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

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

See it how you wanna see it. I said it the context of 'subject to licence' and how Keegan needed to get his finger out and not leave it so late to let 160,000 ticket holders know that he was not licensing gigs which they were due to attend just three weeks later.

Call it what you like. If you want to see it that way, fine. Doesn't make it so. This whole thing is about 'subject to licence' concerts. I said what I did in reply to a comment about 'Buyer beware'. There are no "buyers" at free events. You came along, jumped into a conversation and took something I said in context, out of context. Sure why not then use St fcuking Patrick's Day as your argument so.

Fact of the matter is: the Garth Brooks concerts were a huge deal for this city (and country) and were without question, the biggest (TICKET HOLDER & SUBJECT TO LICENCE) event of the year (or perhaps many years) which we have seen or are likely to see, anytime soon at least and yet.. Mr.Keegan spent from from MAY 22nd until JULY 3rd sitting around polishing his handlebars rather than thinking it a good idea perhaps, to let 400,000 ticket holders know whether or not he was going to license concerts which they were about and which the media were suggesting might not go ahead. In fact, the only relevance the Giro D'italia has here is that, because he is such a bicycle fanboi, chances are that he went into Walter Mitty mode when it was on and it could very well be the reason why Own Keegan spent the vast majority of the summer with his head firmly up his arse.

How many tickets are sold should never be allowed to affect a planning decision...ridiculous idea.

Kensington

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

And there was nothing wrong or greedy with the residents claim of "laughable" at the 500,000 fund set up to help them?
Greed is all round and its hardly more manifested than in the people youve mentioned but one can hardly blame said people for providing a number of concerts that an awful lot of people obviously want.

I don't think it was as much the concept of the amount of money as it was the concept the GAA thought they could buy them off to shut them up.

An "awful lot" of people might want various things but that does not mean it should go ahead purely on a majority wins basis.

Myself and a number of others have pointed out that planning law is there to protect people, and it may seem that it only protects the small minority.

It protects the residents, in this case, just as it would protect you from someone wanting to open a power generating station or a landfill near your home even though it might benefit an "awful lot" of people in doing so.

Ultimately, the only ones who followed due process here were the residents and the DCC committee.

Now whether that process is as effective as it could be, I think we can all agree it needs change, and there is questions as to the true extent of the petitions and individual objects on the residents side.

But the GAA and Aiken, and by proxy GB, decided to ignore completely that process in the offchance the "ah sure it'll be grand" attitude would prevail and they could get what they want. Nor is it the true quantity of objections that can achieve the outcome, it only needs 1 objection to stall the approval process.

Renegade Mechanic

bumper234 wrote: »

And you can't blame people for wanting to be able to leave their home in the evening without being stopped at checkpoints every couple of hundred yards. Have you ever seen rush hour traffic in that area on a normal work day? It's mental....now imagine that plus all of the cars and coaches coming into the area plus THOUSANDS of pedestrians and it's the recipe for disaster.

This isn't just about the local residents although in my opinion their objections and reasons are enough to cancel the weekday concerts but also about the MASSIVE disruption that this will cause to a large part of the city for 2 days/nights running.

Fully agree on the weekdays concerts, theyre rubbish. But How much does the city make at Night? Id wager the vat exchequer would receive more than the night workers etc would pull in alone. And a very good reason to have five nights instead of lumping two day shows when the place is at its busiest. Now that would be disastrous.. Nothing stopping the residents from going out, mingling and having fun with them as they wander around for hotels, pubs and clubs.

Calina

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Nothing stopping the residents from going out, mingling and having fun with them as they wander around for hotels, pubs and clubs.

The impact on my life of those concerts is not having fun with people wandering around for hotels pubs and clubs. It is the complete and utter traffic mayhem they would bring with them and for the two weekday concerts - the only ones which weren't licensed - that would have been on top of normal business hour traffic. It's not pretty.

Really, the people I now feel sorry for are the people with tickets for Friday, Sat and Sunday. They can justifiably be annoyed that their licensed concert is not going ahead despite being licensed. And that is not Dublin City Council's decision; that was Garth Brooks' decision.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

How many tickets are sold should never be allowed to affect a planning decision...ridiculous idea.

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

Calina

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

It would help if Aiken applied for the licence a bit earlier than some time in April. You don't appear to understand what needs to be done to reach a decision after all the paper work arrives. Are you seriously suggesting that Owen Keegan can read 370 odd objections and make a decision in 1 or 2 days? Do you think he has nothing else to be doing except sitting in an office waiting for licence applications to turn up?

