: »

DCC really aren't obliged to do anything until they get an official application for a licence. They are not in the business of being baby sitters and phoning up a company who've been promoting concerts for years, who are aware there there was discontent as soon as concert 5 was annouched, just to say "Heuston, we may have a problem here" is not their job. Their job is to evaluate the licence application when it comes.

I don't know about you but I've seen a lot of screaming and whinging and moaning about how over regulated we are, this saga as example. The idea that the council has to ring a promoter to flag issues to them is evidence of wanting more interference, not less.

I wouldn't expect them to pro-actively contact the promoter before receiving the licence, but Aikens does say he contacted them before putting them on sale, and was given no indication it would be a problem.

amkin25

Calina wrote: »

DCC really aren't obliged to do anything until they get an official application for a licence. They are not in the business of being baby sitters and phoning up a company who've been promoting concerts for years, who are aware there there was discontent as soon as concert 5 was annouched, just to say "Heuston, we may have a problem here" is not their job. Their job is to evaluate the licence application when it comes.

I don't know about you but I've seen a lot of screaming and whinging and moaning about how over regulated we are, this saga as example. The idea that the council has to ring a promoter to flag issues to them is evidence of wanting more interference, not less.

I hear what your saying and it makes sense,but it still is farcical that Aiken was allowed sell so many tickets,basically con a lot of people without having much chance of getting permission for all these concerts.

Happyman42

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Residents complain in Fenruary

Proof, if proof is necessary at this stage, that Aiken/Croke Park played fast and loose with the law of this country.
If they just ignored all of this and never sought legal advice of their own or never asked the planning office about it, then at the very least they are incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to run anything. Likewise Brooks management, are people saying that they never asked about the potential of this causing problems? Any management company I ever dealt with would be all over this like a rash, because THAT IS THEIR JOB, protect their asset.
Beggars belief that there are people defending this.

El Weirdo

nm wrote: »

I can see the contrast but it has nothing with it.

Could say the same for protesting water charges while people are dying in Palestine, etc.

Really? You can't see the difference?

Baffling.

My name is URL

fta93 wrote: »

and seeing Irish people protest at a few gigs while most countries are protesting about mass murder in Gaza.

Have you been out protesting over the situation in Gaza.. or do you have other 'more important' things to be doing?

What concern is it of yours if people feel that this is 'important' enough to demonstrate over?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Calina wrote: »

DCC really aren't obliged to do anything until they get an official application for a licence. They are not in the business of being baby sitters and phoning up a company who've been promoting concerts for years, who are aware there there was discontent as soon as concert 5 was annouched, just to say "Heuston, we may have a problem here" is not their job. Their job is to evaluate the licence application when it comes.

I don't know about you but I've seen a lot of screaming and whinging and moaning about how over regulated we are, this saga as example. The idea that the council has to ring a promoter to flag issues to them is evidence of wanting more interference, not less.

"Obliged"? No.

Common sense though, should tell you that you don't leave it until three weeks before concerts are due to take place, to announce that you are refusing licences for them. Especially concerts which almost half a million people are due to attend. Nine weeks is a long time for council officals, who are tasked with accessing licence applications for events in Dublin, to sit around with their thumb up their arses when making a decision on the largest the city will see this year.

nxbyveromdwjpg

El Weirdo wrote: »

Really? You can't see the difference?

Baffling.

I say I can see it, then you quote that exact statement asking me if I can. Are you not able to read or what exactly is the issue?

Strazdas

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

"Obliged"? No.

Common sense though, should tell you that you don't leave it until three weeks before concerts are due to take place, to announce that you are refusing licences for them. Especially concerts which almost half a million people are due to attend. Nine weeks is a long time for council officals, who are tasked with accessing licence applications for events in Dublin, to sit around with their thumb up their arses when making a decision on the largest the city will see this year.

