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

brooke 2

Ace2007 wrote: »

The GAA have a saying

GIVE RESPECT - GET RESPECT

The GAA clearly don't follow this with their neighbours - they have been pushing their luck for a while now and eventually a stance was taken.

Everyone on here keeps forgetting that if the GAA want to hold any concerts in Croke park they need the approval of the DCC. So if the DCC want to they could make life very awkward to the GAA in future.

The GAA have admitted opening mistakes where made

Have not heard anything from Peter McKenna since he said a few weeks ago
that he was sure the five concerts would go ahead!

Ace2007

brooke 2 wrote: »

Have not heard anything from Peter McKenna since he said a few weeks ago
that he was sure the five concerts would go ahead!

He's probably off hiding with EOTR

It was the organisation's director general, Paraic Duffy who said it -

Peppa Pig

cournioni wrote: »

You said that you cannot sell or promote tickets without a license. The answer is, yes you can. It has been happening for years. Check some old ticket stubs if you don't believe me.

They have been doing this openly since I can remember going to concerts and even radio adverts stating "subject to license".

Keegan said it is common practise as it is rare for a licence to be refused.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Ace2007 wrote: »

Doesn't matter how long they have being doing it

Read section 230 of the act it clearly states that it is an offence to sell tickets or promote an event without a licence.

So, if someone was found begging for change on O'Connell St and the Gardai tied them to a squad car and whipped them until they bled.. that would be alright with you?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/flogging-out-of-date-laws-from-the-books-244294.html

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So, if someone was found begging for change on O'Connell St and the Gardai tied him to a squad car and whipped him until he bled.. that would be alright with you?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/flogging-out-of-date-laws-from-the-books-244294.html

Of course not.

The act clearly states he must be tied to a cart.

bobrawn20

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So, if someone was found begging for change on O'Connell St and the Gardai tied them to a squad car and whipped them until they bled.. that would be alright with you?

lol, just a SLIGHT bit different

Ace2007

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

So, if someone was found begging for change on O'Connell St and the Gardai tied them to a squad car and whipped them until they bled.. that would be alright with you?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/flogging-out-of-date-laws-from-the-books-244294.html

Please show me that legislation and two where it says squad car?

brooke 2

Cabaal wrote: »

Strange, any radio adverts I've heard mention a gig is subject to license. People also agree to terms.

People were made aware of the clause, they just chose to ignore it...

I guess they had a 'legitimate expectation' that the concert for which they shelled
out money would take place. They might be more careful in future. Caveat emptor!!

cournioni

Ace2007 wrote: »

Doesn't matter how long they have being doing it

Read section 230 of the act it clearly states that it is an offence to sell tickets or promote an event without a licence.

Cyclists openly break the traffic lights and have been for years - does this mean it's acceptable and ok to do?

Where does it say anything about the sale of tickets in that section? It doesn't say anything about selling tickets for an event that is not yet licensed.

It says that the seller/promoter is guilty of an offense if the event takes place without a license.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0230.html

BenEadir

Strazdas wrote: »

But the cancellation of two 80,000 seater concerts at the last moment with many people flying in from abroad for them was always going to be a public relations disaster.

the concerts weren't "cancelled" at the last minute. They were sold "subject to licence" and the licence wasn't granted. No licensed concerts have been cancelled.

Buying a ticket "subject to licence" is the same as buying an option on something. You are effectively bettting that the outcome you want will happen and the event will go ahead. If there was no risk of it not happening the tickets wouldn't be "subject to" anything. On this occasion the risk (which was far more considerable than people generally perceived) came in so they get their money back.

Simples

Ben

Daith

cournioni wrote: »

Where does it say anything about the sale of tickets in that section? It doesn't say anything about selling tickets for an event that is not yet licensed.

It says that the seller/promoter is guilty of an offense if the event takes place without a license.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0230.html

I thought it was the promoting part?

) Any person who—

(a) organises, promotes, holds or is otherwise materially involved in the organisation of an event to which this section applies, or

(b) is in control of land on which an event to which this section applies is held,

other than under and in accordance with a licence, shall be guilty of an offence.

brooke 2

Ace2007 wrote: »

He's probably off hiding with EOTR

It was the organisation's director general, Paraic Duffy who said it -

Isn't McKenna over the corporate side of things in Croke Park?
Am fairly sure I read that he said it.

Ace2007

cournioni wrote: »

Where does it say anything about the sale of tickets in that section? It doesn't say anything about selling tickets for an event that is not yet licensed.

It says that the seller/promoter is guilty of an offense if the event takes place without a license.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/sec0230.html

(3) Any person who—

(a) organises, promotes, holds or is otherwise materially involved in the organisation of an event to which this section applies, or

(b) is in control of land on which an event to which this section applies is held,

other than under and in accordance with a licence, shall be guilty of an offence.

So Aiken organised promoted and was materially involed in the organising of the event and the GAA were in control of the land for which the event was taking place and they did all this without a licence

BenEadir

brooke 2 wrote: »

I guess they had a 'legitimate expectation' that the concert for which they shelled
out money would take place. They might be more careful in future. Caveat emptor!!

100% correct.

Ace2007

brooke 2 wrote: »

Isn't McKenna over the corporate side of things in Croke Park?
Am fairly sure I read that he said it.

To be honest I have no idea what's his role is, but it was Duffy that said it

nxbyveromdwjpg

People are still going on about standard process for event management in Ireland are they

nxbyveromdwjpg

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Keegan said it is common practise as it is rare for a licence to be refused.

One refused in the last 30 years

brooke 2

Ace2007 wrote: »

To be honest I have no idea what's his role is, but it was Duffy that said it

Maybe they were quoting each other!!
Am not 100%, so perhaps you are right.

cournioni

Daith wrote: »

I thought it was the promoting part?

) Any person who—

(a) organises, promotes, holds or is otherwise materially involved in the organisation of an event to which this section applies, or

(b) is in control of land on which an event to which this section applies is held,

other than under and in accordance with a licence, shall be guilty of an offence.

Not until the unlicensed event takes place I would have said.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BenEadir

Ace2007 wrote: »

So Aiken organised promoted and was materially involed in the organising of the event and the GAA were in control of the land for which the event was taking place and they did all this without a licence

No they were selling tickets to a licensed event. No licence (as we all now know) = no event = no breach of any law. The tickets were sold "subject to licence" specifically to comply with the law.

Ben

brooke 2

nm wrote: »

One refused in the last 30 years

Iirc, that was 'Lisdoonvarna' which was relocated to the RDS after the objections
of the Doolin residents.

mylefttesticle

At least we do not have to listen to dodgy country music in pubs and clubs for the next two months! Silver lining and all that.

Peppa Pig

nm wrote: »

One refused in the last 30 years

34 actually. The Rats in the Phoenix Park in 1980;)

There was a bit of discussion on it yesterday

rubadub

cournioni wrote: »

The answer is, yes you can. It has been happening for years. Check some old ticket stubs if you don't believe me.

They have been doing this openly since I can remember going to concerts and even radio adverts stating "subject to license".

True, but nothing like this has happened that I can remember -i.e. promotors knowingly selling tickets for a gig gauranteed to have its licence strongly objected to. If anybody can recall an event please share.

If MCD announce 7 nights in a row in slane I would advise people not to go booking flights or hotels. Its 5 more gigs than would have ever have happened before, and there were special allowances made to even get that maximum before. Just like croke park had a load of complaints when the previous max of 4 were announced.

It was completely common knowledge of the restrictions. In the gigs section this was the 5th post when it was said he was playing here, back in december
11-12-2013, 18:24

scudzilla wrote: »

Rule Croke out, only allowed 3 gigs per year and 1D have them sewn up

cournioni

Ace2007 wrote: »

So Aiken organised promoted and was materially involed in the organising of the event and the GAA were in control of the land for which the event was taking place and they did all this without a licence

Subject to license. It's not illegal.

Daith

cournioni wrote: »

Subject to license. It's not illegal.

other than under and in accordance with a licence

That implies you need a licence?

My name is URL

Mr Keegan admitted that the council made no efforts to verify whether the objections were real. Mr Keegan also claimed that he was told by unnamed individuals that people were put under pressure to sign objections at public meetings.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/dcc-boss-owen-keegan-says-council-made-no-effort-to-verify-garth-brooks-objections-30433523.html

Just goes to show the sort of people you're dealing with when it comes to certain individuals involved in the residents associations. Hopefully they'll be told to take a long walk off a short plank the next time they start making demands regarding upcoming events.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Ace2007 wrote: »

Please show me that legislation and two where it says squad car?

If the law was not in legislation, then they would hardly be bothered trying to repeal it. Why not just take the point instead of squirming around attempts to try and get you to see it. Many laws are just not enforced as they are impractical and seriously outdated.

