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

amandaf675

miss no stars wrote: »

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)

Thank god... Delighted..

Happyman42

bobrawn20 wrote: »

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.

So to issue refunds they have to get money back from Aiken...could get ugly.

Red Nissan

miss no stars wrote: »

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)

I suspect they mean that even if the concerts go ahead, individuals who are not now going to the concert, and they that want a refund, those individuals will still be able to apply and receive one.

JRant

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.

More guff.

The entire Giro event was subject to license. Why can you not understand that point?

Also how is it that a free event with 1 million attendee's can get their licenses approved yet Aiken, after taking in nearly €30 million of peoples hard earned cash, couldn't?

I would hope Mr Keegan was giving the Giro his full attention. After all it was a truly global event and the largest seen in the city in manys a year.

ardle1

Ah c'mon...... At this stage, and if anyone has a heart among 'The Powers That Be', just let these 5 nights go ahead...... And sort out the bloody licencing process there-after...

bobmalooka

Jim Rockford wrote: »

The funny thing is not as many millions as the haters of Brooks and the concert goers, and the cronie supporters of DCC incompetence are going to see Dublin and Ireland loose.

Why? are you going to burn the money you would have spent at the concert?

The reality is a significant proportion on the €50 million economy boost argument will simply be spent on other things.

bumper234

ardle1 wrote: »

Ah c'mon...... At this stage, and if anyone has a heart among 'The Powers That Be', just let these 5 nights go ahead...... And sort out the bloody licencing process there-after...

So decisions should be made on emotions now? :rolleyes:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peppa Pig

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But if a certain person has a heart, 3 nights will go ahead and 240,000 will get to see him.

Peist2007

ardle1 wrote: »

Ah c'mon...... At this stage, and if anyone has a heart among 'The Powers That Be', just let these 5 nights go ahead...... And sort out the bloody licencing process there-after...

Yeah we promise we'll be adults once these 5 concerts are over

Red Nissan

bumper234 wrote: »

So decisions should be made on emotions now? :rolleyes:

It's as good as any at this totally farcical stage. The goodness is already spoilt, the draggin on is ridiculous, Hotel can't rebook, tourists can't decide, it should be over, be that, that we've shot ourselves in the head for July or we try and salvage something by allowing the five in row.

Garth has probably forgotten about us by now already.

bumper234

Red Nissan wrote: »

It's as good as any at this totally farcical stage. The goodness is already spoilt, the draggin on is ridiculous, Hotel can't rebook, tourists can't decide, it should be over, be that, that we've shot ourselves in the head for July or we try and salvage something by allowing the five in row.

Garth has probably forgotten about us by now already.

Why et the 5 go ahead when a legal decision has already been made on that, Let GB change his mind and play to the 240,000 who have tickets for his licenced gigs.

Muise...

bumper234 wrote: »

So decisions should be made on emotions now? :rolleyes:

Well country music is mighty sentimental...

If these concerts go ahead they set a precedent - that the proper procedures can be overridden with special pleading and that the government can override a civic decision because some of their voters are bawling crying and business heads pull projected figures out of a hat. Try sorting out the licensing regulations then.

miss no stars

Muise... wrote: »

If these concerts go ahead they set a precedent - that the proper procedures can be overridden with special pleading and that the government can override a civic decision because their voters are bawling crying. Try sorting out the licensing regulations then.

To me this is the crux of the issue. Our laws are our laws. They were flaunted for almost a decade and, combined with easy access to cheap credit, this brought down our entire economy.

If planning laws and proper town planning policy hadn't been so flagrantly disregarded in the first place we wouldn't be talking about the need to allow concerts to go ahead in spite of planning decisions against them just because it'll bring a boost to the economy that's struggling because of people who took brown envelopes to allow things to proceed that planning should have prevented. Talk about cyclical. An Irish response to an Irish problem.

Muise...

miss no stars wrote: »

To me this is the crux of the issue. Our laws are our laws. They were flaunted for almost a decade and, combined with easy access to cheap credit, this brought down our entire economy.

If planning laws and proper town planning policy hadn't been so flagrantly disregarded in the first place we wouldn't be talking about the need to allow concerts to go ahead in spite of planning decisions against them just because it'll bring a boost to the economy that's struggling because of people who took brown envelopes to allow things to proceed that planning should have prevented. Talk about cyclical. An Irish response to an Irish problem.

Well would you look at that! Complete agreement between a ticket holder and a supporter of proper procedures. In yer face Jim with your phoney war!

/not a hater.

