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

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That was done. The answer was 3 concerts. Did you miss that bit?

It wasn't done. Did you miss that bit?

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

So Croke park/Aiken et al should be able to consistently hound him until they get their own way you mean?

Don't engage them in case they can resolve it. Good plan.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

As has been pointed out countless times at this stage so I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring, no objections at all are required for DCC to refuse a license. How did you get to 300 residents as your number anyway?

Has the first of that got anything to do with my post that you quoted? Your ranting is still disjointed.

350/370 or so was the original number of objections widely reported, we now can assume many were forgeries now also, give or take 300 approx is my opinion roughly speaking given what we know. Whatever the number, it's a tiny minority in the area, a tiny minority in Dublin and a tiny minority in the country.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thanks to Garth Brooks and Garth Brooks alone. Or has he now got popelike infallibility in all this?

Garth Brooks refused two of his own licences now? Interesting, have you let the media know? Or are you changing the subject to suit you, or being disjointed again, or what?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why would Aiken (and you) take "I'll put it to the planners" as a guarantee of 4 concerts? It's not even a verbal agreement to OK anything. It's an agreement to CONSIDER it.

I think you need to read my posts slower. I never said it should be seen as a "guarantee".

What I said was that Keegan would not bother putting anything to the planners, that he himself would not be happy to see happen. He offered to put 4-in-a-row to to them and so that means that was quite happy to see the four-in-a-row happen. Hence the:

'Put it there Garth. Give me your guarantee and commitment to do the four and we'll put it in to the planners and get back to in the morning, but only if you promise you'll do them mind'.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

It wasn't done. Did you miss that bit?

They were engaged. They applied for 5, negotiated and got 3. The alternatives were: 0, 1, 2, 4.
Is "engaged" your euphemism for "capitulate"?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Calina wrote: »

Such as?

When I'm a promoter, venue owner, planner or city manager, I'll let you know.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

Has the first of that got anything to do with my post that you quoted? Your ranting is still disjointed.

LOL. Imagine the shreds I'd be tearing you to if I could only form more coherent arguments, 'cos it's easy as pie with this stream of consciousness approach.

nm wrote: »

350/370 or so was the original number of objections widely reported, we now can assume

No, no and no. YOU can assume. I'll wait for evidence. (Dictionary required on that one perhaps?)

nm wrote: »

Garth Brooks refused two of his own licences now? Interesting, have you let the media know? Or are you changing the subject to suit you, or being disjointed again, or what?

Garth Brooks refused to play the 3 gigs offered. If you can show anywhere I said he was part of the planning process please QUOTE me. (you won't and you know you won't and we all know you know you won't)

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

They were engaged. They applied for 5, negotiated and got 3. The alternatives were: 0, 1, 2, 4.
Is "engaged" your euphemism for "capitulate"?

As Aikens and the GAA stated yesterday they weren't engaged after the licence applications were submitted until after 2 were refused. They could have been, they should have been (by any capable city manager who would have been able to predict the fall out of 160,000 ticket holders plans being cancelled) but they were not.

It's that simple, I'm not sure how many times I can explain the same thing before you get it.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

When I'm a promoter, venue owner, planner or city manager, I'll let you know.

Another translation required: I don't have a clue what the answer was so how about I just blame DCC in the absence of anything useful to say.

Iang87

This is our capital city we are talking about. It should be able to handle 400,000 people coming in and out over 5 days to any arena but unfortunately we have amateurs in positions of power who dont have the ability to see beyond their own votes.

Muise...

nm wrote: »

When I'm a promoter, venue owner, planner or city manager, I'll let you know.

LOL!

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

What I said was that Keegan would not bother putting anything to the planners, that he himself would not be happy to see happen. He offered to put 4-in-a-row to to them and so that means that was quite happy to see the four-in-a-row happen.

Right, so now you think Keegan just orders planners to do his bidding, or that the planning process is actually pointless as all other members of DCC planning department are, in fact, clones of Keegan who will always reflect his opinion entirely?
I think he did them a favour, a.k.a. the negotiating process that you will insist didn't happen, and it didn't work out.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

Don't engage them in case they can resolve it. Good plan.

Yeah and then have them whinging in the national press about how they were ignored :rolleyes:

currins_02

Folks, my tuppence worth. Glad it's all over, had tickets (wife a major fan), also work as a part time coach driver so was booked to drive groups to it. That said, once the s$$t hit the fan I resigned myself to the fact it was not happening. Just gone through a lot of this thread and have to say the people pro the concerts are obviously Brooks fans in the main while alot of those against them don't like his music - stating the obvious in pointing that out but it's obvious to a blind man how that colours the views.

