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

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Fine by me, could see the Aviva next year though. If GB agreed, which he probably wouldn't.

Brooks stands by his 'principles' = Hero, the DCC stand by the principles laid down by our laws = Culprits.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

I know, I chose not to live beside the biggest stadium in the country.
If I did, I'd expect it a few days of the year.

And they do expect it and they accept it......until they started taking the piss.

It has nothing to do with traffic. As I've said already, there are other reasons for objection.

And the main reason for the 2 concerts being cancelled was because of the disruption caused.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brooks stands by his 'principles' = Hero, the DCC stand by the principles laid down by our laws = Culprits.

Where do you get this from? Where have I called GB a hero?

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

I know, I chose not to live beside the biggest stadium in the country.
If I did, I'd expect it a few days of the year.



It has nothing to do with traffic. As I've said already, there are other reasons for objection.

I thought a few usually meant 3? One Direction, 3 concerts. 3 Licensed Garth Brooks concerts, so 6, more than a few.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

I know, I chose not to live beside the biggest stadium in the country.
If I did, I'd expect it a few days of the year.



It has nothing to do with traffic. As I've said already, there are other reasons for objection.

That reminds me of the old NI joke about stupid Catholics choosing to live near the routes of Oranage Order marches.
I believe there were houses there before Croke Park, no?

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

And they do expect it and they accept it......until they started taking the piss.

8 out of 365 isn't taking the piss, that agreement needs to be revised.

bumper234 wrote: »

And the main reason for the 2 concerts being cancelled was because of the disruption caused.

So traffic objections should be listened to by Keegan, but no other objections count?

Calina

nm wrote: »

I know, I chose not to live beside the biggest stadium in the country.
If I did, I'd expect it a few days of the year.



It has nothing to do with traffic. As I've said already, there are other reasons for objection.

I live 4km from the stadium. I didn't chose to live beside the stadium either but I still get impacted by the traffic problems. I do expect it a few days of the year. Most of those days tend to be Saturdays and Sundays with the occasional Friday thrown in once in a while.

Not Mondays and Tuesdays.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That reminds me of the old NI joke about stupid Catholics choosing to live near the routes of Oranage Order marches.
I believe there were houses there before Croke Park, no?

With the current residents being there since pre-1913? Unlikely.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

And Brian Duff was representing a residents committee as well now?

The GAA where joint promoters of this, Brian Duff was spearheading a challenge from within that organisation. :rolleyes:

Brian Duff is a Croke Park resident, that is how he presented himself and his challenge.

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

I thought a few usually meant 3? One Direction, 3 concerts. 3 Licensed Garth Brooks concerts, so 6, more than a few.

A few would generally mean a small number of.

I'd say 20 might be right for the updated agreement, but let's meet in the middle and say 10, with no more than 3 in a row and let's change the pre-sales subject to licence process completely while we're at it.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Where do you get this from? Where have I called GB a hero?

The unwillingness that you display to place the major blame for this debacle at the door of those who primarily caused it (Brooks/Aiken) suggests slavish devotion.
Despite the flexibility shown by the residents (who did nothing more than legally object) and DCC, Brooks/Aiken still walked away and didn't compromise one iota.

cournioni

Calina wrote: »

You are aware that the concerts which were licensed were cancelled by Garth Brooks and you're not interested in that contribution to the fiasco?

It's fascinating to watch this debate actually - in particularly how many people feel the country, and the city of Dublin especially, feel that they should just lie down in the face of an ultimatum.

Seriously, are you telling me that if your partner said to you "my way or no way buster", you'd just accept that?

Ultimata are the sign of an unbalanced relationship. Quite frankly the minute Garth came up with 5 concerts or none, the city should have just walked away.

My absolute favourite artist of all time is Jean-Michel Jarre and he had a concert licence refused at 12 days' notice in 1988 in London and that was following months of consultation. I had a ticket for that once in a life time concert and I'll be blunt, I doubt there is much that Garth might have planned that would have topped that concert. Jarre sat down and negotiated two concerts instead of one (because scale/safety was a key issue) and ran both of them two weeks' later. I went then instead.

