Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…190191193195196…265

Comments

  • Options
    #5762
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    nm wrote: »
    ^ 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.

    Aiken when asked said that they could have sold many more tickets.
    You are completely wrong.


  • Options
    #5763
    Shiraz 4.99
    Site Banned Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Shiraz 4.99


    I heard off a mate who knows a guy who works on the inside that these gigs are going ahead, 11th hour pheonix from the flames sort of thing.
    I for one believe him.


  • Options
    #5764
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    So Aiken said they could have sold more, so why didn't they?
    Or is he lying?

    Probably a turn-of-phrase Ace, who knows, I didn't hear it, I'll need to ask him.


  • Options
    #5765
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    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.

    But they wont have to deal with it, will they, mainly thanks to the GAA acceptance of the Planning Permission they got when they redeveloped the ground. Even in the early 1990's it was obvious that concerts would have to limited due to their negative impact on the locality.


  • Options
    #5766
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »
    I heard off a mate who knows a guy who works on the inside that these gigs are going ahead, 11th hour pheonix from the flames sort of thing.
    I for one believe him.

    Tell him I want a bike for Christmas:D:D:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5767
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »
    I heard off a mate who knows a guy who works on the inside that these gigs are going ahead, 11th hour pheonix from the flames sort of thing.
    I for one believe him.

    My sisters friends nieces cousin who dog walks for a guy who might know someone who works as a steward at croker says they won't be going ahead after all.


  • Options
    #5768
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,571 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    nm wrote: »
    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.

    Promoters have already said that they don't want this changed.

    If things need to change it is around the planning in relation to each venue.
    A clear, black and white, document needs to set out exactly how many gigs per year, how frequent, breaks between them etc etc, can take place at venues such as croke park.
    It wouldn't be rocket science and it would at least ensure that promoters, the GAA and other parties were fully aware of the rules around a venue before selling a few 100K tickets.


  • Options
    #5769
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Aiken when asked said that they could have sold many more tickets.
    You are completely wrong.

    NM wrong ??? It's not possibly
    Just like EOTR - never wrong though I think he's got himself banned on the other thread for name calling - some day he'll learn that you can argue a point without being abusive


  • Options
    #5770
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    NM wrong ??? It's not possibly
    Just like EOTR - never wrong though I think he's got himself banned on the other thread for name calling - some day he'll learn that you can argue a point without being abusive

    I'm not banned from anything love, I think you are still confused (and you are most definitely obsessed with EOTR)


  • Options
    #5771
    muddypaws
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭muddypaws


    nm wrote: »
    I'm not banned from anything love, I think you are still confused (and you are most definitely obsessed with EOTR)

    EOTR is banned, allegedly


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5772
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    Dear God, a judicial inquiry, please people, get some self-respect and let it go, it's just farcical at this point.


  • Options
    #5773
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    kippy wrote: »
    Promoters have already said that they don't want this changed.

    If there is a chance that the application will be refused (and there is now) then it HAS to change.
    kippy wrote: »
    If things need to change it is around the planning in relation to each venue.
    A clear, black and white, document needs to set out exactly how many gigs per year, how frequent, breaks between them etc etc, can take place at venues such as croke park.
    It wouldn't be rocket science and it would at least ensure that promoters, the GAA and other parties were fully aware of the rules around a venue before selling a few 100K tickets.

    With a review in x number of years clause in it, and an appeal process, etc. yes definitely.


  • Options
    #5774
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    muddypaws wrote: »
    EOTR is banned, allegedly

    Oh right. Nothing to do with me so.


  • Options
    #5775
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    NM wrong ??? It's not possibly
    Just like EOTR - never wrong though I think he's got himself banned on the other thread for name calling - some day he'll learn that you can argue a point without being abusive

    Absolutely wrong, I listened to the whole shambles this morning.
    He was speaking about how the gigs ramped up to five and how they where all caught on the whirlwind.
    He very clearly stated that the demand hadn't stopped and they could have sold many more tickets.


  • Options
    #5776
    Bob Z
    Registered Users Posts: 2,587 ✭✭✭Bob Z


    kippy wrote: »

    The ONLY way this will never happen, tha involves a system change, is if the gig must be licensed before tickets go on sale and from what I can see most promotors are against this.


    Why are they against it?


  • Options
    #5777
    muddypaws
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭muddypaws


    Bob Z wrote: »
    Why are they against it?

    From what was said this morning, and made sense to me, they need to know how many people to expect at an event in order to come up with effective, workable management plans.


  • Options
    #5778
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    muddypaws wrote: »
    From what was said this morning, and made sense to me, they need to know how many people to expect at an event in order to come up with effective, workable management plans.

    That makes sense. They'll need a two tiered or two stage application system or something.


  • Options
    #5779
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,381 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    The 5th gig sold out quick enough so I reckon they could have gone for 6, but maybe thought it would finally be a step too far, and to quit while they were apparently ahead.

    Its like a little kid grabbing 5 chocolate bars in the hope their mother will not want to disappoint too much and at least give him one, the cheeky bastard of a kid should have be delighted to get 3, knowing fine well 1 would be lucky to get.

    Paddy Power were taking odds on more gigs.
    http://primetime.unrealitytv.co.uk/garth-brooks-adds-5th-night-dublin-croke-park-stay-6th-coming-soon/
    Paddy Power are offering odds of 4/7 for Garth Brooks to play an unprecedented 6th night at Croke Park following the announcement of a 5th gig at the venue.