Indeed, they treated the issue as if they were licencing for five gigs at a 1500 seater venue, when in reality it was the equivalent of five All Ireland finals on consecutive nights with tens of thousands of people flying in from abroad. Something as huge as that deserved to be treated with the utmost urgency.

fta93

fta93 wrote: »

I think this says it all. "Protesting" against cancelled concerts while a homeless man sits on watching. I guess it shows people's priorities.

https://twitter.com/jim_sheridan/status/487929901761462272

So people can't complain and protest against things because other people are in a worse situation? The same could be said for any protest, the chances are there are much worse things happening in the world than what's being protested about.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

"Obliged"? No.

Common sense though, should tell you that you don't leave it until three weeks before concerts are due to take place, to announce that you are refusing licences for them. Especially concerts which almost half a million people are due to attend. Nine weeks is a long time for council officals, who are tasked with accessing licence applications for events in Dublin, to sit around with their thumb up their arses when making a decision on the largest the city will see this year.

Read the statement...it is quite clear that there where plenty of meetings, that Aiken and Croke Park where aware of the objections and the progress of the application.
To me the process looks like it is highly through and professional, which is how it should be.
I cannot fathom how you think it could be any different unless we revert to a process of 'nod and wink'.
If Aiken/Croke Park were not picking up the signals here then that is their own faults.
There will be a paper trail here, we will see who is telling the truth.
http://www.rte.ie/documents/news/statement-from-dublin-city-council.pdf

Happyman42

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

So people can't complain and protest against things because other people are in a worse situation? The same could be said for any protest, the chances are there are much worse things happening in the world than what's being protested about.

People have a right to protest whatever they want, but I and others also have the right to say what we think of those protests.
I would like to know what the homeless man thinks of them.

Donkey Oaty

Happyman42 wrote: »

I would like to know what the homeless man thinks of them.

Get his opinions on Syria, Ukraine, Gaza and gay cakes while you're there.

CapricornOne

Epic facebook post from one of the various protesters there today -

"Very annoying the way the haters are like wat bout this wat bout that .do they not actually realise the revenue it could bring yes to Our country... THERE country I swear there half inbread twats !!!!"

Grayson

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

So people can't complain and protest against things because other people are in a worse situation? The same could be said for any protest, the chances are there are much worse things happening in the world than what's being protested about.

when did my laughing at someone stupidity prevent them from doing anything.

Hotfail.com

CapricornOne wrote: »

Epic facebook post from one of the various protesters there today -

"Very annoying the way the haters are like wat bout this wat bout that .do they not actually realise the revenue it could bring yes to Our country... THERE country I swear there half inbread twats !!!!"

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Read the statement...it is quite clear that there where plenty of meetings, that Aiken and Croke Park where aware of the objections and the progress of the application.

Eh, yes, as were the council, yet they did not suggest that any of the objections would be enough to warrant refusing licences. Unless you believe that the GAA, Aiken, Garth Brooks, Brooks management, publicist and Croke Park are lying.

To me the process looks like it is highly through and professional, which is how it should be.

"Highly through and professional"?? You have got to be taking the piss.

160,000 get told three weeks before a concert that it's cancelled and you call the process: "highly through and professional" :P

I cannot fathom how you think it could be any different unless we revert to a process of 'nod and wink'.

It's the 'nod and wink' which I am trying to get away from:

'Hey Garth, guarantee us you'll do four and say no more, we'll put that to the planners. How's that? Will you guarantee you'll do 'em? We won't put it to them unless you do now? Whaddya say?

Extend the deadline for applications. Prevent promoters for selling tickets before events are licenced. Make resident / stadium agreements something which councils can't bend on and won't even consider looking at applications for events when a certain number has been reached.

If Aiken/Croke Park were not picking up the signals here then that is their own faults.

Signals that they were only going to put four concerts to the planners? Is that the signals you're talking about? I mean, the wouldn't send other signals would they. I mean, they wouldn't be sending signals suggesting they were going to do anything short of what they did would they

There will be a paper trail here, we will see who is telling the truth.