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

The amount of tickets sold, the plight of the purchasers can NEVER be a consideration in planning...that is undue pressure on a decision that should be fair and balanced.

5 nights= a unique and extraordinary event.
That requires extra consideration.
Perhaps the people who didn't get the application in (it is they who are actually contracted to look after and 'regard' their customers, NOT the DCC) until long after the gigs where sold out are the people to blame here...they also make huge profit and are paid very very well.

Kensington

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

You need to allow the 10 weeks as a statuatory minimum window to allow for objections to be lodged, these objections must then be reviewed and fed back into the overall decision making process.

Imagine I apply for planning permission and it's approved before you've even had a chance to lodge an objection, you wouldn't be very happy! Hence the 10 week minimum window, in the case of the concerts, before the final decision making process even begins.

The 4th and 5th concerts went on sale without an application even having been made for the license. Therefore Aiken himself created the extremely tight window between the decision outcome and the concert due date, not DCC, they were simply working with what they were obliged to work with.

secman

"7. Can I consult the planning authority in advance?
You do not have to consult the planning authority before
making a planning application, but it is often advisable to
do so where you are unsure of local planning policies, how
to apply, etc. Depending on the type of development, you
may need to discuss connections to the public water
supply, sewer etc. The larger the development proposal,
the greater the need for prior consultation."

Presumably this advice on planning permission would also apply to license applications, can't understand why Aiken & GAA did not forsee any problems seeking 5 successive nights, all of which were subject to planning permission, as the 3 permitted under the permission granted had been used up.
The other 2 main Concert promoters - MCD & Mountcharles have both said these 5 gigs were asking for trouble. Aiken gambled ...and looks like he lost.

DCC only applied the law, to the letter of the law, and adhered to the time limits as outlined in the law.

secman

secman

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

This would be like a developer putting undue pressure on the Council to give permission stating that he had all the houses fully sold...............

Muise...

Happyman42 wrote: »

How many tickets are sold should never be allowed to affect a planning decision...ridiculous idea.

It amounts to using the ticket holders as leverage. Not fair on them. Given the emotional response from them, and the efforts made to compromise, I'd call it Aiken's blackmail by proxy.

Happyman42

secman wrote: »

This would be like a developer putting undue pressure on the Council to give permission stating that he had all the houses fully sold...............

That is exactly what is being proposed here. Ridiculous pressure on a system that has to be fair and balanced.

bumper234

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Fully agree on the weekdays concerts, theyre rubbish. But How much does the city make at Night? Id wager the vat exchequer would receive more than the night workers etc would pull in alone. And a very good reason to have five nights instead of lumping two day shows when the place is at its busiest. Now that would be disastrous.. Nothing stopping the residents from going out, mingling and having fun with them as they wander around for hotels, pubs and clubs.

And this post tells me that you have never been to a concert in Croke park before :rolleyes:

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Strawman. I never said it should effect the decision made. I inferred that it should be a factor in when it's made.

In fact, I have said many times on the thread that I would have understood an early decision (May 22nd) refusing all licences, far more than I could understand one just three weeks before the concerts are due to take place refusing to licence two of them.

Shows total and utter disregard for all concerned and a total and utter unsuitability for the job in which he is handsomely paid to do.

Same could be said for Croke park management/Ga4th Brooks/Aiken.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Calina wrote: »

It would help if Aiken applied for the licence a bit earlier than some time in April. You don't appear to understand what needs to be done to reach a decision after all the paper work arrives. Are you seriously suggesting that Owen Keegan can read 370 odd objections and make a decision in 1 or 2 days? Do you think he has nothing else to be doing except sitting in an office waiting for licence applications to turn up?

A week would have been sufficient to read objections. Also, you act as if the DCC only had from May 22nd to contemplate the licesing the event, but this is not the case at all. The recived the licence on April 17th and so they had five weeks to considering everything else about the application, other than the objections. Add to that, that the DCC where having monthly meetings with Aiken to discuss the event and you have more than enough information to make the decsion around the end of May, at least.

Kensington wrote: »

You need to allow the 10 weeks as a statuatory minimum window to allow for objections to be lodged, these objections must then be reviewed and fed back into the overall decision making process.

Imagine I apply for planning permission and it's approved before you've even had a chance to lodge an objection, you wouldn't be very happy! Hence the 10 week minimum window, in the case of the concerts, before the final decision making process even begins.