    If you believe that 6 nights aren’t enough to satisfy the country’s hunger for all things Garth then you can back him playing a 7th night at 7/2, an 8th night at 10/1 and 10 nights or over at 7/1.

    Meanwhile Paddy Power are also offering odds of 9/2 on a Garth Brooks statue being erected at Croker and 6/1 for the crooner to buy a house in Ireland.


  • Options
    #5780
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Bob Z wrote: »
    Why are they against it?

    Because as Aiken said this morning, they would have only gone for 1 and at most 2 gigs in this case. The 'subject to licence' means that they can guage demand before restricting themselves to a set number of gigs.
    Makes the risk too big all around. MCD and Slane and Electric Picnic all on record saying the same thing since this has happened.


  • Options
    #5781
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    nm wrote: »
    I'm not banned from anything love, I think you are still confused (and you are most definitely obsessed with EOTR)

    Well considering for two months solid no matter what threat I posted in he attacked my posts and too the extreme and opposite view and never listened.

    At least you see both sides and acknowledge certain posts.

    When news of the concerts being cancelled he ran away and didn't post here- just couldn't take being proved wrong.

    I'll happily admit when I'm wrong.

    FWIW I don't particularly care about the GB concerts one way or another but I do care about the way it was handled - residents have been objecting for years and no one listened - this could have been avoided years ago but the media didn't care.

    Look at home many things have been brought up recently - issues with pensions, priory hall , issues with charity organisations etc. How many emergence legislation have been brought in to fix them? None?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5782
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Absolutely wrong, I listened to the whole shambles this morning.
    He was speaking about how the gigs ramped up to five and how they where all caught on the whirlwind.
    He very clearly stated that the demand hadn't stopped and they could have sold many more tickets.

    What exactly is the point here?
    Who cares if he could put on 100 nights?

    Is this just about Garths statement or what? Note I don't give a rats about Garth personally


  • Options
    #5783
    paddyirish23
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭paddyirish23


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Dear God, a judicial inquiry, please people, get some self-respect and let it go, it's just farcical at this point.

    Plz say this is a joke?!


  • Options
    #5784
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    nm wrote: »
    What exactly is the point here?
    Who cares if he could put on 100 nights?

    Is this just about Garths statement or what? Note I don't give a rats about Garth personally

    Remember the point you where making, that demand had been satisfied? It clearly wasn't according to Aiken.


  • Options
    #5785
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Remember the point you where making, that demand had been satisfied? It clearly wasn't according to Aiken.

    You realise I was replying to another post asking about 6th and 7th nights?

    As far as I can see demand was satisfied, seeing as how there were no touts after night 5 and still the odd ticket even on TM months later. Maybe myself and Aiken differ on that view. Shock horror, caps lock caps lock.


  • Options
    #5786
    Pumpkinseeds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,635 ✭✭✭Pumpkinseeds


    paddyirish23 wrote: »
    Plz say this is a joke?!
    Sadly not, apparently the planning decision could have been overturned subject to a judicial review, without objection from the Dublin Council, DC made it clear that they would object.

    With everything that's going on in this country a fat hill billy has been is the focus of public attention and uproar, it's just too sad and pathetic for words really.


  • Options
    #5787
    Ace2007
    Registered Users Posts: 19,705 ✭✭✭✭Ace2007


    nm wrote: »
    What exactly is the point here?
    Who cares if he could put on 100 nights?

    Is this just about Garths statement or what? Note I don't give a rats about Garth personally

    By limiting the concerts it means some fans lose out who didn't get tickets.

    Just the same as he said he couldn't "cancel" two because he wanted ALL fans treated the same. He's seems happy enough to forget about the fans who didn't get tickets to any night


  • Options
    #5788
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    nm wrote: »
    You realise I was replying to another post asking about 6th and 7th nights?

    As far as I can see demand was satisfied, seeing as how there were no touts after night 5 and still the odd ticket even on TM months later. Maybe myself and Aiken differ on that view. Shock horror, caps lock caps lock.

    Just keeping you honest in a thread where any auld guff and unproven 'fact' is being bandied about.
    You aren't the first to be caught out.


  • Options
    #5789
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Ace2007 wrote: »
    By limiting the concerts it means some fans lose out who didn't get tickets.

    Just the same as he said he couldn't "cancel" two because he wanted ALL fans treated the same. He's seems happy enough to forget about the fans who didn't get tickets to any night

    Those fans already had tickets. They would have had to cancel all their plans to see him.

    Cmon.. really man.


  • Options
    #5790
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Pumpkinseeds wrote: »
    Sadly not, apparently the planning decision could have been overturned subject to a judicial review, without objection from the Dublin Council, DC made it clear that they would object.

    With everything that's going on in this country a fat hill billy has been is the focus of public attention and uproar, it's just too sad and pathetic for words really.

    Shocking that Keegan will have to stand up to them again and insist on contesting the Judicial Review.

    Sincerely hope he is up to the pressure for all our sakes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5791
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Just keeping you honest in a thread where any auld guff and unproven 'fact' is being bandied about.
    You aren't the first to be caught out.

    I wasn't caught out, I'm happy to stand by what I said, whether Aikens said it or not.
    Stick to your 'GAA take out the plans of 260,000 people to prove a point to their own members "facts"'.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement