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

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

I think you are wrong.

Link to DCC manager going to be grilled over this please?

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

Link to DCC manager going to be grilled over this please?

Let's just watch.

muddypaws

cournioni wrote: »

70,000 of these people most likely won't be in the country to spend it here.

True people from Ireland will still have it in their pockets. The problem now is, it may now stay there, it may not, it may go on a holiday abroad, it may not. Had the Garth Brooks event took place, these people would most certainly have spent it.

There will be losses to businesses such as transport. Think about how much private bus companies will have been affected. The list goes on and on.

I did see a news report a few days ago, interviewing pub or hotel owners in Cork I believe it was, they were saying that they were going to be out of pocket that weekend, as so many people were heading up to Dublin. So, whilst Dublin's economy won't have that injection, other businesses around the country are probably quite happy about the situation.

ardle1 wrote: »

All the early morning news is carrying the story, this should not have happened, it really is going to have a huge negative effect on Ireland, there was going to be a movie made off the whole event, that alone would have brought tourist to our Country.... The government(yes the government)better have some sort of apology ready.. SERIOUSLY.... BTW to all you anti Concert trolls, stop trying to play it down, it's a huge story , wether you like it or not. No one wants to hear your negative crap and that's not just the 400,000 ticket holders.

The early morning news in Ireland probably, but not overseas, I listen to the BBC's news and sports radio station, Five Live, and it hasn't been mentioned once this morning, or yesterday, or the day before or ..............

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

Keegan is paid to solve problems, not act like a junior clerk reciting the by-laws. If the Council had the authority to make a decision, it also had the authority to re-visit it. It did not need an "appeal" process, just some adults working out a solution that worked for everyone.

As the ultimate authority for deciding if the concerts went ahead, Keegan and the Council also had the ultimate responsibility for sorting it. Instead they behaved like petty bureaucrats hiding behind the small print.

Keegan has a long and well-earned reputation for being a pig-headed self- promoter. He may have bitten off a bit more than he bargained for this time.

Concise version:
Keegan is a pr**k because he did his job and followed the law, how I wish we were back in the good old days when officials turned a blind eye or were forced to by FF/Developers etc

I for one am glad that Keegan refused to be bullied into the illegal act that revisiting , or reviewing his decision would have been.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

Let's just watch.

Ah so no evidence just wishful thinking :rolleyes:

First Up

secman wrote: »

He made the decision, taking into account the conditions put in by an Bord Pleanala, which would carry a lot of weight in fairness. Don't know if you are old enough to remember when the GAA were rebuilding CP, because it was in such a built up residential area, they encountered fierce opposition. It ended up in an bord pleanala, the GAA ended up with an odd shaped stadium, only 3 proper sides and restrictions for usage other than games. The GAA accepted these whereas they refuted the notion of moving to a greenfield site and not having these restrictions.

Keegan had to take the conditions into account and compromised on 3 gigs on top of the 3 permitted.

Stick to the subject. He made a decision for three concerts only. The rest was a scramble to repair the situation when it got hot.
The sensible, reasonable thing would have been to anticipate this and get involved in brokering a proper deal. Not wait for an application they knew would be problematic.

First Up

Reformed Character wrote: »

Concise version:
Keegan is a pr**k because he did his job and followed the law, how I wish we were back in the good old days when officials turned a blind eye or were forced to by FF/Developers etc

I for one am glad that Keegan refused to be bullied into the illegal act that revisiting , or reviewing his decision would have been.

Ever hear the term "jobsworth"?

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

Ah so no evidence just wishful thinking :rolleyes:

See 4925 above.

cournioni

Dravokivich wrote: »

So? If we are so focused on the "70,000" who aren't coming here now because Garth Brooks isn't playing, we should be thinking about what can be done here to attract people to come.

Indeed. Will we have to have another Gathering to attract them? How much will that cost? How many other country and vegetable singers will attract 70,000 people from abroad?

Dravokivich wrote: »

If they don't spend it in 2 weeks, it'll be spent and if not taxed eventually anyway. It makes no difference if it was on an overpriced hotel in 2 weeks time, or something else they may want to get at a later date. Why begrudge someone a holiday abroad as well?

I am not begrudging anybody a holiday abroad, people are entitled to that if they wish. What I am saying is, if that €150 per head is spent on a holiday abroad then it will be money going out of the economy - meaning no tax take from it and less money in the pockets of businesses here.

I totally understand where you're coming from where people may eventually spend this money on a foreign holiday anyway. What I am saying is that this year may be one year where people spend their time enjoying a few nights spending their €150 in Ireland rather than in Spain/France/Italy.

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's just the nature of business built on dependency of other business. Sure it sucks, but there's not really much use to waving a banner for'em as if they've been hard done by as a result of this.

This is a negative effect of the cancellation of the events. Do you agree?

Valetta

First Up wrote: »

Ever hear the term "jobsworth"?

Ever heard the tern "doing your job without fear or favour"?

Calina

First Up wrote: »

Stick to the subject. He made a decision for three concerts only. The rest was a scramble to repair the situation when it got hot.
The sensible, reasonable thing would have been to anticipate this and get involved in brokering a proper deal. Not wait for an application they knew would be problematic.

You cannot broker a deal with someone whose negotiating position is an ultimatum or a my way way or the highway position.

As soon as Brooks said it was 5 or nothing, there was never going to be any deal.

That being said, it is not DCC who wanted to put on 5 concerts in Croke Park. As far as anticipating stuff, it's not their issue to solve.

drkpower

It is understood that Dublin City Council was willing to offer three more concerts in October, but Mr Brooks rejected this proposal.

Hard to see how this DCC proposal respects the rights of the residents any more than allowing the 5 to go ahead.

It all smells of DCC/Keegan doing anything and giving anything to avoid having to admit they were wrong.

Calina

drkpower wrote: »

Hard to see how this DCC proposal respects the rights of the residents any more than allowing the 5 to go ahead.

It all smells of DCC/Keegan doing anything and giving anything to avoid having to admit they were wrong.

Believe me six concerts split is far, far more acceptable an option than five consecutive nights, particularly if the Monday/Tuesday side of things is out of the equation.

Also, his light show will look better in October than in June.

ThisRegard

First Up wrote: »

Stick to the subject. He made a decision for three concerts only. The rest was a scramble to repair the situation when it got hot.
The sensible, reasonable thing would have been to anticipate this and get involved in brokering a proper deal. Not wait for an application they knew would be problematic.

He licensed 3 gigs ffs.

First Up

Valetta wrote: »

Ever heard the tern "doing your job without fear or favour"?

Ever hear of "the bigger picture"?

Valetta

drkpower wrote: »

Hard to see how this DCC proposal respects the rights of the residents any more than allowing the 5 to go ahead.

It all smells of DCC/Keegan doing anything and giving anything to avoid having to admit they were wrong.

How were they wrong?

The compromise of three more concerts in October (or whenever) would have got around the main issue with 5 in a row i.e. five consecutive days of disruption including weekdays.

The residents didn't have a problem with the three original concerts going ahead, except for a few hardline "no, no,none", who were taken into consideration by DCC when granting the licenses for the three concerts.

Daith

When someone applies for the license for say Electric Picnic is it for the full event (3 days or per each day?)

Why submit different planning permissions for each event when it was five or nothing.

Valetta

First Up wrote: »

Ever hear of "the bigger picture"?

Of course. As has DCC in coming to their decision.

It's not their fault Garth took his ball and went home in a huff.

First Up

Calina wrote: »

You cannot broker a deal with someone whose negotiating position is an ultimatum or a my way way or the highway position.

As soon as Brooks said it was 5 or nothing, there was never going to be any deal.

That being said, it is not DCC who wanted to put on 5 concerts in Croke Park. As far as anticipating stuff, it's not their issue to solve.

That's where we differ.

intellectual dosser

There are a lot of disappointed fans and I empathize with them, but longer term I'm more satisfied that we maintained our integrity towards our regulations and laws and didn't bend just to get a supposed €50m into the economy.

I haven't read every word of every report, but I'm thinking Garth Brooks is the real villain, he's been playing his fans the whole time. From asking about the possibility of matinees, to saying he'd swim to Ireland to get down on his knees and beg the taoiseach, to saying he wouldn't leave Nashville until its resolved, to then cancelling the events despite there being a (reasonably) credible solution on the table.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

Ever hear of "the bigger picture"?

You mean money?

Didn't we throw up ghost estates all around the country for money?

Calina

First Up wrote: »

That's where we differ.

You're wrong. The anticipation should have come from the promoter side. They are in the business of running events.

Valetta

Daith wrote: »

You mean money?

Didn't we throw up ghost estates all around the country for money?

Mostly as a result of dodgy planning decisions!

First Up

Daith wrote: »

You mean money?

Didn't we throw up ghost estates all around the country for money?

I mean working something out that ends up as a win-win.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

I mean working something out that ends up as a win-win.

Like what?

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

I mean working something out that ends up as a win-win.

You mean stamping your feet and having a tantrum until you get what you want?

Something was worked out where 3 of the five concerts were licenced and there was to be no concerts on the Monday/Tuesday

Win for 240,000 fans who get to se the concerts.

Win for the residents who are not in lock down for 5 days running.

Win for the people of Dublin who will not face massive traffic disruption on 2 weeknights.

But hey it's not a win situation if Garthy doesn't get to dictate which laws apply to him right :rolleyes::rolleyes:

somesoldiers

NORTH1 wrote: »

I am a neutral to this, following the story with interest at how it got to this stage.

One think I have noticed does not seem to be covered at all.

How much interest do you think was earned on six months of 400,000 ticket sales?

If everyone paid by some sort of card, at .50 cent service charge that's 200,000 euro on top.

So at a guess there was 30 million in ticket sales? What would six months interest on that be?

And that's not counting the people that are not in a position to refund their tickets.

more like 6.50 service charge per ticket, at least TM have said they will give back with the refund

First Up

Calina wrote: »

You're wrong. The anticipation should have come from the promoter side. They are in the business of running events.

And the council is in the business of deciding which events go ahead. That brings some responsibility with it. They were the ones best placed to know that the application was likely to hit problems.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dravokivich wrote: »

If they don't spend it in 2 weeks, it'll be spent and if not taxed eventually anyway. It makes no difference if it was on an overpriced hotel in 2 weeks time, or something else they may want to get at a later date.

Of course it does, it's taxed every time it's spent, while it sits somewhere instead of getting spent that's a loss due to the cancellation of the concerts.

This "it'll be spent eventually so it's no loss to the economy" is one of the silliest points that keeps being repeated in this thread.

If that were the case no spending is ever good for the economy, cos sure it'll be spent eventually right? Yea just the same :pac:

Calina

First Up wrote: »

And the council is in the business of deciding which events go ahead. That brings some responsibility with it. They were the ones best placed to know that the application was likely to hit problems.

Seriously, the issues with this concert were raised the days concerts 4 and 5 were announced. Can you explain to me why the licence application didn't go in until April? DCC can do nothing until they have the paperwork.