The 4th and 5th concerts went on sale without an application even having been made for the license. Therefore Aiken himself created the extremely tight window between the decision outcome and the concert due date, not DCC, they were simply working with what they were obliged to work with.

LMAO. Do you (and those that thanked your post) still believe this tripe? After all that has been posted? There is NO "10 weeks statuatory minimum". There has been some amount of illogical nonsense posted on the thread, but that honestly takes the cake.

There is a ten week deadline to submit licence applications. If there was also a ten week minimum for objections, then the DCC would only be able to make a decisions on event licences which are submitted just under the ten week deadline.. ON THE DAY THE EVENTS TAKE PLACE!!

Deputy Phil Hogan

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter which is the subject of much media attention. As she may be aware, An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission for the redevelopment of Croke Park stadium on 9 March 1993. Condition No. 11 attached to the planning permission allows for the holding of three special events such as concerts in the stadium each calendar year, subject to the approval of an event management plan which must be submitted by way of compliance submission to the planning department of Dublin City Council. Any additional event proposed to be held in Croke Park in excess of the three events permitted per calendar year must be approved by way of a public event licence application to Dublin City Council under the provisions of section 230 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. Any application under these provisions which can be for one or more events must be submitted at least ten weeks prior to the date of the first event.

The pop group One Direction is holding three concerts in Croke Park on successive days between 23 and 25 May and it is my understanding these concerts are taking place under the terms of condition No. 11 attached to the 1993 planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála. It is also my understanding approval of the event management plan for these concerts will be issued by Dublin City Council next week. The five concerts to be undertaken by Garth Brooks on successive dates at the end of July are required to be separately approved by means of obtaining a public event licence under the terms of section 230 of the Planning and Development Act. In this regard, Dublin City Council has not received an application for a public event licence for these concerts to date. However, as I have indicated, event organisers have until ten weeks prior to the date of the first concert to submit an application for a public event licence.

Under the public event licensing provisions contained in section 230 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, any third party can make observations on the application within five weeks of the date of lodgement of the public event licence application with the relevant authority. With regard to the proposed five Garth Brooks concerts at the end of July, it will be a matter for Dublin City Council to assess the application for the public event licence when it is received, taking account of third party observations. It will, of course, be open to residents in the vicinity of the Croke Park stadium to submit written observations to Dublin City Council during the period open for the submission of such observations.

Renegade Mechanic

bumper234 wrote: »

And this post tells me that you have never been to a concert in Croke park before :rolleyes:

Ah here, Ive been to a few but these are GB fans. Not Justin Beiber or Niki Minaj fans:D

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

A week would have been sufficient to read objections. Also, you act as if the DCC only had from May 22nd to contemplate the licesing the event, but this is not the case at all. The recived the licence on April 17th and so they had five weeks to considering everything else about the application, other than the objections. Add to that, that the DCC where having monthly meetings with Aiken to discuss the event and you have more than enough information to make the decsion around the end of May, at least.



LMAO. Do you (and those that thanked your post) still believe this tripe? After all that has been posted? There is NO "10 weeks statuatory minimum". There has been some amount of illogical nonsense posted on the thread, but that honestly takes the cake.

There is a ten week deadline to submit licence applications. If there was also a ten week minimum for objections, then the DCC would only be able to make a decisions on event licences which are submitted just under the ten week deadline.. ON THE DAY THE EVENTS TAKE PLACE!!

Does Phil say anything there about allowing ticket sales to influence a decision?

long range shooter

http://www.joe.ie/entertainment/music/video-brace-yourselves-hitler-has-reacted-to-the-garth-brooks-controversy/

Happyman42

The 'ship'...remember 'the ship'? Has anybody an update on it?

I'm suprised, given the 'impotance' of this to the Irish economy and our survival as a nation that none of the redtops has gotten a snap of it yet, send helicopters to meet it etc etc.

bumper234

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Ah here, Ive been to a few but these are GB fans. Not Justin Beiber or Niki Minaj fans:D

You're right,


GB fans are more likely to be drunk.

dinorebel

http://www.history.com/s3static/video-thumbnails/AETN-History_Prod/73/831/History_Speeches_6001_Titanic_Survivor_Eyewitness_still_624x352.jpg

Muise...

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'ship'...remember 'the ship'? Has anybody an update on it?

I'm suprised, given the 'impotance' of this to the Irish economy and our survival as a nation that none of the redtops has gotten a snap of it yet, send helicopters to meet it etc etc.

