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

Kangoo Man

Kangoo Man wrote: »

I can't understand why there is so much anti-Garth Brooks concerts on this thread. I've yet to meet a person in the last 2 weeks who didn't feel the concerts should have been allowed to go ahead. The press, politicians and even a large amount of Croke park residents wanted the concerts to go ahead, not to mention the nearly 10% of the population who had tickets. Is it just that there is a lot of neysayers on this forum?

Well, I was footing the turf on the bog over the weekend and a few of us got talking and the consensus was that it was sad they weren't going ahead but the fault lay (for the 3 licensed gigs) with Garth Brooks.

His press conference done him no favours.

Muise...

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Phew, lucky for him there's only bitter and deluded Brooks fans clutching at straws and plucking evidence out of thin air then or he'd be in real trouble.

Thanks Dan - I was sighing too much to type.

HigginsJ

Ace2007 wrote: »

at least get the facts right, about its nearer to 130k bought outside the state, if you believe Aiken.

:rolleyes:

Pwindedd

keith16 wrote: »

I was bored so I pulled the data of who posted in this thread and made a word-cloud from the usernames.

The bigger the username, the more posts in this thread.

Found my name and it's Pink. I've arrived!

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

conorh91 wrote: »

Serious problem here with people not understanding the meaning of Judicial Review.

It's not so much people not understanding what it means.. we all have access to Google

It's more a case of people nit picking the way someone has framed their opinion and then posed a question. The truth is none of us know what may or may not take place. One judicial review could be a million miles away from the next.

I recall Landsdown Road residents going down many roads with the council over planning for some U2 concerts back in the day and everyone thought the council's decision was final. It went to the High Court and they backed the council and then everyone presumed that that was final, but it wasn't as it then ended up with Supreme Court over ruling the high court and allowing the concerts to go ahead. I can remember it like it was yesterday as Ray Cokes came on MTV and started screaming that the concerts were back on.

Now I know, I know, I know.. different situation, different time, different laws.. blah blah blah. Yes, I know but I'm just making the point that decisions can b made which people are not expecting and which may have never been made before. Not saying that will happen here, even though I think it should..

'So you think that we should go back to the days of brown envelopes and politicians interfering in planning!?!!11!' :mad:

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

kippy

Kangoo Man wrote: »

I can't understand why there is so much anti-Garth Brooks concerts on this thread. I've yet to meet a person in the last 2 weeks who didn't feel the concerts should have been allowed to go ahead. The press, politicians and even a large amount of Croke park residents wanted the concerts to go ahead, not to mention the nearly 10% of the population who had tickets. Is it just that there is a lot of neysayers on this forum?

I think youll find most of the same people want world peace, good health and infinite riches as well......

kippy

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's not so much people not understanding what it means.. we all have access to Google

It's more a case of people nit picking the way someone has framed their opinion and then posed a question. The truth is none of us know what may or may not take place. One judicial review could be a million miles away from the next.

I recall Landsdown Road residents going down many roads with the council over planning for some U2 concerts back in the day and everyone thought the council's decision was final. It went to the High Court and they backed the council and then everyone presumed that that was final, but it wasn't as it then ended up with Supreme Court over ruling the high court and allowing the concerts to go ahead. I can remember it like it was yesterday as Ray Cokes came on MTV and started screaming that the concerts were back on.

Now I know, I know, I know.. different situation, different time, different laws.. blah blah blah. Yes, I know but I'm just making the point that decisions can b made which people are not expecting and which may have never been made before. Not saying that will happen here, even though I think it should..

'So you think that we should go back to the days of brown envelopes and politicians interfering in planning!?!!11!' :mad:

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

Why exactly was this decision incompetent in your eyes?

conorh91

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's not so much people not understanding what it means.. we all have access to Google

It's more a case of people nit picking the way someone has framed their opinion and then posed a question. The truth is none of us know what may or may not take place. One judicial review could be a million miles away from the next.

I'm not suggesting a JR would go either way. I'm responding to the use of terms like "trial" and "guilty" and "overturn" and "jury" which do not properly apply to JR.

Also to the suggestion that the hearing would be fast tracked when in fact most JRs are not very drawn out affairs. They aren't the kind of things that go on for weeks on end. The whole thing could conceivably be heard in a day. There's no question of shortcuts in that respect.

