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

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

You watched the committee meetings, how on earth, in all honesty, can you celebrate this, no matter whether you think the concerts should be on or not?

If they actually happen, which would be nuts, it will still have been the right thing to do. But the utterly wrong way to do it, yes.

It is a shame it came to this. Honestly it's gone so far beyond crazy now, it's become amusing.

Ace2007

muddypaws wrote: »

You watched the committee meetings, how on earth, in all honesty, can you celebrate this, no matter whether you think the concerts should be on or not?

Because it's not about right or wrong

It's about bring right on a forum. Watch how they all come flooding back when the concerts get the green light. At least NM stuck around.

Probably all being busy last few days and couldn't post.

rubadub

nm wrote: »

That's actually below face value after eBay fees. I wouldn't consider below face value sales to be touting.

So can you give your definition of tout, which I asked for already.

I expect with very little effort I could find what most people would consider touting to have gone on after the 5th gig was sold out. However I won't bother until I see your clear definition as you will probably say its not touting.

Paddy power had good odds on a 6th night happening so I have very little doubt people were still paying over the odds.

hometruths

I am a bit curious about the goings on at the committee. Its clear somebody is lying - either DCC or Aiken/GAA.

If I'm reading commentary correctly it seems that on balance people are tending to believe that it is DCC that are lying. Whats the basis for this?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

paddyirish23 wrote: »

I don't believe this...

Independent.ie ‏@Independent_ie 7m
Aiken Promotions have formal assurance from Dublin City Council that local authority will not contest an application for a judicial review

Well then it is just a mere formality that the judicial review will happen.. according to the minister at least.


Meanwhile, in other news:

The captain of a cargo ship which was sailing 1200 miles west of Ireland has been fined $20,000 under section 31 of the Maritime Transport Act, for performing 27 U-Turns in the Atlantic Ocean, which 25 times more than what is currently permitted.

Happyman42

schmittel wrote: »

I am a bit curious about the goings on at the committee. Its clear somebody is lying - either DCC or Aiken/GAA.

If I'm reading commentary correctly it seems that on balance people are tending to believe that it is DCC that are lying. Whats the basis for this?

Undying allegiance to a trite C/W singer.

I have never seen an Oireachtas Committee give a group such an easy ride and they all ended up conspiring to get the gigs back on. Shocking stuff.

This will now involve a lot of people who had no interest in Brooks playing but who will be very interested in the challenge it offers to our democracy.


Could somebody pop up a link to the Indo story about DCC not contesting?

humanji

schmittel wrote: »

I am a bit curious about the goings on at the committee. Its clear somebody is lying - either DCC or Aiken/GAA.

If I'm reading commentary correctly it seems that on balance people are tending to believe that it is DCC that are lying. Whats the basis for this?

Mostly it's people deciding on the basis of backing up the opinion they already have. In reality, neither is probably lying and they both took different meanings from what was said in the phone call.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Meanwhile, in other news:

The captain of a cargo ship which was sailing 1200 miles west of Ireland has been fined $20000 under section 31 of the Maritime Transport Act, for doing 27 U-Turns in the Atlantic Ocean, which 25 times more than what is currently permitted.

You forgot to add, 'he said it was 30 or he was scuttling the ship.

Peppa Pig

From Citizens Information

A decision of an administrative body may be set aside on the basis that it is unreasonable or irrational or possibly disproportionate.

If the decision of DCC is set aside then who is going to grant the licences? Their decision was to licence 3. They never gave a licence for concerts 4 and 5
Setting it aside means they licence 0.

If I'm refused planning permission for a house and instigate a judicial review I cannot start building until someone gives me permission

Mind you after watching the lovefest this morning I'd believe anything.

Unless Alan Kelly sacks Owen Keegan after today's "revelations" and appoints nm to Keegans job.

Happyman42

humanji wrote: »

Mostly it's people deciding on the basis of backing up the opinion they already have. In reality, neither is probably lying and they both took different meanings from what was said in the phone call.

This is true, when I heard the detail of the call put forward by Peter McKenna, I didn't see it as Keegan saying 'he supported 5 gigs' at all. Merely just advising him to make sure he made as good a submission as he could.

Which would mean Keegan had nothing in principle against them until the application was examined in detail,

solomafioso

Sweet.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/digital-life/item/37656-chrome-plugin-offers-respit

nxbyveromdwjpg

rubadub wrote: »

So can you give your definition of tout, which I asked for already.