I have read numerous papers, blogs, boards, websites and watched both sets of committee hearings, along with Brooks press conference.

Firstly, I don't believe Brooks is driven by money which is a fact seems to allude a lot of people. Had he been he would just have done the three. He is a man of "convictions" and he has been proven now and in the past to pursue those convictions without compromise. For instance, the famous case of suing the hospital which nursed his mother through terminal cancer when they spent his donation to them in a different way to that agreed. On winning the case he made a similar donation to another cancer related facility. Not trying to paint him as a saint of anything but to demonstrate he is uncompromising once an agreement is made, his approach seems to be "No, the deal was X, we're not doing Y!". He has steadfastly refused to allow iTunes sell his music as he believes albums should be sold as albums not individual tracks (so why bother making albums). He believes in his "art" whether that be to the taste of all here or not is irrelevant. He is finally allowing his music to be sold digitally now through his website but only in a form he controls. Thereby ignoring one of the biggest potential revenue streams available to any artiste. Many of the commentators here and elsewhere revert to him being "greedy" or "driven by money". I don't believe that is the case.

I also believe nights 4 & 5 were not part of the initial plan but happened based on the demand for nights 1, 2 & 3.

I too believe that Aiken operated within the system in place in good faith, something even their main competitor MCD seemed to accept.

The residents vs GAA/Croke Park issue is interesting. The GAA delegates yesterday stated that legally there is no limit to events in Croke Park. They further stated that they are allowed 3 events by default if you like but then must obtain an events licence for all beyond that. Those statements are completely at odds with what has been touted by many to date and I feel the committee should have teased that out more. Once such a difference in interpretation exists the danger of these situations re-occuring can't be ignored. Also the fact that the issue was hijacked to leverage the GAA in the Handball dispute by one group needs looked at. There was a petition of 900-1000 residents allegedly in favour of the event, if they called a vote in the area I believe it would have been carried. Various Garda sources & Garda statements have been quoted widely as saying based on 11 COMPLAINTS they had interviewed approximately 180 of the 370 odd complainants to find that there were "serious concerns" with up to 40% of that 180. So, until the investigation is complete we have 11 confirmed complaints plus a potential 72 other issues. That ratio may or may not hold true accross the other 190 odd complaints. DCC made statements before the decision was announced that they had concerns and were considering passing a file to the Gardai, as such some weight, in my mind, should have been put on the fact there were obvious issues here.

We know nothing of the context of the matinee offer. I have reasons to believe that the proposal originally was for Matinee's on the Monday & Tuesday to address the late finish on a weeknight and to try get bulk traffic put in mid day and mid evening off peak. I have reason to believe that that became convoluted along the way into the Saturday & Sunday but DCC tried to win a PR point by releasing their statement before Brooks had been consulted. It was never going to work or float but the fact is DCC were only ever going to consider it in light of a new event plan. That was an impossible ask because there was no realistic or safe way to transition 160,000 people in/out of the stadioum and general area in a 2 hour window.

I am highly sceptical of the October offer. First, it is worldwide knowledge that Brooks was to start a world tour in September (confirmed in last few days as Chicago kick off on 4th September). Second and more worryingly DCC offered October on the basis of them being co-promoter, I find that very distasteful and now we see the $ getting in the mix.

The GAA stayed too quiet throughout and I am not a member or fan but the local issues need seriously looked at.

I believe Keegan may have signed his own P45 over this whole thing. If for no other reason he has stated widely on at the committee that he had no contact "either formal or informal" with GAA/Aiken about the shows before the application in April. Now we have an admission he was in direct contact with GAA in February about it. I agree with earlier posts here, what GAA interpret as "assurances" may have been what Keegan thought was conceptual support but nothing else. That said we have gone from no contact to a confirmed call. The fact is, in light of the decision the correct action, in my opinion would have been for Keogan to recuse himself even at a late stage as him being a property owner was alway going to come out, the demand by Keegan for no conflicts of interest with that in mind is pure irony.

The committee hearings were incredible and bias towards GAA/Aiken/Brooks was evident but that said, their frsutration was palpable.

The horse has bolted, we missed out (on the event and the money), it will be forgotten next week but will Keegan be there for long? Whether right or wrong I suspect his head will roll either by his own action or a subtle push.

I should colour all of above by saying that I believed from day dot it should have been a licence for all or nothing. If I apply for planning for a 5 bed house, I expect a pass or fail, not a piece meal offer of lose them back two bedrooms and here's your 3 bed! That is NOT endorsing Brooks position just saying that it should have been a licence for 5 gigs or no gigs.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

Has the first of that got anything to do with my post that you quoted? Your ranting is still disjointed.

