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

Rasheed

mrsbyrne wrote: »

3 things I've found staggering.
1. The amount of Irish people happy to spend what I consider an enormous amount of cash on one night out. Some posters here were going to more than one night. I'm go smacked. If I here any more on Live line about hardship I'll burst.?

I don't know, a lot of the people around here that were going, mainly couples in their 30s/ 40s seemed to be making their holidays out of it and staying the few nights. I know one crowd that were bringing children and all to a self catering house, bringing a baby sitter with them for the concert and then having their family holiday after that.

Serious blow to pubs and hotels there. Then again the way hotels rode up on people and up the prices for those dates, can't say I'm too sorry for them.

ShooterSF

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

And why wouldn't they? I'd have supported any thing at all no matter how illegal that got these concerts licensed. At the end of the day all I care about is what I and those close to me want. Fook the rest!

You can hardly complain then if it turns out that the objections were forged, can you? After all they'd only be following your mantra of do what ever legal or not to get what you want...

AudreyHepburn

If all the residents, each and every one of them, were protesting then I might be more willing to believe that this was about laws and regulations.

But it's only a few homes, one street. I think the numbers given were along the lines of 360/70 out of 27,000 people objected.

If they'd kicked up from day one when the first concert was announced, which went one over the allowed three after 1D, then I might believe it.
But they only kicked up about three concerts in.

Then you factor in the fact that we now know that many of the objections were falsified.

Call me cynical but it all smacks more of petty begrudgery, wanting easy money and to stick it to the man that anything.

But that's just my opinion.

Titzon Toast

Stop blaming the residents.
It is Aitken, the GAA, & Garth Brooks fault here.

Teyla Emmagan

All that equipment that was specially designed for Croke Park, that's on a shipping container on the way somewhere. Whose pocket does paying for all of that come out of?

IvyTheTerrible

Why oh why are people calling him Garret on the radio? Seriously how fupping hard is it to get his name right?

Grayditch

My ma calls him Gareth Brewks.

evolving_doors

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

All that equipment that was specially designed for Croke Park, that's on a shipping container on the way somewhere. Whose pocket does paying for all of that come out of?

Who cares about that now?
Gareth brooks has to pay = thats his own fault
GAA has to pay for breach of contract = their own fault
Aiken has to pay for breach of contract= their own fault.

Those 3 can go scratch as far as im concerned
.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Stop blaming the residents.
It is Aitken, the GAA, & Garth Brooks fault here.

For the million time, Aikens did nothing but follow the standard procedure that every promoter in the country has done for decades. Book an artist - check, Rent a venue - check, inform the DCC - check, sell the tickets subject to licence - check.

You can't say 'don't blame the residents' when it was the 350 residents (including forgeries if that turns out to be true) that had the gigs stopped against the will of over 1000 times that number of people.

There seems to be a party line here of this was some sort of win for the little guys against big corporations, when that is utter BS. It was effected more normal people negatively than it has anyone else, hundreds of thousands of them.

AudreyHepburn

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Stop blaming the residents.
It is Aitken, the GAA, & Garth Brooks fault here.

All four of those had a part to play in this.

gandalf

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

All that equipment that was specially designed for Croke Park, that's on a shipping container on the way somewhere. Whose pocket does paying for all of that come out of?

Again I call bull on this. No artist customises a stage specifically for one venue. He is planning a world tour the equipment will be for the world tour and not just Croke Park.

Out of all the people who are out of pocket because of this mess Garth Brooks is the least of those who deserve sympathy.

He originally planned to play two concerts, got permission for three concerts and threw his toys out of the pram because he couldn't have five. The only motivation I can logically see is pure and utter greed. He obviously holds his fans in absolute contempt as well.

P_1

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

All that equipment that was specially designed for Croke Park, that's on a shipping container on the way somewhere. Whose pocket does paying for all of that come out of?

I doubt that it was designed specifically for Croker now. Make no mistake, Brooks was only using the Croker gigs as a dress rehearsal for his world tour. Take a look at how many tours start in Ireland, quite a lot of artists only consider us as being good enough for a dress rehearsal, sure if they feck up spectacularly the Paddys will still lap it up.

Larbre34

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If all the residents, each and every one of them, were protesting then I might be more willing to believe that this was about laws and regulations.

But it's only a few homes, one street. I think the numbers given were along the lines of 360/70 out of 27,000 people objected.

If they'd kicked up from day one when the first concert was announced, which went one over the allowed three after 1D, then I might believe it.
But they only kicked up about three concerts in.

Then you factor in the fact that we now know that many of the objections were falsified.

Call me cynical but it all smacks more of petty begrudgery, wanting easy money and to stick it to the man that anything.

But that's just my opinion.

You don't get it. Even if not one household had protested, the planning decision still should have been the same. 8 concerts in a season was double the previous max held and that should have set off alarm bells everywhere as being a complete p155 take. The decision of 3 was to offer a balance, with an inherent warning to Aikens and anyone else that they should never again try to steamroll a City and a Community.

The lesson is learned now I'd say.

eigrod

nm wrote: »

For the million time, Aikens did nothing but follow the standard procedure that every promoter in the country has done for decades. Book an artist - check, Rent a venue - check, inform the DCC - check, sell the tickets subject to licence - check.

It may have been standard procedure, but it broke the agreement that was in place with the residents regarding the number of events in a year. Even if it were just 1 resident who protested, then well done to them for standing up to them and saying enough is enough.

The concert goers are the collateral damage in all of this, but at least the residents who protested have set down a marker now that they won't be trampled all over in the future. Good on them.

AudreyHepburn

Larbre34 wrote: »

You don't get it. Even if not one household had protested, the planning decision still should have been the same. 8 concerts in a season was double the previous max held and that should have set off alarm bells everywhere as being a complete p155 take. The decision of 3 was to offer a balance, with an inherent warning to Aikens and anyone else that they should never again try to steamroll a City and a Community.

The lesson is learned now I'd say.

I understand all of that thank you. And I do agree with it.

I'm simply saying that based on the things I mentioned in my post I don't believe that regulations and laws had anything to do with the residents objecting.

Again maybe I'm overly cynical but I've seen too many example of our 'Compo Culture' attitude to believe that money didn't come into somehow.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Larbre34 wrote: »

You don't get it. Even if not one household had protested, the planning decision still should have been the same. 8 concerts in a season was double the previous max held and that should have set off alarm bells everywhere as being a complete p155 take. The decision of 3 was to offer a balance, with an inherent warning to Aikens and anyone else that should never again try to steamroll a City and a Community.

The lesson is learned now I'd say.

Without the 350~ residents complaints the 5 would've sailed through

ShagNastii

I'd guess the equipment is on Aiken's dime. He talked about Brooks being down millions but I'd say Aiken will get a smack in the wallet over this.

Mrs Garth Brooks

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Why oh why are people calling him Garret on the radio? Seriously how fupping hard is it to get his name right?

I want to call my first born Garth. But if they're subjected to Gareth, im not so sure.

Larbre34

nm wrote: »

Without the 350~ residents complaints the 5 would've sailed through

With Keegan in charge in the City, I really don't think they would have. His track record is one of no sentiment.

I said months ago on here that I would have bet my house on not being 5, in fact I thought the Council might have to reject the entire application.

miss no stars

ShagNastii wrote: »

I'd guess the equipment is on Aiken's dime. He talked about Brooks but I'd say Aiken will get a smack in the wallet over this.

Who owns it though?

If it falls on Aiken to pay for, surely Aiken own it and Brooks can't use it. The shipping costs, now that may partly be for Aiken, but if Brooks plans on using any of it again, Aiken can't be expected to pay for it. The shipping costs - yep, about 40% of them. Anything genuinely customized for Croker that can't be reused - 40%. Why 40%? Because Aiken got Brooks a license for 60% of the gigs, their failure was 40%. He pulled out of 60%.

And can people please stop blaming the residents? It doesn't matter if 99% of the signatures are forged, it only takes ONE objection on reasonable grounds for that objection to be considered. Having your whole area fenced off for 5 nights on the trot seems like something DCC would have had to consider. Like, it's not even the extra concerts in the year that DCC seems to have found objectionable, it was the 5 in a row bit. And anyone who reckons they'd have nooooo issue with either being fenced in or being unable to park your car for a whole week is simply lying.

As for the cost to local businesses? Well, there's less cost to many of those inside the cordon because now they don't have to shut down for 5 days on the trot! :eek:

rubadub

nm wrote: »

For the million time, Aikens did nothing but follow the standard procedure that every promoter in the country has done for decades. Book an artist - check, Rent a venue - check, inform the DCC - check, sell the tickets subject to licence - check.

below was asked about a similar comment about how this was nothing unusual, I have never heard the likes of it before.

rubadub wrote: »

can you give similar incidences?

