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

visual

Jim Rockford wrote: »

The sindo is gospel around here . . .

Not surprised as the article looks like its been cut and paste from this thread to sum up a view point.

JRant

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Haters don't care what anything means as long as they get to hate, and planning incompetence and banana republic politics is protected a the expense of 400,000 people, international reputation, and local hotels and businesses.

Fullstops are free, please use them.

Muahahaha

jonnny68 wrote: »

You really haven't a clue what you are talking about and you deserve all the slagging your getting on this thread.

There were none.. ZERO arrests at the Stone Roses gig there just nice cool people and great music, as opposed to badly dressed red necks with limited brain cells.

I was at that Stone Roses gig in the park, the crowd were superb, everyone was just out for a good time. It was a week night so most people there weren't drinking a huge amount, in fact I'd say more people were smoking a few doobs than drinking. The Swedish House Mafia gig a few days later was a whole different kettle of fish. I rode through the park that day about 6pm and immediately got the feeling that something would kick off, I hadn't seen such a huge concentration of scummers in one place in years.

Anyway, c'mon Argentina !

visual

Jim Rockford wrote: »

The sindo is gospel around here . . .

Not surprised as the article looks like its been cut and paste from this thread to sum up a view point.

Happyman42

bumper234 wrote: »

Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaa.

Yes!
This would be the Brooks who 'doesn't know what is going on in Ireland,'
who thought it was a 'political decision' (like Jim) and whose management and himself never once cottoned on to the fact that this event was 'subject to licence' despite it being printed on every piece of publicity.

Smart boy wanted, cowboys need not apply!

visual

GB though common sence would prevail
little did he know how flawed they system is and begrudgery is alive and well.

bumper234

visual wrote: »

GB though common sence would prevail
little did he know how flawed they system is and begrudgery is alive and well.

How is the system "flawed" is it because the DCC decided that the midweek concerts would be too much for the area to handle what with residents being put out and 80'000 on the streets at rush h9ur? Or is it flawed because they refuse to back.down to political pressure and blackmail.from good ole GB?

Happyman42

visual wrote: »

GB though common sence would prevail

It did...3 nights is enough for anybody to put up with,

Muise...

visual wrote: »

GB though common sence would prevail
little did he know how flawed they system is and begrudgery is alive and well.

Yeah, I begrudge promoters selling tickets to fans with the presumption that the Council will give them licenses for more concerts than can be held in a venue according to its agreement with locals. Grudgey grudge is grudging.

Anyway, 'mon Germany!

Grandeeod

Find a lot of this thread hilarious. Im no GB fan and have tended to sit on the fence regarding the issue. However this ****e talk about planning corruption and going back to the bad old days has no bearing on the GB concerts. Its five ****ing days plus set up/take down. Its not a housing estate or office block. At this stage if the PP was overuled, the level of transparency is staggering such is the level of documented and public info regarding the issue. Someone ****ed up somewhere.

Personally don't care if they go ahead or not, but if there was a u-turn on the original decision, I wouldn't be calling for heads and accusing the state of planning corruption. The entire fiasco is riddled with ineptitude and bogus objections that influenced the final decision. Its just another lesson that post celtic tiger Ireland has to learn.

muddypaws

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Fair enough. Fecking Guinness Book of Records says 'Five in a Row'.



EDIT: ABBA played six consecutive nights is 1979:

I go out for a walk on the beach, and nothing changes. ABBA in 1979 has already been discussed, it was Wembley Arena, an indoor venue holding around 12,500. Now I've already been scolded by Jimbob for skimming over posts, please pay attention, although I doubt he will call you on it.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So, you're referring to certain people on the thread as being "little bitches".

Interesting. Will make a mental note of who thanks such snide remarks.

I honestly don't mind if you use a pen and paper to make your notes, you can spell my user name with an upper or lower case initial, its all the same to me.

weldoninhio

Jim Rockford wrote: »

yep them planning tribunals were all lies. DCC is the most efficient, honest, planning system in the world. lol

At least Banana Republics actually have banana's to sell

Ireland is the biggest exporter of bananas in Europe.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

JRant wrote: »

No, that's not what you said. You never mentioned anything about monetary value. Goalpost shifting at it's finest.

You have to love Boards for the nonsense that people try to come up with and then have their posts thanked for doing so, despite the content being made up tosh. Same the other night with someone bs'ing about how many people in NI bought tickets. When I showed they were wrong, it didn't matter a jot. The question then just moved to how reliable a source the Examiner was. Never mind that the user had just made up what he said. Nah, lets just deflect away from the bull**** and question the merits of the newspaper instead. Makes soooo much sense.

I showed you one event far larger tgan the concerts, had all plans approved and was free for spectators. Qualify that.

No sunshine. You have that in reverse order. What I said initially had context and you have totally removed it. Nice try though. I'll give you a D minus for effort.

What actually happened was that myself and Mr.Happyman42 were having a set-to about the nonsense that is the 'subject-to-licence' farce and the issues that allowing the sale of tickets without a licence can lead to. It was his contention that it was 'buyer beware' and it was mine that promotor and ticket holder should not be left to carry the can if things go tits up. It was in the context of that the following exchange took place:

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

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

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

Happyman42 wrote: »

The tickets where not issued by the DCC and they had 'subject to licence' printed on them. It was a 'buyer beware' situation, what you want the DCC to do about that I don't know.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You're honestly making that point. Seriously?

ALL tickets which are sold are 'subject to licence'. That is part of the problem and I never said the DCC could do something about it. What I said was, that they shouldn't have waited until three weeks before the largest event this city will see this year, or has seen it quite a number of years, takes place, to make their decision.