I expect with very little effort I could find what most people would consider touting to have gone on after the 5th gig was sold out. However I won't bother until I see your clear definition as you will probably say its not touting.

Paddy power had good odds on a 6th night happening so I have very little doubt people were still paying over the odds.

I'll use the British definition from google, and let you work away if that's what you like.

tout
a person who buys up tickets for an event to resell them at a profit.

I'll add:

• Not the transferring of tickets from one person to another, but the madness we saw the days following the initial 3 gigs - people buying them up with no intention of going and then selling them on for top dollar.
• Fans outraged (see HardLuckWoman's post in Gigs & Events, etc) at not being able to legitimately get tickets as they sold out so quickly, while other people were taking advantage of the low supply and high demand, to pull a profit at the expense of those to failed to get a ticket.

Point 2 above in particular, from what I could see was resolved by 5 nights.

Maybe you can prove I said something wrong in my opinion that 5 nights was enough.

Again I'll ask too, what is the point that's actually trying to be made here?

That there could have been a 6th night? Should have been?
Why wasn't there a 6th night?
Does Garth care about his fans without any tickets or plans made to see him? Or what?

We've already (I hope) clarified that obviously in his statement Garth was referring to the 140,000 ticket holders that wouldn't get to see him, not the countless around the world that did not have a ticket.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

The DCC have already given the go ahead for five concerts at Croke Park this year. All the judicial review needs to do is decide whether or not, after all that has occurred with forged signatures, people paid to lodge injunctions etc.. it is really worth causing the amount of hassle that is and has done, just to enforce a gap of two months between the 3rd concert and the 4th one.

nxbyveromdwjpg

humanji wrote: »

Mostly it's people deciding on the basis of backing up the opinion they already have. In reality, neither is probably lying and they both took different meanings from what was said in the phone call.

I think this is probably right and hopefully they have some sort of two tier application process in future to prevent such misunderstandings.

Peppa Pig

schmittel wrote: »

I am a bit curious about the goings on at the committee. Its clear somebody is lying - either DCC or Aiken/GAA.

If I'm reading commentary correctly it seems that on balance people are tending to believe that it is DCC that are lying. Whats the basis for this?

I don't believe the GAA or Aiken.

Both of them stated that
there were 40% forgeries in the objections
DCC purely based their decision on the objections
the majority of residents were in favour
the rugby world cup is now in jeopardy

The politicians accepted all of this as fact without asking for one shred of evidence. Yesterday they told Keegan he should have asked all the residents not just taken objections. Somehow the GAA have secretly done this, they have done the forgery investigation for the guards and have been in touch with the IRB.

As I have said before, if Keegan is lying he has to go, but if Aiken and the GAA are lying they need to be dragged in front of a judge.

The most worrying thing is that this committee's role is to frame legislation. They have not remotely attempted to get to the truth or to learn abut a correct process. They have all just whinged that Gareth(!) should have been allowed all his nights and screw the residents.

Reformed Character

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

The DCC have already given the go ahead for five concerts at Croke Park this year. All the judicial review needs to do is decide whether or not, after all that has occurred with forged signatures, people paid to lodge injunctions etc, that is really worth causing the amount of hassle that is and has done, just to enforce a gap of two months between the 3rd concert and the 4th.

You misunderstand "judicial Review".
A judicial review can only review the DCC original decision to assess whether DCC followed the law, and if they did whether their decision was fair and balanced taking into account the various competing interests they had to deal with.
If DCC contest the proceeding they will in all probability win hands down, which is why Aiken wants it to be unopposed.
It is however open to any interested party to apply to be a notice party in the case and to oppose the Judicial Review.

nxbyveromdwjpg

From what I took from it they phoned Keegan and he gave no indication that the concerts would not get a licence.
Keegan is saying he gave no indication to them that they would get a licence.

So.. the conversation did happen (not sure if Keegan confirmed it but he didn't dispute it as far as I know).

From the promoters point of view no news was good news for the last 30 years.
For Keegan no news meant no news. He could have let them know there would be a problem but he didn't and wasn't technically obliged to.

So no 'confirmation' either way and outcome was taken differently by both parties.

MY OPINION ONLY

Joe prim

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.

I think I know this guy too, my cousin's friend's brother-in-law used to know a girl that went out with him.

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

From what I took from it they phoned Keegan and he gave no indication that the concerts would not get a licence.
Keegan is saying he gave no indication to them that they would get a licence.