By similar remember in this case the promoter knew fine well the maximum concerts ever here before were 4 in a year, and that there was widespread coverage of the fact that this was allowed, since it was known the max was to be 3

So by similar incidences I am looking for promoters chancing their arm and attempting to sell tickets for at least double the amount of days a venue previously maximally held, which also had widespread knowledge of being under opposition. Or instead of double it could be 4 more, e.g. did any promoter ever attempt to get 6 nights in Slane? let alone go selling tickets, slane is another venue which has a well documented history of opposition.

Aiken was refused insurance for these gigs? I am wondering if this is also "standard practice" or do they in fact give insurance for other outdoor gigs when they know permission is very likely to be granted.

Dayor Knight

nm wrote: »

Without the 350~ residents complaints the 5 would've sailed through

Yes, if nobody was affected there would be no problem. But people are affected. It's a bit like ... Without that one objector next door, my four story extension could have gone ahead, no problem.....

muddypaws

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Again maybe I'm overly cynical but I've seen too many example of our 'Compo Culture' attitude to believe that money didn't come into somehow.

But surely if that was the case, then they would have accepted the compo that they were offered?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

zagmund

Umm, what sort of equipment could be so customised that it couldn't be re-used? The staging equipment is part of his world tour. Do you think his people build a new environment from scratch for every location and then just dumps it after 2 (or 5) concerts? Pretty unlikely. It's all packed up and sent on the road to the next location. Is there something specific about Croke Park (like not being a giant stadium shaped stadium like the others around the globe) that makes it so different?

z

B0jangles

Anyone else hear about this Garth brooks story from 2005?

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-hospital-lawsuit-win-means-nothing-garth-brooks-400594

Garth Brooks, one of the most popular stars in country music history, will receive $1 million from an Oklahoma hospital that failed to build a women's health center in honor of the country star's deceased mother.

The amount is roughly half of the revenue generated from one of Brooks' shows at the Encore at Wynn Las Vegas, which charges $225 per ticket before tax. There are currently 24 shows left for Brooks to perform at the Wynn. Assuming the theater fills to capacity of 1,845 people, Brooks will generate a revenue of $9,963,000 in his final 24-shows stint at the Wynn.

Troyal Garth Brooks vs Integris Rural Health Inc.

Brooks filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit against Integris Canadian Valley Regional Hospital in Yukon, Oklahoma after a string of disputed events concerning a donation Brooks had made to the hospital. Brooks says he reached a verbal deal with hospital president James Moore in 2005 to build a women's center using the money he had donated to the hospital.

The sickening twist: Brooks had only donated $500,000 to the hospital, but will be paid an additional $500,000 in punitive damages.

Brooks reportedly sent an anonymous $500,000 check to the hospital in December 2005. Weeks later, Brooks called the hospital to claim responsibility for the anonymous donation.

Brooks sued Integris Rural Health Inc., the largest health care system in Oklahoma, in 2009 after the company refused to return his donation.

Integris tried to return the $500,000 after the lawsuit was filed, but it was too late. Brooks refused to pull back on the lawsuit, and he refused the return offer from the hospital. To boot, he claimed that the hospital lured him into making the donation according to court documents.

Though the hospital never built the women's center, it was able to prove that it had never spent the $500,000 donation. In the end, it didn't matter. In Yukon, Oklahoma, the place where Garth Brooks grew up and where his name dons the town's water tower, it's tough to swing the popular vote.

In the court of public opinion, we're not going to win, said Hardy Watkins, vice president of marketing and communication for Integris, before the trail began. After the trial, Watkins did not mention Brooks' tribute, instead saying, We are very disappointed the jury awarded dollars above the original donation.

Brooks' Country Music Legacy

Garth Brooks is far from new to the idea of success. He's one of the highest grossing country music stars based on record sales alone. And that doesn't include his incredibly successful string of concerts throughout his career. Or merchandise, for that matter.

As of 2009, when the lawsuit against Integris was filed, Brooks had sold more than 128 million albums in the United States alone, second only to the Beatles, who sold 170 million albums. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which tallies record sales, lists six of Brooks' albums with 10 million or more copies sold.

Brooks has also run a limited series of concerts in Las Vegas since 2010, where tickets were originally $125 per seat, then raised to $225 per seat without tax. The theater capacity of the Encore at Wynn Las Vegas, which is where the concerts have taken place, is 1,845, meaning that $415,125 is generated in ticket sales for every sold out show.