In terms of getting something to happen for the fans, he put his heart and soul into reaching a compromise with the council concerned including rescheduling the concert to a few weeks later and agreeing to move to another site if necessary. He didn't say "You let me run my huge concert or else I'm not coming". The reschedule and rework, done in a matter of weeks, cost Jarre a fortune. But it hasn't stopped him going to back to London to tour in the meantime. I've seen him in Wembley and I know other people have seen him in the O2 there.

Tell me, can you honestly say that Garth Brooks was working in the best interests of his fans by comparison?

That's it Calina, just ignore the rest of my posts. Be oblivious to any wrong doing by the DCC. I have said time and time again that there has been wrongs on all sides in this debacle. I, however, am not interested in Garth Brooks he is not an employee of the state.

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

A few would generally mean a small number of.

I'd say 20 might be right for the updated agreement, but let's meet in the middle and say 10, with no more than 3 in a row and let's change the pre-sales subject to licence process completely while we're at it.

Agreed. Shall we announce it to the world that we've sorted this issue out, and there will be no more problems?

Calina

cournioni wrote: »

That's it Calina, just ignore the rest of my posts. Be oblivious to any wrong doing by the DCC. I have said time and time again that there has been wrongs on all sides in this debacle. I, however, am not interested in Garth Brooks he is not an employee of the state.

DCC have done nothing wrong. That's where I have a problem with you.

You should be interested in Garth Brooks because he is the man whose name was on the tickets for this debacle.

Otherwise, I still ask, can you honestly compare Brooks' efforts to get his concerts sorted with Jarre's efforts?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

The unwillingness that you display to place the major blame for this debacle at the door of those who primarily caused it (Brooks/Aiken) suggests slavish devotion.
Despite the flexibility shown by the residents (who did nothing more than legally object) and DCC, Brooks/Aiken still walked away and didn't compromise one iota.

I don't really blame Aikens as he was following standard concert promotion [in Ireland] process the whole time and would not have predicted the licences refused. He let DCC know as he always would have and they said nothing but 'send in an application' as they always would have and then the things rightly or wrongly went forward from there.

GB I could understand saying 5 or none to put pressure on to get the extra 2, I thought he would fold though, calling them all off is ridiculous. I have never shown an 'unwillingness to blame' Brooks for his part.

DCC, Keegan and the residents are far from blameless either though.

The whole thing is a mess and the cost of cancellation was ridiculous. All of these issues could have been ironed out after the concerts and ensured the ropes were tightened going forward, with no loss to the economy and no 400,000 ticketholders (give or take a couple of 100 that bought more than one) put out by this debacle.

The worst case scenario is the one that has panned out, imo.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Brian Duff is a Croke Park resident, that is how he presented himself and his challenge.

Now he is representing the residents, a while ago he was sinisterly being funded and prompted by members of the GAA...which is it?

Calina

nm wrote: »

I don't really blame Aikens as he was following standard concert promotion [in Ireland] process the whole time and would not have predicted the licences refused.

I really don't understand why. There were criticisms from the day the concert was announced.

cournioni

bumper234 wrote: »

So your claims of



Are pretty much false.

Should the Gardai not be consulted on issues like traffic, crowd control etc. when going through the process of accepting a license?

bumper234

nm wrote: »

8 out of 365 isn't taking the piss, that agreement needs to be revised.

Says you who doesn't live there and therefore has no idea what it's like.

traffic objections should be listened to by Keegan, but no other objections count?

Where did i say that?

cournioni

bobmalooka wrote: »

Once again, they have cost Dublin millions not the country.

Say that to the hundreds/thousands of bus and hackney companies outside of Dublin.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

Now he is representing the residents, a while ago he was sinisterly being funded and prompted by members of the GAA...which is it?

He presented himself as a CP resident to challenge, then after he did a massive u-turn the stuff came out about the mystery funding.

But sure, you know this.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Calina wrote: »

I really don't understand why. There were criticisms from the day the concert was announced.