Can't wait and the signs already are that Keegan is bricking it. Trying to make sure Oireachtas committee members that also happen to be GAA members are not in a ten mile radius of the building. Sure who could blame him, you'd miss €175,000 a year if it were to go. Especially when you've been getting it for doing feck all.. incompetently.

miss tickle

Cienciano wrote: »

Poor Garth Brooks, he's struggling for money. I thought it was about the fans with GB anyway, not the money?
And he has 3 gigs, possibly 4. Considering he originally thought 2 was all he was getting so he'd be making a profit form that. 4 gigs would have been a massive profit for him. And I don't believe this extra big stage people are talking about can only be afforded if he gets 5 gigs.

He could always sue another hospital like he did in his hometown,

http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/okla-hospital-must-return-500k-to-garth-brooks-1.1262108

The hospital had argued that Mr. Brooks gave it unrestricted access to the money and only later asked that the hospital build a women's center and name it after his mother, Colleen Brooks, who died of cancer in 1999.

The jury included several of the singer's fans, but all said they could judge the case fairly.

During the trial, Mr. Brooks said he thought he had a solid agreement with Mr. Moore, whom he said initially suggested putting his mother's name on an intensive care unit. When Mr. Brooks said that wouldn't fit his mother's image, Mr. Moore suggested a women's center, the singer testified.

"I jumped all over it," Mr. Brooks told jurors in tearful testimony. "It's my mom. My mom was pregnant as a teenager. She had a rough start. She wanted to help every kid out there."

Mr. Brooks said he gave the gift anonymously, as he does with all charitable donations.

During cross-examination, an Integris lawyer highlighted statements that Mr. Brooks made in a deposition after he sued. Mr. Brooks said couldn't say whether the women's center was promised, or whether his mother's name would be attached to an existing center.

"I don't remember," Mr. Brooks said in the deposition.

not only did they have to return the donation, they also had to hand over an extra 500,000 in punitive damages.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/25/us-garth-brooks-oklahoma-idUSTRE80O0BS20120125

Nice way to double your money without much effort.

Hotfail.com

miss tickle wrote: »

He could always sue another hospital like he did in his hometown,

The hospital had argued that Mr. Brooks gave it unrestricted access to the money and only later asked that the hospital build a women's center and name it after his mother, Colleen Brooks, who died of cancer in 1999.

The jury included several of the singer's fans, but all said they could judge the case fairly.

During the trial, Mr. Brooks said he thought he had a solid agreement with Mr. Moore, whom he said initially suggested putting his mother's name on an intensive care unit. When Mr. Brooks said that wouldn't fit his mother's image, Mr. Moore suggested a women's center, the singer testified.

"I jumped all over it," Mr. Brooks told jurors in tearful testimony. "It's my mom. My mom was pregnant as a teenager. She had a rough start. She wanted to help every kid out there."

Mr. Brooks said he gave the gift anonymously, as he does with all charitable donations.

During cross-examination, an Integris lawyer highlighted statements that Mr. Brooks made in a deposition after he sued. Mr. Brooks said couldn't say whether the women's center was promised, or whether his mother's name would be attached to an existing center.

"I don't remember," Mr. Brooks said in the deposition.

not only did they have to return the donation, they also had to hand over an extra 500,000 in punitive damages.

Nice way to double your money without much effort.

He could never have just given them more money to build the women's centre.. :rolleyes:

What a gowl

fta93

nm wrote: »

I can see the contrast but it has nothing with it.

Could say the same for protesting water charges while people are dying in Palestine, etc.

Comparing people missing 2 hours entertainment to water charges. Christ.

Hotfail.com

fta93 wrote: »

Comparing people missing 2 hours entertainment to water charges. Christ.

You'd say something if they weren't getting their money back..l

fta93

My name is URL wrote: »

Have you been out protesting over the situation in Gaza.. or do you have other 'more important' things to be doing?

What concern is it of yours if people feel that this is 'important' enough to demonstrate over?

Yes I have been. I believe people dying left right and centre is of way more importance than people missing 2 hours of entertainment. And if people can't see that then we've reached a fairly low poor of humanity.

Tarzana

Funnyonion79 wrote: »

Since the residents have withdrawn their objections now

Firstly, have ALL the residents who lodged complaints withdrawn them?