So.. the conversation did happen (not sure if Keegan confirmed it but he didn't dispute it as far as I know).

From the promoters point of view no news was good news for the last 30 years.
For Keegan no news meant no news. He could have let them know there would be a problem but he didn't and wasn't technically obliged to.

So no 'confirmation' either way and outcome was taken differently by both parties.

MY OPINION ONLY

I totally agree with this - bet ya never thought that would happen

Now I've wasted enough time on this so I'm outta here

Birroc

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 phoenix from the flames sort of thing.
I for one believe him.

I for one think you should be careful what you wish for !!!

Peppa Pig

nm wrote: »

From what I took from it they phoned Keegan and he gave no indication that the concerts would not get a licence.
Keegan is saying he gave no indication to them that they would get a licence.

So.. the conversation did happen (not sure if Keegan confirmed it but he didn't dispute it as far as I know).

From the promoters point of view no news was good news for the last 30 years.
For Keegan no news meant no news. He could have let them know there would be a problem but he didn't and wasn't technically obliged to.

So no 'confirmation' either way and outcome was taken differently by both parties.

MY OPINION ONLY

Well put - but the entire argument against this 30 year thing is that nobody has ever attempted to put 5 consecutive concerts on in Croke Park, 9 weeks after 3 consecutive sell out concerts, never mind using 3 weekdays.

1D only had 1 weekday

paddyirish23

from indo's twitter...
‏@Independent_ie
Aiken Promotions have formally sought assurance from DCC that local authority won't contest judicial review

Does this mean dcc as in keegan included or would they need to clear it with him too?

Dan_Solo

schmittel wrote: »

I am a bit curious about the goings on at the committee. Its clear somebody is lying - either DCC or Aiken/GAA.

If I'm reading commentary correctly it seems that on balance people are tending to believe that it is DCC that are lying. Whats the basis for this?

I'm not sure why anyone should give a hoot what the DCC said over the phone. If they had sat down and made a decision on the license surely it was available in writing? Sure, fire the lad (Keegan even) if he was waffling in secret to the promoters, but this has zero relevance to the actual decision.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Well put - but the entire argument against this 30 year thing is that nobody has ever attempted to put 5 consecutive concerts on in Croke Park, 9 weeks after 3 consecutive sell out concerts, never mind using 3 weekdays.

1D only had 1 weekday

Well if so, Keegan could have saved an awful lot of hassle if he'd just said that to Aikens, but he didn't and now here we are - judicial reviews, Obama, rising phoenix's etc.

Dan_Solo

paddyirish23 wrote: »

from indo's twitter...
‏@Independent_ie
Aiken Promotions have formally sought assurance from DCC that local authority won't contest judicial review

Does this mean dcc as in keegan included or would they need to clear it with him too?

Won't contest its establishment or won't contest the proceedings?

Peppa Pig

Independent.ie @Independent_ie · 47m
Aiken Promotions have formal assurance from Dublin City Council that local authority will not contest an application for a judicial review

Independent.ie @Independent_ie · 16m
Aiken Promotions have formally sought assurance from DCC that local authority won't contest judicial review

So Aiken was lying when he said he had formal assurance.

Or the Indo blew their load too early

kippy

nm wrote: »

Well if so, Keegan could have saved an awful lot of hassle if he'd just said that to Aikens, but he didn't and now here we are - judicial reviews, Obama, rising phoenix's etc.

We are where we are now because a certain percentage of the population have no respect for due process and the law of the land.
And a smathering of greed/heavy handedness on behalf of the promotor/the GAA and GB.

ooter

It's probably already been said on here but it would be very easy for someone to submit an "objection" to DCC with their name and address on it and then be mischievous and claim the objection was forged.

Happyman42

Garth will refuse the rescued gigs based on the fact that all the people who have gotten refunds, made other arrangements...are sick to the back teeth with his egotistical stance..will not get to see the gigs.:rolleyes:

JRant

end of the road wrote: »

the GAA did not steamroll over those that live in the area, you had ampel opportunities to discuss any issues, did you?



its not, you don't have any right to hold a business to ransom who invests in sports in your community, keep your issues with the GAA out of this and stop using the concerts as a way of getting at the GAA because of your non-issues, you chose to live there yet you want a rural type lifestyle in a capital city, well its not going to happen, in a capital city noise hustle and bustle is the way, so put up or sell up

You were told about this pony feloni before EOTR. You choose not to live in the area, therefore you have no say in a local matter, end of.

Oh it must really grate you right now.