So as you can see, the comment was made in the context of "buyer beware" and "subject to licence" ..wouldn't make sense to include free events and so, unless you could "buy" tickets for the Giro and over 400,000 of them were sold, it's a nonsense comparison. Again.. nice try though.

Ace2007

Maybe Aiken shouldn't have sold tickets without having the licence first as per the law?

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You have to love Boards for the nonsense that people try to come up with and then have their posts thanked for doing so, despite the content being made up tosh. Same the other night with someone bs'ing about how many people in NI bought tickets. When I showed they were wrong, it didn't matter a jot. The question then just moved to how reliable a source the Examiner was. Never mind that the user had just made up what he said. Nah, lets just deflect away from the bull**** and question the merits of the newspaper instead. Makes soooo much sense.



No sunshine. You have that in reverse order. What I said initially had context and you have totally removed it. Nice try though. I'll give you a D minus for effort.

What actually happened was that myself and Mr.Happyman42 were having a set-to about the nonsense that is the 'subject-to-licence' farce and the issues that allowing the sale of tickets without a licence can lead to. It was his contention that it was 'buyer beware' and it was mine that promotor and ticket holder should not be left to carry the can if things go tits up. It was in the context of that the following exchange took place:









So as you can see, the comment was made in the context of "buyer beware" and "subject to licence" ..wouldn't make sense to include free events and so, unless you could "buy" tickets for the Giro and over 400,000 of them were sold, it's a nonsense comparison. Again.. nice try though.

100% nonsense. You said it was the largest event to be seen in the city for years and you were wrong.

Amazingly a free event for far more people managed to get their ducks in a row and get licenses sorted. Unlike Mr Aiken & Co who failed to do so.

No doubt you'll blather on again, expertly moving the goalposts to suit your agenda. I don't mind at all because on this issue you are quite wrong.

MidlandsM

Some amount of trolls....

KingOfFairview

MidlandsM wrote: »

Some amount of trolls....

Let the bumrubbers have their fun

bobmalooka

MidlandsM wrote: »

Some amount of trolls....

About 400,000

bumper234

bobmalooka wrote: »

About 400,000 tickets worth

FYP

hatrickpatrick

Tarzana wrote: »

Love what little bitches some people on this thread are simply because they're missing out on a concert. Because that's what it comes down to, not weak protestations about the economy.

I'm not going and not a fan, yet entirely in favour of letting it go ahead - I'm sure I'm not the only one?

MidlandsM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going and not a fan, yet entirely in favour of letting it go ahead - I'm sure I'm not the only one?

Same here....

JRant

Considering the reverence that some GB fans hold their messiah in I wouldn't be surprised if they refunded him at this stage.

bumper234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going and not a fan, yet entirely in favour of letting it go ahead - I'm sure I'm not the only one?

Am not a fan and don't have a ticket but i would only be in favour of the 3 going ahead. Monday and Tuesday concerts would be too much for the whole area and cause chaos.

JRant

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going and not a fan, yet entirely in favour of letting it go ahead - I'm sure I'm not the only one?

You are completely entitled to that opinion. The residents who objected are also entitled to voice their concerns.

hatrickpatrick

bumper234 wrote: »

Am not a fan and don't have a ticket but i would only be in favour of the 3 going ahead. Monday and Tuesday concerts would be too much for the whole area and cause chaos.

Well I won't repeat my reasoning for fear of broken recordism, but capital cities and all that. We should be having events like this all over the city on a regular basis.

Ace2007

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going and not a fan, yet entirely in favour of letting it go ahead - I'm sure I'm not the only one?

MidlandsM wrote: »

Same here....

He can have his 3 gigs if he wants to - no one is stopping that now.

The decision for 5 cannot be legally changed and the minister has said that he will not be introducing emergency legislation to amend it.

GB said that it's 5 or none, so what's the solution?

The residence raised the issued long before a decision was made by DCC that they weren't allowed to appeal the decision which they thought was unfair. I didn't see many papers or threads like this saying that it was unfair, but once the decision goes against the promoter then everyone is jumping on the bangwagon saying it's unfair.

hatrickpatrick

JRant wrote: »

You are completely entitled to that opinion. The residents who objected are also entitled to voice their concerns.

100% agreed and I'd never suggest otherwise.

bumper234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I won't repeat my reasoning for fear of broken recordism, but capital cities and all that. We should be having events like this all over the city on a regular basis.

Honest question.

Do you live in Dublin and if so do you live in an area near croke park? I live in the burbs and it doesn't affect me anymore but i sometimes have to drive through that area and it's bad enough on a regular Monday evening rush hour without throwing in an extra 80,000 people trying to access the area,the cars and coaches they would bring and the road closures it would cause. I'm not even talking about the residents here i'm talking of the many many MANY thousands of people who would be affected by this.

Ace2007

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I won't repeat my reasoning for fear of broken recordism, but capital cities and all that. We should be having events like this all over the city on a regular basis.

Why only in the Capital City?

The GAA are spending 70m on a 60,000 seat stadium in Cork - Work hasn't even begun, and the residents down there are already looking for a limit on the concerts per year.

Not just a Dublin issue.....

Happyman42

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

but capital cities and all that.

The mistake that was made (and it was a long time to come home to roost) was not moving to a greenfield site when they had the chance and decided they wanted to promote concerts.
You cannot lay the blame at a planning authority with a lot of factors to consider...one of which IS NOT how many tickets may or may not be sold.
That would be a ridiculous situation if you think it through.