Secondly, did it ever occur to you that the city manager came to his decision independent of the complaints that were made or at least only used them as one factor of many to be considered?

As said above, what did DCC have to gain by not granting all the licences. It's not like they're clinking champagne glasses somewhere, doing evil laughing and toasting to evil.

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Can't wait and the signs already are that Keegan is bricking it. Trying to make sure Oireachtas committee members that also happen to be GAA members are not in a ten mile radius of the building. Sure who could blame him, you'd miss €175,000 a year if it were to go. Especially when you've been getting it for doing feck all.. incompetently.

Wow - you are fairly angry now.
How do you know what Keegan has done while in his job or are you just basing it on the fact that he wouldn't bow to Aiken/GAA/Fans pressure.

Brave piece of slander if you cannot back it up.

fta93

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

So people can't complain and protest against things because other people are in a worse situation? The same could be said for any protest, the chances are there are much worse things happening in the world than what's being protested about.

When did I say people can't protest? See, there you go again, putting words into people's mouths.

People can protest but people can point out how they have absolute pathetic priorities.

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

I wouldn't expect them to pro-actively contact the promoter before receiving the licence, but Aikens does say he contacted them before putting them on sale, and was given no indication it would be a problem.

Aiken says this Aiken says that. Do you believe every thing he says, or do you have someone else confirming his stories?

Why didn't Aiken apply for the licence first as per the law?

nxbyveromdwjpg

fta93 wrote: »

Comparing people missing 2 hours entertainment to water charges. Christ.

You're missing the point, maybe on purpose, who knows but I'll try again.

I'm not comparing the concerts to water charges. I'm saying that there is always something worse going on, it doesn't mean people can't protest whatever they like and is effecting them.

Issue wise:

Homlessness > Garth Brooks concerts

also

People dying (eg: Gaza) > Water charges.

People can protest whatever they like even though there is a greater issue out there, which there almost always will be.

Just try, really try now, to grasp that point.

Peppa Pig

fta93 wrote: »

People can protest

Do you need a permit to protest / demonstrate.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Titzon Toast wrote: »

I'm also proud of this as are tens of thousands more Irish people for that matter.
Aiken and the GAA tried to bully the residents of the Croke park area and to manipulate the Planning application by deliberately waiting until the very last second to apply for their licences.

You don't understand what you are talking about, like many on this thread.

Aiken didn't "manipulate" the planning application.

They in fact applied for the licences FOUR WEEKS before the ten week deadline. They spent all the time previous to this, in discussions with the DCC. Five shows, over five nights, to 400,000 people is a large series of events and it takes time to put together sufficient applications. In any case, there was zero "manipulation" and it was far from the "last second" that they applied either.

They knew full well what they trying and it bit them in the arse.
The only reason you and other GB fans have little to no support on these boards is because of the shocking nonsense that has been spouted about the residents and Dublin as a whole.

I'm not a Garth Brooks fan and I do support the boards, just not when they are run so poorly and reply on a process that, as Brook's said, could so easily buckle. People like you would rather blame the artist here, as it's easier than excepting that our system is at fault. It's the Bertie syndrome at work. Stick your head in the sand and pretend all is well and claim it's everyone else that's at fault.

I'm delighted DCC stuck to their guns and told Garth what's what.

The DCC didn't "stick to their guns". They have told us that they had issues with concerts all along and made that clear, yet still granted three licences concerts and tried to do a deal with Brook's for a fourth, but only if he would "guarantee" to accept it. They also claim that "over intensification" for the residents was their main concern. Yet, then offered to allow 320,000 people to access the Croke Park area over a 48 hour period, when under the five concert plan, only 160,000 would. Yeah, the DCC really "stuck to their guns" alright.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

Aiken says this Aiken says that. Do you believe every thing he says, or do you have someone else confirming his stories?

Why didn't Aiken apply for the licence first as per the law?

If you can prove he's lying be my guest, I've backed up what I've said with a source (Aikens). The onus if on you now to disprove it if you can.