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

Happyman42

goz83 wrote: »

Brooks described it like picking one child over another. Maybe you don't understand why he did it, but I see it as someone treating everyone equally. Cancel on one, cancel them all. If that makes the system change, then it's for the best. GB has not played to corruption. As I see it, his slate is clean and he has lost millions showing it.

Brooks egotistical stance about what he is supplying is his problem here.
He is not the second coming of Christ, he is a performer of C/W music, performances the world has managed to do without for 17 years without imploding. He was contracted to play legally in a venue for 3 nights. He refused to do that, nobody 'made' him do it.
He kinda needs to get over himself.

muddypaws

bumper234 wrote: »

Any i have spoken to have been anywhere between angry to pissed off at him.....surprisingly none of the ones who had tickets fro Fri/Sat or Sun think he did the right thing and i spoke to 3 at lunch today who said they wouldn't go see him now if they got in for free.

All of my friends with tickets have said the same thing. So it could get very interesting if the judicial review is arranged for today, decision is over-turned, concerts are put on. If people still insisted on their refunds, and therefore the concerts weren't sold out, would it be financially viable for them to go ahead?

nxbyveromdwjpg

This is really stepped up a notch now, the residents supporters are now up in arms here and probably going to be the next ones to march on the GPO, on and on it goes.

Sure as you keep saying, this is only a concert, some fat guy in a cowboy hat, whats the big deal?

goz83

reprazant wrote: »

Yet he wanted the planning laws changed for him.

No, he wanted to play to the fans who bought tickets.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Do you have children?

If so suppose a gun was out to their head and you were told either one would be killed or both - your choice - would you let both die?

I doubt it.

What a retarded and disgusting post! Will all the 400k fans now be lined up and shot? I don't think so, so don't be taking stupid leaps like that. A better scenario would be this:

I have planned to take my 4 children to the zoo in the Mondeo. There are 5 seats. But when it comes time to going to the zoo, my wife says I have to take the 4 seater sports car and so I have to leave 1 of the kids behind. This is happening, because her sister, who was going shopping with my wife, doesn't like the sound of the sports car and insisted that my wife take the Mondeo. There is no there way to get to the zoo, because of where I live. I don't think it is fair leaving any of the kids behind. So I don't go to the zoo with the kids. Understand now? Or should I tell you another little story?:rolleyes:

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

All of my friends with tickets have said the same thing. So it could get very interesting if the judicial review is arranged for today, decision is over-turned, concerts are put on. If people still insisted on their refunds, and therefore the concerts weren't sold out, would it be financially viable for them to go ahead?

You can't insist on a refund. Ticketmaster's T&C's will see to that but in any case you wouldn't be due one if the concerts are on.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

This is really stepped up a notch now, the residents supporters are now up in arms here and probably going to be the next ones to march on the GPO, on and on it goes.

Sure as you keep saying, this is only a concert, some fat guy in a cowboy hat, whats the big deal?

It goes well beyond a 'concert' if private business and TD's conspire to overturn a planning decision.

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

You can't insist on a refund. Ticketmaster's T&C's will see to that but in any case you wouldn't be due one if the concerts are on.

They have announced the concerts are off, and refunds will start on Thursday, so people may have made other arrangements for the date based on that, I'm sure they would have legal grounds for a refund.

Ace2007

goz83 wrote: »

No, he wanted to play to the fans who bought tickets.



What a retarded and disgusting post! Will all the 400k fans now be lined up and shot? I don't think so, so don't be taking stupid leaps like that. A better scenario would be this:

I have planned to take my 4 children to the zoo in the Mondeo. There are 5 seats. But when it comes time to going to the zoo, my wife says I have to take the 4 seater sports car and so I have to leave 1 of the kids behind. This is happening, because her sister, who was going shopping with my wife, doesn't like the sound of the sports car and insisted that my wife take the Mondeo. There is no there way to get to the zoo, because of where I live. I don't think it is fair leaving any of the kids behind. So I don't go to the zoo with the kids. Understand now? Or should I tell you another little story?:rolleyes:

He made it stupid when mentioned picking one kid over another.

Take off the blinkers and see it from other peoples pov

Why did he stop at 5 gigs what about the fans that couldn't get tickets? Why not have 6/7 concertd

goz83

Ace2007 wrote: »

He made it stupid when mentioned picking one kid over another.