But the relevance to understanding JR is this:

If a JR went Aiken's way, what would be the point? The decision would simply revert to DCC for re-consideration. And the proposed gigs are now, and have been for a long time, scheduled too close in time to get a new licence.

muddypaws

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

'So you think that we should go back to the days of brown envelopes and politicians interfering in planning!?!!11!' :mad:

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

I don't think anyone can really argue with that, but having watched the committee over 2 days, I really hope that any kind of appeal procedure wouldn't be overseen by politicians.

signostic

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a JR would go either way. I'm responding to the use of terms like "trial" and "guilty" and "overturn" and "jury" which do not properly apply to JR.

Also to the suggestion that the hearing would be fast tracked when in fact most JRs are not very drawn out affairs. They aren't the kind of things that go on for weeks on end. The whole thing could conceivably be heard in a day. There's no question of shortcuts in that respect.

JR....Do you mean this guy....

http://chitownstarconnections.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/jr-ewing-1980.jpg?w=640

He would have everything fixed...:)

knird evol

signostic wrote: »

JR....Do you mean this guy....

http://chitownstarconnections.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/jr-ewing-1980.jpg?w=640

He would have everything fixed...:)

JR would have made some girl he was blackmailing for something else hook up with Garth Brooks. The whole thing would be filmed by a high ranking police detective who was also JR's personal p.i. Then he'd meet Brooks and show him the still shots and say "Brooks your doing the shows or little old JR is going to release these pictures. Brooks you are an alcoholic and a loser like your daddy.

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's not so much people not understanding what it means.. we all have access to Google

It's more a case of people nit picking the way someone has framed their opinion and then posed a question. The truth is none of us know what may or may not take place. One judicial review could be a million miles away from the next.

I recall Landsdown Road residents going down many roads with the council over planning for some U2 concerts back in the day and everyone thought the council's decision was final. It went to the High Court and they backed the council and then everyone presumed that that was final, but it wasn't as it then ended up with Supreme Court over ruling the high court and allowing the concerts to go ahead. I can remember it like it was yesterday as Ray Cokes came on MTV and started screaming that the concerts were back on.

Now I know, I know, I know.. different situation, different time, different laws.. blah blah blah. Yes, I know but I'm just making the point that decisions can b made which people are not expecting and which may have never been made before. Not saying that will happen here, even though I think it should..

'So you think that we should go back to the days of brown envelopes and politicians interfering in planning!?!!11!' :mad:

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

The first part of your post answers the second part.

There is a mechanism in place to overturn an incompetent decision. It's called a judical review.

Now in your infinite wisdom why didn't Aiken & Co apply for one as soon as the decision was made?

They've had weeks now and still haven't applied for one. Can you use the Google that you so fondly espouse and find an answer to that question.

mbur

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

Is is necessarily incompetence to make a decision based on fraudulent submissions? Plenty of grounds there to review the decision without getting personal.

Reformed Character

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

Totally agree, and we have it.
In this case the incompetency was on the part of CP and Aiken Promotions, and the something in place was the original unchallenged decision of An Bord Pleanala, and the Planning Department of DCC and their licence decision. The ramifications avoided being "money talks".

Grandeeod

Consider this the comedic interlude on a big thread.



Carry on folks!

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's not so much people not understanding what it means.. we all have access to Google

It's more a case of people nit picking the way someone has framed their opinion and then posed a question. The truth is none of us know what may or may not take place. One judicial review could be a million miles away from the next.

I recall Landsdown Road residents going down many roads with the council over planning for some U2 concerts back in the day and everyone thought the council's decision was final. It went to the High Court and they backed the council and then everyone presumed that that was final, but it wasn't as it then ended up with Supreme Court over ruling the high court and allowing the concerts to go ahead. I can remember it like it was yesterday as Ray Cokes came on MTV and started screaming that the concerts were back on.

Now I know, I know, I know.. different situation, different time, different laws.. blah blah blah. Yes, I know but I'm just making the point that decisions can b made which people are not expecting and which may have never been made before. Not saying that will happen here, even though I think it should..

'So you think that we should go back to the days of brown envelopes and politicians interfering in planning!?!!11!' :mad:

No, no.. I don't think that at all, but we do need something in place to enable the overruling of incompetent decisions when they occur and in a timely manner too if it is seen as possible to prevent any further ramifications than have already occurred from the incompetency.

You keep saying this but what may seem incompetent to you is perfectly fine with others. Shock horror i know but quite a few people are happy that the Monday/Tuesday gigs are off because of the disruption they would have bought.

CapricornOne

So....they're off for good?

Donkey Oaty

CapricornOne wrote: »

So....they're off for good?

It's up to the Lord now.

Effects

Seeing as it's now cancelled can we lock this thread and ban all future Gareth Brooks threads?

Mrs Garth Brooks

Effects wrote: »

Seeing as it's now cancelled can we lock this thread and ban all future Gareth Brooks threads?

Its not Gareth. Its Garth.

muddypaws

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Its not Gareth. Its Garth.

Tell that to Peter Aiken

Happyman42

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting a JR would go either way. I'm responding to the use of terms like "trial" and "guilty" and "overturn" and "jury" which do not properly apply to JR.

Also to the suggestion that the hearing would be fast tracked when in fact most JRs are not very drawn out affairs. They aren't the kind of things that go on for weeks on end. The whole thing could conceivably be heard in a day. There's no question of shortcuts in that respect.

But the relevance to understanding JR is this:

If a JR went Aiken's way, what would be the point? The decision would simply revert to DCC for re-consideration. And the proposed gigs are now, and have been for a long time, scheduled too close in time to get a new licence.

In your opinion what is their game then? Doesn't seem like a logical move to get the concerts back on.

Neamhshuntasach

How do you get money back for this Gareth Brooks fella if they were bought on credit card? Bought them as a present. Think i'll give the money to a charity. Good way for the money to still go into the Dublin economy since the Gareth Brooks fans were so concerned about that.

Grandeeod

If I wake up tomorrow and these gigs are back on, I will chew my knob until its a bloody mutilated stump! And I have to appear in public!

Sir Arthur Daley

Grandeeod wrote: »

If I wake up tomorrow and these gigs are back on, I will chew my knob until its a bloody mutilated stump! And I have to appear in public!

And if tomorrow never comes?

Mrs Garth Brooks

Grandeeod wrote: »

If I wake up tomorrow and these gigs are back on, I will chew my knob until its a bloody mutilated stump! And I have to appear in public!

Ah ha ha ha ha

That would be so funny

JRant

bumper234 wrote: »

You keep saying this but what may seem incompetent to you is perfectly fine with others. Shock horror i know but quite a few people are happy that the Monday/Tuesday gigs are off because of the disruption they would have bought.

That committee today was incompetence 101 in anyones book though.

The Duffy and Corporate GAA suggested that they should have been informed 2 months ago of the decision to deny the 2 licenses with the TD's all nodding along in agreement. Imagine the uproar if this had of happened. They'd be screaming blue murder about due process if this happened.

Bafoons, the lot of them.

Happyman42

JRant wrote: »

That committee today was incompetence 101 in anyones book though.

The Duffy and Corporate GAA suggested that they should have been informed 2 months ago of the decision to deny the 2 licenses with the TD's all nodding along in agreement. Imagine the uproar if this had of happened. They'd be screaming blue murder about due process if this happened.

Bafoons, the lot of them.

I'm still flabbergasted that what McKenna suggested happened on the phone was not probed by a Dail Committee supposedly representing me.
They took what he said as a way to lambast Keegan and DCC for not awarding 5 nights having said they would.

Nobody interrogated what he was really saying; That effectively. planning was approved before an application was made. So happy was he that he fecked off on holidays, 'sure that there would be no problem' with the application.

To me that is an astonishing revelation about planning, if what he says was true...AND NOT ONE TD mentioned it.

AngryHippie

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody interrogated what he was really saying; That effectively. planning was approved before an application was made. So happy was he that he fecked off on holidays, 'sure that there would be no problem' with the application.

I suspect his sarcasm meter was broken when he proposed 400,000 cowboys at Croker and someone off the record said "yeah, no problem , good lad" either that or he didn't understand the advice "I think you need to take a holiday"

Either way, as with every contract, or planning approval, it is not completed until the approval is in hand.

I'm out :rolleyes: I've had enough of this thread. The apologists will never admit their hero has done wrong.

JRant

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm still flabbergasted that what McKenna suggested happened on the phone was not probed by a Dail Committee supposedly representing me.
They took what he said as a way to lambast Keegan and DCC for not awarding 5 nights having said they would.

Nobody interrogated what he was really saying; That effectively. planning was approved before an application was made. So happy was he that he fecked off on holidays, 'sure that there would be no problem' with the application.

To me that is an astonishing revelation about planning, if what he says was true...AND NOT ONE TD mentioned it.

Exactly it was jaw droppingly woeful. There are numerous instances of it as well. But it's not hard to understand when the commitee members themselves hadn't the first clue what they were talking about.

One of them actually said that he couldn't understand why Mr Keegan would challenge a JR when he already offered the 4 gigs. Despite the fact Keegan didn't offer 4 gigs, only to consider a fourth and it is also wholely inappropriate for a sitting TD to question anyones legal right to defend themselves in court.