The Costa Concordia is being refloated as we post, don't worry! :pac:

miss no stars

Ticketmaster are saying that even if the concerts go ahead, they'll still issue refunds. Which is only fair, they cancelled them ages ago, plans have been changed.

Fcuk Garth Brooks.

The other thing that worries me about pushing the refunds out to Thursday is: do they have the money? Like, are they pushing them out saying "oh no, we've spent all the money, give us a couple of days to come up with it"

Happyman42

miss no stars wrote: »

The other thing that worries me about pushing the refunds out to Thursday is: do they have the money? Like, are they pushing them out saying "oh no, we've spent all the money, give us a couple of days to come up with it"

The thought had occurred to me.
If it was me and I had multiple tickets for Monday - Tuesday, I wouldn't be waiting about.

bumper234

Ticketmaster CEO spotted in local Credit Union asking for a loan this morning

Kensington

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

A week would have been sufficient to read objections. Also, you act as if the DCC only had from May 22nd to contemplate the licesing the event, but this is not the case at all. The recived the licence on April 17th and so they had five weeks to considering everything else about the application, other than the objections. Add to that, that the DCC where having monthly meetings with Aiken to discuss the event and you have more than enough information to make the decsion around the end of May, at least.



LMAO. Do you (and those that thanked your post) still believe this tripe? After all that has been posted? There is NO "10 weeks statuatory minimum". There has been some amount of illogical nonsense posted on the thread, but that honestly takes the cake.

There is a ten week deadline to submit licence applications. If there was also a ten week minimum for objections, then the DCC would only be able to make a decisions on event licences which are submitted just under the ten week deadline.. ON THE DAY THE EVENTS TAKE PLACE!!

It appears both myself and Phil Hogan are actually incorrect, therefore I stand corrected.

I wouldn't normally be bothered researching stuff to this extent, but here goes:

First, here is the actual application submitted by Aiken himself:
http://crokepark.ie/getmedia/409e1110-3ab6-4c80-aaee-9fd3916a4d5e/Licence_Application_Garth_Brooks.pdf

You will see in the very words of the application:
"The attached document is submitted in accordance with the provisions of Part 16 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (S.I. 600/2001), Article 187 (2)."

Here's a link to that legisliation:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/si/0600.html#part16

SI600/2001 wrote:

186. (1) An application must be made at least 16 weeks prior to the date for the holding of the event to which the application relates or, in the case of an application for a number of events at a venue in a period not exceeding one year, at least 16 weeks prior to the holding of the first event.

So applications must be made at least 16 weeks prior to date of first event, in fact, and not 10 weeks.
Which means that they lodged the application late - 16 weeks from April 17th is August 7th!

SI600/2001 wrote:

190. Any person may make a submission or observation in writing to the local authority in respect of the application within 5 weeks of the receipt of the application by the local authority.

...and objections can be lodged within the first 5 weeks of the application having been lodged...

SI600/2001 wrote:

192. (1) A local authority shall make a decision under section 231(3) of the Act in respect of an application not earlier than 5 weeks after receiving the application.

...and no decision can be made during that 5 week period of the application having first been received so that there is an opportunity for any and all objections to be received!

So I'm afraid the above just further compounds the fact that Aiken didn't follow due process here - not least by in fact not lodging any of the 5 concert dates within the required timeframe.

It also shows that DCC did actually turn the decision around some 5 weeks quicker than they were obliged to:
- application lodged and received by DCC 17th April
- they could not give a decision until at least May 22nd - 5 weeks
- they gave their ruling on July 3rd - 11 weeks
- they didn't actually have to give their ruling until August 7th - 16 weeks - well after the concerts were due to take place!

Flem31

The other thing that worries me about pushing the refunds out to Thursday is: do they have the money? Like, are they pushing them out saying "oh no, we've spent all the money, give us a couple of days to come up with it"[/QUOTE]

If they are delaying payments....and owe over 5 million.......has Nama been in contact with them ?

amandaf675

miss no stars wrote: »

Ticketmaster are saying that even if the concerts go ahead, they'll still issue refunds. Which is only fair, they cancelled them ages ago, plans have been changed."

Where did you see this?

bobrawn20

Ticketmaster are just an agent. They only make their money off the booking fee essentially. It's Aiken that would lose out if the concerts were to go ahead AND refunds given.

miss no stars

amandaf675 wrote: »

Where did you see this?

I was told it when I phoned asking for my refund to be processed today. (if ya don't ask you don't get and all that.. they said they can't do anything til Thursday though)