There were criticisms of u2 gigs for Croke Park in 2009.
There were criticisms of plans for Dun Laoghaire library.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bucketybuck

nm wrote: »

8 out of 365 isn't taking the piss

3 last year, 8 this year, I wonder what next year would have been?

nm wrote: »

I don't really blame Aikens as he was following standard concert promotion [in Ireland] process the whole time and would not have predicted the licences refused.

Bullshit. The minute the five gigs were announced eyebrows were raised and people were saying they wouldn't be allowed five gigs. Saying Aiken couldn't have predicted problems with the licenses is just bullshit of the highest order.

muddypaws

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What nobody has mentioned, since it came out about the house yesterday, is the same manager also admitted to having been a member of the GAA when asked. Not once has that been mentioned on here, or in the press as far as I can see.

rubadub

nm wrote: »

I don't really blame Aikens as he was following standard concert promotion [in Ireland] process the whole time and would not have predicted the licences refused.

I will ask again, can you give a remotely similar instance of this which happened before. What happened here is by no means normal.

A similar example would be an attempt for MCD to get 7 nights in a row in slane, 5 above the previous max, a max which had to get the taoiseach involved to happen. There was uproar when the previous max of 4 gigs in croke park was allowed.

There was nothing "standard" about this. And of course he could have predicted it, it was common knowledge to lay people let alone people in the industry. It is still my belief that he got no insurance as it would have simply cost too much as they recognised it was a huge gamble. I asked in the legal forum and got no confirmation that it was illegal for them to insure him.

When the gig was announced with no venue back in december the 5th post was

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

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87955502&postcount=5

bumper234

cournioni wrote: »

Should the Gardai not be consulted on issues like traffic, crowd control etc. when going through the process of accepting a license?

Of course they should and i'm sure they would have been.

circadian

nm wrote: »

I don't really blame Aikens as he was following standard concert promotion [in Ireland] process the whole time and would not have predicted the licences refused. He let DCC know as he always would have and they said nothing but 'send in an application' as they always would have and then the things rightly or wrongly went forward from there.

Grand, sure I'll start up a festival somewhere down the country and have it on the scale of Glastonbury. I'll apply for a 3 day weekend then later decide that it should be a 5 day event and I'll get around to sending in my new application whenever I feel like it, sure it'll be grand.

nxbyveromdwjpg

rubadub wrote: »

I will ask again, can you give a remotely similar instance of this which happened before. What happened here is by no means normal.

A similar example would be an attempt for MCD to get 7 nights in a row in slane, 5 above the previous max, a max which had to get the taoiseach involved to happen. There was uproar when the previous max of 4 gigs in croke park was allowed.

There was nothing "standard" about this. And of course he could have predicted it, it was common knowledge to lay people let alone people in the industry. It is still my belief that he got no insurance as it would have simply cost too much as they recognised it was a huge gamble. I asked in the legal forum and got no confirmation that it was illegal for them to insure him.

When the gig was announced with no venue back in december the 5th post was

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87955502&postcount=5

You're quoting a post which turned out to by completely false.

1D did not have them 'sewn up', a further 3 were granted so 6 were allowed, which pretty much proves my point that Aiken would have predicted the licences granted despite the GAA and residents agreement of 3.

cournioni

Calina wrote: »

DCC have done nothing wrong. That's where I have a problem with you.

You should be interested in Garth Brooks because he is the man whose name was on the tickets for this debacle.

Otherwise, I still ask, can you honestly compare Brooks' efforts to get his concerts sorted with Jarre's efforts?

Yes they have, they have two people involved in the licensing process that are questionable to say the least.

One of them even suggested that GAA members should stay away from the Dail committee meeting despite involving a man with vested interest in Croke Park events in the planning process. Vested interest in a position where a decision requires their discretion, how can you possibly say that they have done nothing wrong?!

I have already stated that nobody is blameless in all of this, that includes the artist, how many more times do you want me to say it?

If the GAA built a cycle track around Croke Park, do you think there would be an issue with the Brooks concerts? No would be my guess, Keegan would be cycling around it day and night. If the Pope was part of a five day event at Croke Park, do you think there would be a similar issue? Again, most likely not.