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

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Phoebas wrote: »

It was impossible to change the decision once it had been made, but the possibility of four concerts was in play before the decision was made.

True but why offer him four to begin with?

That's taking the piss and no wonder he got his back up and said five or nothing.

It didn't make sense to me that he said that, which is why I thought it was an Aiken / Brooks bluff, but now that I hear they offered him four gigs if he would guarantee to perform them, and then only offered him three, his response makes perfect sense.

Garth guaranteeing he will perform the four gigs should not be a stipulation on granting them. The licences are granted for four, or they aren't. It seems to me like the DCC were attempting to negotiate in a very amateur and rather annoying fashion and it backfired on them, spectacularly.

Phoebas

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

True but why offer him four to begin with?

That's taking the piss and no wonder he got his back up and said five or nothing.

It didn't make sense to me that he said that, which is why I thought it was an Aiken / Brooks bluff, but now that I hear they offered him four gigs if he would guarantee to perform them, and then only offered him three, his response makes perfect sense.

Garth guaranteeing he will perform the four gigs should not be a stipulation on granting them. The licences are granted for four, or they aren't. It seems to me like the DCC were attempting to negotiate in a very amateur and rather annoying fashion and it backfired on them, spectacularly.

He wasn't offered four gigs. There was an offer to put an amended plan for four gigs before the planners. Presumably this would have involved some additional planning restrictions.
Anyway, brooks didn't entertain the idea, so that's his responsibility.

Phoebas

Red Nissan wrote: »

Conditions can't be applied, if under the law his three concerts were legal and his other two were not, they still are not, and he can't be offered an illegal venue from the local authority, of all people.

Conditions were applied. There were realms of conditions attached to the licence that was granted.

vitani

Story from The Journal back in February, about a week after the fifth date was announced about a meeting between the residents, the GAA and Aiken Promotions.

The most disturbing revelation to emerge from the meeting was the statement by Peter McKenna that a written agreement, signed on behalf of the GAA by Christy Cooney, President and Paraic Duffy, General Secretary between the GAA and the local community in 2009 agreeing to only three concerts per year, was to be ignored because ‘time moves on’.

If that statement is accurate, then I have nothing but contempt for the GAA and Aiken Promotions. They knew about this agreement from the beginning, they knew the locals were unhappy about it and would likely protest against the five concerts but they went ahead anyway, presuming that a licence for all five would be granted. Then they had the arrogance to state that there was 'no indication' that DCC would refuse them. It shows what they thought of the residents, their very legitimate concerns and the existing agreement from the very start.

Red Nissan

Phoebas wrote: »

Conditions were applied. There were realms of conditions attached to the licence that was granted.

Subject to the following:
Reason for decision:

BTW: We offer you 4 concerts in secret:

Right.

Cienciano

Phoebas wrote: »

He wasn't offered four gigs. There was an offer to put an amended plan for four gigs before the planners. Presumably this would have involved some additional planning restrictions.
Anyway, brooks didn't entertain the idea, so that's his responsibility.

Bottom line is there would be 4 gigs at croke park if GB hadn't had a strop. 320,000 fans disappointed fans because of him being pig headed, 80,000 fans disappointed because of DCC trying to follow the law.

The Th!ng

Garth Broke.

Red Nissan

Cienciano wrote: »

because of DCC trying to follow the law.

This is in total dispute. If the revelations are true from today, then DCC DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

Seemingly a secret agreement was sought. It defies all logic in this day and age, TBH. The Law like the Gardaí are investigating a possible criminal activity in the obstruction of the planning process, and DCC, have seemingly not followed the law either.

Ace2007

Red Nissan wrote: »

This is in total dispute. If the revelations are true from today, then DCC DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

Seemingly a secret agreement was sought. It defies all logic in this day and age, TBH. The Law like the Gardaí are investigating a possible criminal activity in the obstruction of the planning process, and DCC, have seemingly not followed the law either.

So basically everyone has supposedly broke a law/agreement in one form or another.

recyclops

Ace2007 wrote: »

So basically everyone has supposedly broke a law/agreement in one form or another.

Welcome to modern day ireland

Phoebas

Red Nissan wrote: »

This is in total dispute. If the revelations are true from today, then DCC DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

Seemingly a secret agreement was sought. It defies all logic in this day and age, TBH. The Law like the Gardaí are investigating a possible criminal activity in the obstruction of the planning process, and DCC, have seemingly not followed the law either.

What secret agreement? The council issued a press statement about, not an agreement, but a negotiation that had taken place.

Red Nissan

Ace2007 wrote: »

So basically everyone has supposedly broke a law/agreement in one form or another.

It's a mess, it's also a fantastic story and well worth keeping an eye on.

gugleguy

The Th!ng wrote: »

Garth Broke.

Garth Bust.

Red Nissan

Phoebas wrote: »

What secret agreement? The council issued a press statement about, not an agreement, but a negotiation that had taken place.

Now, who is being pedantic?

The City Manager has not called executive powers, statements are already public record, statements which made the 'negotiations' illegal.

There is no room for negotiation, when a statement makes it clear that three concerts can go ahead and it's impossible to review that decision.

Duggy747

A lot of poison towards the residents on Facebook.

People usually talk about how the government / corporations walk over people like they're nothing and ignore them but now they want the residents to shut the fùck up and let them be walked over because "it's for the good of the country"

ThisRegard

Red Nissan wrote: »

This is in total dispute. If the revelations are true from today, then DCC DID NOT FOLLOW THE LAW.

Seemingly a secret agreement was sought. It defies all logic in this day and age, TBH. The Law like the Gardaí are investigating a possible criminal activity in the obstruction of the planning process, and DCC, have seemingly not followed the law either.