In any case, I suggest you read the following excellent article, as you seem to be under the rather strange illusion that Keegan and company did nowt wrong and that is far far from the case:

Garth Brooks fiasco proves that we need a city boss who answers to an elected mayor

IS this how we want our city managed? The case for a city manager answerable to an elected lord mayor has never been more apposite. We have recently witnessed an embarrassing stand-off between an impotent lord mayor and an authoritarian city manager.

The wider ramification of the recent violation of planning legislation by Dublin City Council has collateral damage for our city and country. There was never any legal basis to grant licences for Garth Brooks' concerts in 2014.

Croke Park Stadium was redeveloped under planning permission granted in 1993 with a condition that: "The number of special events such as concerts, conventions or exhibitions shall not exceed three per annum." (Condition 11a of planning register reference number 238/92)

During 2007, Croke Park applied for permission to amend "in perpetuity" Condition 11(b) of the 1993 permission. This was granted, allowing an extension of the hours of operations for live music performances by one hour until 11pm.

Planning register number 6473/06 Condition 3 states: "Apart from the amendment sought in this application, all proposed live music performances shall be arranged and operated in accordance with the conditions laid down by An Bord Pleanala in its decision to grant permission for the redevelopment of Croke Park stadium on 9 March, 1993 and all the relevant conditions of Planning Register No 0238/92 shall be adhered to."

The 2014 event licence was granted by Dublin City Council for three concerts by One Direction, on May 23, 24 and 25, as is the norm for any major public event. When the GAA/ Croke Park accepted a booking for five Garth Brooks concerts they knew that this would exceed the limits of their planning permission.

When DCC granted an event licence for the three One Direction concerts, it was aware that the limit of events for Croke Park in 2014 had now been reached.

The simple facts are that DCC acted in breach of Planning legislation in granting a three-day licence for Garth Brooks as the GAA had exhausted their planning permission for 2014 after the One Direction concert

An event licence does not supersede planning permission. Examining the legislation, it seems the gap is that an event licence requires the applicant to furnish evidence that the owner/occupier has consented, but does not explicitly request the occupier/owner to confirm that the hire of the premises complies with planning.

However, as the event licence application is made to the planning authority, which is also the planning enforcement authority, it would be reasonable to expect that they would have an overview and would check such fundamental issues when they receive an application for five concerts with 80k-plus attendees each night.

Unfortunately it seems that Dublin City Council did not notify the promoter (Aiken) or the stadium owner (GAA) that a licence application was insufficient and that an amendment to planning permission would be required.

The City Manager informed the elected representatives of Dublin City Council meeting on July 7 that there was no provision for reversing or modifying his decision to reduce the five concerts to three (though three was already illegal).

There is a good case now for a judicial review of how this decision was made by a planning authority and why the planning authority failed to advise the applicant that the venue operator (the GAA) did not have planning permission to host ANY further concerts in 2014, and how the city council granted a licence for three concerts when to do so was clearly in breach of planning.

Either it is acceptable to have more than three concerts a year without planning permission or it is not. The second licence for three Garth Brooks concerts signifies it WAS deemed acceptable to contravene planning permission. If the City Manager was willing to overlook compliance with planning permission for three concerts then why not extend this breach to five? When the Taoiseach stepped in to see whether licensing regulations as well as the planning permission could be waived, we have our local and national authority condoning two wrongs to make a right.

Where does this cavalier approach come from? The residents of Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown have undergone a taste of what they might see as the same autocracy when the current Dublin City Manager presided over spending €36m on their 'monstrous carbuncle' (to borrow from Prince Charles) of a library which disrupts the Victorian seafront.

One of the first things the City Manager did when he moved from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown was to cut the homeless budget.

He has now managed to sever revenue to Dublin and the national economy by a minimum of €50m. A fraction of which would have gone a long way to fund poverty programmes.

What should have happened? Dublin City Council should have highlighted last January that the One Direction concerts would exhaust Croke Park's permission for concerts this year and any further concerts required planning permission. A proper process of consultation and application could then have taken place, without the fiasco that has ensued.

Now that democratically elected local representatives have been stripped of power, who will keep the unelected autocrats in check? It seems no one.

Jamsiek

cournioni wrote: »

You said that you cannot sell or promote tickets without a license. The answer is, yes you can. It has been happening for years. Check some old ticket stubs if you don't believe me.

They have been doing this openly since I can remember going to concerts and even radio adverts stating "subject to license".

Doesn't mean it's legal, just that the law was ignored.
It can't be allowed to happen again until the law is changed.