Brooks' has also raked in cash during concert sales earlier in his life, including 1996 when Brooks was the second-highest grossing artist to tour that year. During his1996 concert, Brooks grossed $34.5 million from his tour. His per-show gross at the time was nearly $842,000, compared to Kiss, which was the highest grossing tour that year, who earned $582,000 per show.

What kind of person gives an "anonymous" donation, then calls up later, identifies themselves, attaches riders to the donation and then sues when they don't get what they want?

(I think it is interesting because it shows another side to a person who people keep claiming is "all about the fans/music" and to whom money doesn't matter)

Muahahaha

gandalf wrote: »

Again I call bull on this. No artist customises a stage specifically for one venue. He is planning a world tour the equipment will be for the world tour and not just Croke Park.

Out of all the people who are out of pocket because of this mess Garth Brooks is the least of those who deserve sympathy.

He originally planned to play two concerts, got permission for three concerts and threw his toys out of the pram because he couldn't have five. The only motivation I can logically see is pure and utter greed. He obviously holds his fans in absolute contempt as well.

It's now also come out that DCC opened a back door to Aiken and Brooks to say that they would allow four concerts to take place. So it seems like DCC was fully aware of the kerfuffle that this would create and they hatched a plan that would save face without allowing all five concerts take place. Four concerts meant that 320,000 people would get to see him. Brooks instead came out and said 'it's five or nothing' and the DCC offer was retracted.

This whole episode really shows Brooks to be quite arrogant and greedy. He could have played to 320,000 people, getting 80% of what he wanted but instead he threw his toys of the pram and instead released a statement saying it's five or nothing and "I know that DCC will come to the right decision for the people of Ireland" which was his code for disrespecting a lawful planning decision made by a democratic institution.

Large slabs of blame here really must lie with the GAA. There is a different president in place now and it seems he doesn't like that pesky 2009 agreement made by his predecessor. 50% of this problem has been the manner in which the GAA have approached the problem, they knew the residents concerns since the three U2 concerts in 2009. They made an agreement but now the new President doesn't want to follow it. If he wanted to secure 8 concerts instead of 3 then it was possible. They could have sat down properly and in good faith with the residents last Janurary and explained that Garth Brooks is big and very few artists in the world could sell it out 5 times and they promise that 8 concerts is a one off and it would defintely back to three from now on and we'll also be setting up that legacy fund too. If the GAA had of done all that back in Janurary then we wouldn't be sitting where we are now. But they didn't because the GAA saw benefit to Aikens plan. They wanted to push the boundaries of intensification of a sporting venue to a concert venue. Aiken holding five Garth Brooks concerts allowed them to do that so they hopped along for the ride whilst ignoring the residents. They got arrogant and now they're circling the wagons ans saying 'nothing to see here, move along now' without shouldering any of the responsibility or at least acknowledging that they didn't set about their objectives in the smartest of ways.

P_1 wrote: »

I doubt that it was designed specifically for Croker now. Make no mistake, Brooks was only using the Croker gigs as a dress rehearsal for his world tour. Take a look at how many tours start in Ireland, quite a lot of artists only consider us as being good enough for a dress rehearsal, sure if they feck up spectacularly the Paddys will still lap it up.

Yeah I'd agree with that. Whilst I'm sure whatever stage was designed was done so with Croke Park dimensions in mind but that makes no odds because -
1)Stages are constructed from scaffolding. They are nothing more than a giant Lego set that is easily adaptable
2) Croke Park is a GAA ground which is 30% bigger than a standard soccer pitch. So all this would have meant that the Croke Park stage is still used for stadium gigs on his world tour but they shorten the width to suit soccer pitches which are the norm rather than the exception.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dayor Knight

That_Girl_ Is_ A_Cowboy wrote: »

I love this so much. The Dcc crawling to Mr Brooks to play the 3 and Brooks giving them the two fingers. Brillant.

Didn't sound to me like like the DCC were crawling to anybody. What are you talking about?

seamus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pretty much.

Aiken made a big mistake, but Brooks has shown himself up to be nothing more than a money-grabber in this with no respect for his fans.

A true artist who respected his fans would do the 3 nights and if the stage show is too big, then walk out on the stage with a band and a guitar and nothing more and the crowd will still go fncking wild.

Allegedly he told Aiken that he didn't want to disappoint 160,000 ticket holders. So he's decided to disappoint all 400,000 instead.

The primary person to blame here is the greedy and egomaniacal Garth Brooks. I'm kind of glad now that we won't be funding his childish nonsense.