A secret agreement? You think one, maybe even two, people wouldn't have noticed a 4th concert in Croke Park?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Phoebas wrote: »

He wasn't offered four gigs.

There was an offer to put an amended plan for four gigs before the planners. Presumably this would have involved some additional planning restrictions.
Anyway, brooks didn't entertain the idea, so that's his responsibility.

What kind of waffle is that, seriously? There wasn't an offer, there was an offer..

Look, the DCC themselves said that they did offer to talk to the planners about the possibility of doing four concerts, but only if he would guarantee to do them. Why do they did him to agree to do four before they talk to the planners about them? Why are they not talking to the planners about doing five? How come they spoke to the planners about doing three, when Garth had not agreed to do three?? I mean, if Garth's agreement was so important before they would speak to the the planners about four concerts, why is not important for three?

Also, and most importantly, it is the DCC who had final decision here and if they were saying they were will to discuss four concerts with the planners, then that is all but saying they were willing to grant a licence for four nights, please stop with the nonsense suggesting they weern't offering four when they very clearly where.

Also, Aiken said this all happened on July 2nd. Why did it take them so long to let Aiken know that they were not going to grant all five? That was just three weeks before the first concert!

Dayor Knight

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

This is a bizarre fiasco. Could they not have changed the venue if Croke Park was that much of a problem? I don't really understand the ins and outs of the whole issue, I havn't really been following it in the News, and I can understand that living near a stadium would be disruptive, but wasn't that Stadium built around 100 years ago? So all of the residents in opposition would have bought their houses knowing full well that there was a stadium there? And if they didn't buy, then they inherited knowing the stadium was there, so if it were that much of an issue perhaps living there wasn't a great idea and renting/selling would have been preferable. It's kind of similar to me demanding that the neighbouring farmers get rid of their cows because they disrupt us with noise, smell and blocking roads, when I moved to the country knowing full well it was farming area.

Yeah, they bought their houses, or maybe inherited them knowing their was a GAA sports stadium with x number of GAA matches per year, not x number of matches plus multiple concerts, street lock downs etc. That's why there were some planning constraints put on Croke Park which GAA Corporate decided to just ignore. Something wrong with that, isn't there?

super_furry

Well after tonight all that talk of national embarrassment should be over. Brazil were embarrassed nationally, we stopped a country and western gig.

dub_skav

ThisRegard wrote: »

A secret agreement? You think one, maybe even two, people wouldn't have noticed a 4th concert in Croke Park?

Not if they were living in castleknock

prodsc

GAA= GARTH AIN'T ARRIVING!

Gallowglass

Is that your man who was in Pop idol in 2001?

Kiwi in IE

Dayor Knight wrote: »

Yeah, they bought their houses, or maybe inherited them knowing their was a GAA sports stadium with x number of GAA matches per year, not x number of matches plus multiple concerts, street lock downs etc. That's why there were some planning constraints put on Croke Park which GAA Corporate decided to just ignore. Something wrong with that, isn't there?

Right fair enough then! It obviously became apparent early enough that there was an issue. Are there no other venues in Ireland in which to hold concerts?

ThisRegard

Ivan Yates hosting Tonight, eh, tonight. When/if it gets to Garth Brooks watch him go off on a rant about this.

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Might also be crapping themselves about the invertible investigation into this calamity and how much of a role they played in it.

Local project fund loses out on a €500,000 cash windfall also.

One wonders if the DCC will try and reverse this cancellation first thing in the morning when it dawns on them what they have done.

It's a bit late for that though now. I cancelled the hotels that I booked and I'm sure others are going about doing their plans for cancelling too. If it goes ahead which is doubtful, many would have pulled out at this stage.

Phoebas

Red Nissan wrote: »

There is no room for negotiation, when a statement makes it clear that three concerts can go ahead and it's impossible to review that decision.

The negotiations were before the decision was made, when there was plenty of room for negotiation.
How many times does this simple point need to be made!

Valkerie33

The licences are never in place when the tickets go on sale. If promoters had to wait for licences to be issued, concerts would never happen. The ineptitude of local councils is frightening. Recent Arcade Fire licence was issued the day before the show I believe.

foggy_lad wrote: »

What needs to happen now is a complete ban on the sale or pre-booking of tickets for concerts or events or festivals where full licenses and permissions required have not been granted.

paddyirish23

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy wrote: »

It's a bit late for that though now. I cancelled the hotels that I booked and I'm sure others are going about doing their plans for cancelling too. If it goes ahead which is doubtful, many would have pulled out at this stage.

Won't Cancel mine just in case til next week I live in hope something can be salvaged from this debacle

BonkeyDonker

super_furry wrote: »

Well after tonight all that talk of national embarrassment should be over. Brazil were embarrassed nationally, we stopped a country and western gig.

I love how RTE signed off the WC semi-final with Garth Brooks. Somebody there has a great sense of humour.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Phoebas wrote: »

The negotiations were before the decision was made, when there was plenty of room for negotiation.
How many times does this simple point need to be made!

How many times does it need to be made to you, that it doesn't matter that it was before the decision went public, the simple fact that they offered to grant four licences, once they ran it past the planners, as long as Garth would agree, flies in the face of what the told the public.

Garth's guaranteeing he will do four should mean ZERO to the planners, as they should be making decisions independent of what Garth does and does not agree to. If four would be put to the planners with an agreement, it should be put to them without his agreement, as it is immaterial (or at least should be) to the granting of licences.

It's quite obvious, that they only wanted his agreement and guarantee so they could go to the public before Aiken could, saying they had made a deal. It backfired though as naturally, phoning a promoter three weeks before concerts are due to take place and refusing two licences, then hours later saying that they would consider issuing four, is ridiculous and very very amateurish.