Take off the blinkers and see it from other peoples pov

Why did he stop at 5 gigs what about the fans that couldn't get tickets? Why not have 6/7 concertd

That's how he described it. Maybe I a m naïve, but I believe the guy and he seemed genuine, even if it is a bridge too far for most of us.

You made is stupid when you ranted about shooting kids.

I do see the other POV by the way. I just believe the one I am arguing has more merit.

Happyman42

goz83 wrote: »

That's how he described it. Maybe I a m naïve, but I believe the guy and he seemed genuine, even if it is a bridge too far for most of us.

You made is stupid when you ranted about shooting kids.

I do see the other POV by the way. I just believe the one I am arguing has more merit.

We are talking about a hard nosed business organisation (Brooks Management company) and a man who sued a hospital when he similarly, couldn't get his own way.

Ace2007

goz83 wrote: »

That's how he described it. Maybe I a m naïve, but I believe the guy and he seemed genuine, even if it is a bridge too far for most of us.

You made is stupid when you ranted about shooting kids.

I do see the other POV by the way. I just believe the one I am arguing has more merit.

I took the example to the extreme like he did when he said five or none - there was absolutely no flexibility with his approach

Btw you didn't answer my question - why only 5 gigs why not 6/7/8 until all fans that want tickets get them? Afterall all fans should be treated the same?
Some are paying black market prices for tickets that doesn't seem fair to me

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No, in other words:

"Don't apply the nonsense rules of buckled system to me. Allow the concerts, fix the system.. and then there won't be a possibility of this kind of fiasco happening to the next guy"

Wether the rules/system is "buckled" or not does not give him the right to special privileges, he was treated the same way as anyone else and he idn't like it so he threw a strop and ****ed everyone of his fans over.

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

They have announced the concerts are off, and refunds will start on Thursday, so people may have made other arrangements for the date based on that, I'm sure they would have legal grounds for a refund.

I suppose you have a point there

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

why only 5 gigs why not 6/7/8 until all fans that want tickets get them? Afterall all fans should be treated the same?

There isn't another 80,000 to fill another night.

The only nights that went for high prices from touts were the first 3 before the last 2 were announced. 5 nights was enough for everyone.

userod

goz83 wrote: »

No, he wanted to play to the fans who bought tickets.



What a retarded and disgusting post! Will all the 400k fans now be lined up and shot? I don't think so, so don't be taking stupid leaps like that. A better scenario would be this:

I have planned to take my 4 children to the zoo in the Mondeo. There are 5 seats. But when it comes time to going to the zoo, my wife says I have to take the 4 seater sports car and so I have to leave 1 of the kids behind. This is happening, because her sister, who was going shopping with my wife, doesn't like the sound of the sports car and insisted that my wife take the Mondeo. There is no there way to get to the zoo, because of where I live. I don't think it is fair leaving any of the kids behind. So I don't go to the zoo with the kids. Understand now? Or should I tell you another little story?:rolleyes:

make one of kids sit on the other childs lap

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

There isn't another 80,000 to fill another night.

The only nights that went for high prices from touts were the first 3 before the last 2 were announced. 5 nights was enough for everyone.

So what your saying is he doesn't care about the 10 thousand fans that still can't get tickets - 5 sold out nights it's not 4 and a bit - if it was then on demand would have been met, as it stands demand is still there.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

It goes well beyond a 'concert' if private business and TD's conspire to overturn a planning decision.

If even half of what came out today is true, it will have been the right thing to do.

A Dublin city manager lying, fraudulent objections, and no opportunity to resolve the issues before a decision was made and announced, and then no appeal process.

Pity it had to come to this but that's the fault of the flawed process. It's not the people v business, it's the people v other people and the greater good will still have won if the concerts did come back on.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

So what your saying is he doesn't care about the 10 thousand fans that still can't get tickets - 5 sold out nights it's not 4 and a bit - if it was then on demand would have been met, as it stands demand is still there.

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to your half baked posts.

There are enough tickets for everyone in 5 nights. End of story.

Your point is a complete non-issue. Pointless jabbering.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

If even half of what came out today is true, it will have been the right thing to do.

A Dublin city manager lying, fraudulent objections, and no opportunity to resolve the issues before a decision was made and announced, and then no appeal process.