Jester252

40% of the complements suspected of being a forgery. If true I hope some of the residents association committee get some decent punishment.

bumper234

Jester252 wrote: »

40% of the complements suspected of being a forgery. If true I hope some of the residents association committee get some decent punishment.

Being the operative word here.

kippy

Jester252 wrote: »

40% of the complements suspected of being a forgery. If true I hope some of the residents association committee get some decent punishment.

Even if that is true, 60 percent were not "dodgy" and the ultimate decision made no references at all to the amount of complaints received, merely on the impact of weekday traffic on the entire city and the fact that a large number of concerts had already been held there this year.

Jester252

kippy wrote: »

Even if that is true, 60 percent were not "dodgy" and the ultimate decision made no references at all to the amount of complaints received, merely on the impact of weekday traffic on the entire city and the fact that a large number of concerts had already been held there this year.

60% of a 1,000 or so complements is a lot less than 1,000. Besides you do you think brought up the other points, the small group of anti-gaa residents have been singing that hymen sheet for a few years now.

Jester252

bumper234 wrote: »

Being the operative word here.

Hence why I included it.

My name is URL

Jester252 wrote: »

60% of a 1,000 or so complements is a lot less than 1,000. Besides you do you think brought up the other points, the small group of anti-gaa residents have been singing that hymen sheet for a few years now.

http://i.imgur.com/mxDi8XQ.gif

Muise...

Jester252 wrote: »

60% of a 1,000 or so complements is a lot less than 1,000. Besides you do you think brought up the other points, the small group of anti-gaa residents have been singing that hymen sheet for a few years now.

bloody virgins :pac:

kippy

Jester252 wrote: »

60% of a 1,000 or so complements is a lot less than 1,000. Besides you do you think brought up the other points, the small group of anti-gaa residents have been singing that hymen sheet for a few years now.

60% of a 1000 is 600 (not sure how many complaints actually went in, thought the number was closer to 250 to be honest)
So 600 complaints (for arguments sake) and in the decision the complaints and more importantly the number of them, were not taken into account.

It looks like the planners took into account the wider implications of weekday gigs on traffic for people not actually in the area of the stadium as well as two other points.

Iang87

so does anyone know is there any announcements etc planned for today

kippy

Iang87 wrote: »

so does anyone know is there any announcements etc planned for today

There was one at 14:00.

Iang87

I see i see. Fair to assume nothing came of it

kippy

Iang87 wrote: »

I see i see. Fair to assume nothing came of it

Yeah, they just announced that there'd be no announcement today.

Happyman42

kippy wrote: »

Yeah, they just announced that there'd be no announcement today.

Who did? Aiken?

kippy

Happyman42 wrote: »

Who did? Aiken?

No,
The UN.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Kensington wrote: »

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

Speak for yourself please, Phil Hogan isn't incorrect here, just you and those that have repeated the same nonsense in the thread so far (and also of course, those that thanked it).

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

There was no need to inform us of that, it has been quite obvious from your posts.

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


So applications must be made at least 16 weeks prior to date of first event, in fact, and not 10 weeks.

Totally and utterly false.

I will show you why in just a second but do you really think the Irish media, Aiken, Brooks and the GAA would have been banging on about how the licence applications were made four weeks prior to the deadline.. if the deadline was actually"16 weeks"? Which would of course mean that they had actually missed it?? By TWO WHOLE WEEKS. That was actually plausible in your head and that neither the Irish media, nor even the Worldwide media noticed that glaring fact, just you

Nice to see your post got backslapped by the usual suspects though. Gave me a chuckle. Par for the course around here, but there you go...

In any case, you may need to brush up on your "research" skills:

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2012

These Regulations amend the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 to reduce the period prior to the event that an application for a licence for an outdoor event must be made from 16 weeks to 10 weeks.

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

No shit. Why do you think I've been saying that Keegan could have made a decision from May 22nd all along. Do you think I was just using that date for the fun of it? No, I have been saying May 22nd as that is FIVE weeks from when the applications were made!! It was you that said it the DCC couldn't act for "ten weeks" earlier.. remember:

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.

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.

He applied FOUR weeks BEFORE the application deadline!! :P

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

Why did they accept the application. It was two weeks late according to you. I don't think I ever seen anyone be so wrong in one post.

- they didn't actually have to give their ruling until August 7th - 16 weeks - well after the concerts were due to take place!

LMFAO!! And people thanked this post??

Not only do you think that Aiken Promotions were so inept that they applied for event licences TWO WEEKS LATE and that the DCC accepted them anyway but also.. that as a result of that, Keegan didn't have to make a decesion on whether or not to grant them, until AFTER the concerts took place!!!!