Pity it had to come to this but that's the fault of the flawed process. It's not the people v business, it's the people v other people and the greater good will still have won if the concerts did come back on.

And the hundreds of people who lodged legitimate objections can just go **** off as long as Garty's fans get to sing friends in low places right? :rolleyes:

nc6000

nm wrote: »

There isn't another 80,000 to fill another night.

The only nights that went for high prices from touts were the first 3 before the last 2 were announced. 5 nights was enough for everyone.

All this non-stop Garth Brooks has me interested in going now and there could be many more like me. I wonder if they do go ahead will they put on a 6th show for those of us newly interested in seeing Garth Brooks?

TommyKnocker

userod wrote: »

make one of kids sit on the other childs lap

Wow, what a fcuking great idea, Can't believe that nobody else in DCC, Aiken Promotions etc thought of it. Just have to double fill the stadium on two of the three nights by having 80,000 people sit on the laps of the other 80,000. Genius really :cool::cool::cool:

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

And the hundreds of people who lodged legitimate objections can just go **** off as long as Garty's fans get to sing friends in low places right? :rolleyes:

The 250/300 will have to deal with it for the good of 400,000 incl 70k overseas tourist and €50mil, yadda yadda, yes, this time, as the cost of cancellation is too great.

Then the entire process should be reviewed, ironed out and revised to ensure a mess like this never happens again.

dinorebel

muddypaws wrote: »

All of my friends with tickets have said the same thing. So it could get very interesting if the judicial review is arranged for today, decision is over-turned, concerts are put on. If people still insisted on their refunds, and therefore the concerts weren't sold out, would it be financially viable for them to go ahead?

Surely they're dead and gone by this stage.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

There isn't another 80,000 to fill another night.

The only nights that went for high prices from touts were the first 3 before the last 2 were announced. 5 nights was enough for everyone.

nm wrote: »

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to your half baked posts.

There are enough tickets for everyone in 5 nights. End of story.

Your point is a complete non-issue. Pointless jabbering.

AIKEN HIMSELF told the committee that they could have sold more. Keep up.

nxbyveromdwjpg

nc6000 wrote: »

All this non-stop Garth Brooks has me interested in going now and there could be many more like me. I wonder if they do go ahead will they put on a 6th show for those of us newly interested in seeing Garth Brooks?

Sure you can buy muddypaws's tickets.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

The 250/300 will have to deal with it for the good of 400,000 incl 70k overseas tourist and €50mil, yadda yadda, yes, this time, as the cost of cancellation is too great.

Then the entire process should be reviewed, ironed out and revised to ensure a mess like this never happens again.

They have been cancelled and won't be coming back. Agree that the process needs looking at and will be an interesting few months ahead.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

AIKEN HIMSELF told the committee that they could have sold more. Keep up.

^ Losing the run ha ha, I'm delighted.

There are a couple of tickets here and there, people were saying they could still get one or two single seated Monday tickets on TM even after the licences refused. There are enough tickets, 5 nights was the perfect amount it seems.

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

If even half of what came out today is true, it will have been the right thing to do.

A Dublin city manager lying, fraudulent objections, and no opportunity to resolve the issues before a decision was made and announced, and then no appeal process.

Pity it had to come to this but that's the fault of the flawed process. It's not the people v business, it's the people v other people and the greater good will still have won if the concerts did come back on.

But this is the point isn't it, I assumed - wrongly - that this committee would be doing its best to determine if these allegations were true. But nobody that watched it this morning can argue that this is what happened. I honestly wouldn't care, if a proper planning process had taken place and 5 concerts happened, or if the process gave 3, I have never said I didn't want him to play here. If that planning process was flawed, again, no issue from me at all that it should be fixed. But the farce of the last two days has not been about examining that process, generally or in this particular case.

Ace2007

Happyman42 wrote: »

AIKEN HIMSELF told the committee that they could have sold more. Keep up.

nm wrote: »

I promised myself I wouldn't reply to your half baked posts.

There are enough tickets for everyone in 5 nights. End of story.

Your point is a complete non-issue. Pointless jabbering.

So Aiken said they could have sold more, so why didn't they?
Or is he lying?

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

They have been cancelled and won't be coming back. Agree that the process needs looking at and will be an interesting few months ahead.

Most likely yea, I was just giving a perfect world scenario in my response. I think we can all agreed, the subject to licence thing needs to be changed, and the rest.