350/370 or so was the original number of objections widely reported, we now can assume many were forgeries now also, give or take 300 approx is my opinion roughly speaking given what we know. Whatever the number, it's a tiny minority in the area, a tiny minority in Dublin and a tiny minority in the country.



Garth Brooks refused two of his own licences now? Interesting, have you let the media know? Or are you changing the subject to suit you, or being disjointed again, or what?

300 Objections does not = 300 residents you know?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Right, so now you think Keegan just orders planners to do his bidding, or that the planning process is actually pointless as all other members of DCC planning department are, in fact, clones of Keegan who will always reflect his opinion entirely?

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

As Aikens and the GAA stated yesterday they weren't engaged after the licence applications were submitted until after 2 were refused. They could have been, they should have been (by any capable city manager who would have been able to predict the fall out of 160,000 ticket holders plans being cancelled) but they were not.

It's that simple, I'm not sure how many times I can explain the same thing before you get it.

If it's garbage it cannot be explained to the point of anybody understanding it.
How can anything be negotiated until a decision has been made on the original application? You're back to claiming Keegan was making all the decisions in isolation instantly and was in a position to guarantee a license without consulting traffic, Gardai, the HSE, local residents? LOL. Rinse repeat.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Garth Brooks refused to play the 3 gigs offered. If you can show anywhere I said he was part of the planning process please QUOTE me. (you won't and you know you won't and we all know you know you won't)

nm wrote: »

Refusing two of the licences did not solve it as we have seen for the last two weeks.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Thanks to Garth Brooks and Garth Brooks alone.

Talk of the refusal for two licences (160k people) is blamed on Garth Brooks by you. Oh I see, you switched to the other 3 mid post! Very good, but try to keep up with the conversation at hand.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Anyone know what time the kick off is at? I might get a few beers in.

Dan_Solo

Iang87 wrote: »

This is our capital city we are talking about. It should be able to handle 400,000 people coming in and out over 5 days to any arena but unfortunately we have amateurs in positions of power who dont have the ability to see beyond their own votes.

More nonsense without even a tangential relationship to reality. FG are dead sure they've LOST votes over this in case you hadn't noticed, but can't interfere with the planning process which is the way it should be.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If it's garbage it cannot be explained to the point of anybody understanding it.
How can anything be negotiated until a decision has been made on the original application? You're back to claiming Keegan was making all the decisions in isolation instantly and was in a position to guarantee a license without consulting traffic, Gardai, the HSE, local residents? LOL. Rinse repeat.

I didn't mention any of those groups but don't let that stop you (rinse, repeat, lol, etc.).

I clearly mentioned the venue owner and the promoter. It would have been the most sensible approach, this is obvious now.
The idea that Keegan had no idea what way the applications might swing until it was too late is laughable.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

Talk of the refusal for two licences (160k people) is blamed on Garth Brooks by you. Oh I see, you switched to the other 3 mid post! Very good, but try to keep up with the conversation at hand.

Nope. Talk of the all the concerts going up in smoke being anybody's fault other than GB is all your doing.
Sorry about that.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope. Talk of the all the concerts going up in smoke being anybody's fault other than GB is all your doing.
Sorry about that.

So you ARE saying that the Monday and Tuesday going up in smoke is GB's fault?

Make your mind up and then explain that Monday and Tuesday one to me and the 160k who were going.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

I didn't mention any of those groups but don't let that stop you (rinse, repeat, lol, etc.).

I clearly mentioned the venue owner and the promoter. It would have been the most sensible approach, this is obvious now.
The idea that Keegan had no idea what way the applications might swing until it was too late is laughable.

And again, for the millionth time, you are saying that Keegan should have been able to tell them on the spot what applications would be green lighted, rendering the whole consultation process pointless.
You didn't mention any of those groups. I noticed. Because apparently you don't think local residents or emergency services should have any say in organising 400,000 people arriving at one urban location over 5 nights.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

So you ARE saying that the Monday and Tuesday going up in smoke is GB's fault?

Make your mind up and then explain that Monday and Tuesday one to me and the 160k who were going.

Nice try. I said ALL concerts going was GB's fault. You seem keen to answer your own questions here which must be about the only thing you have left to go on.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

So which is it? Can Keegan guarantee license applications on the spot prior to any consultation process or not?
Or you don't want to answer just moan about Keegan doing his job properly?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And again, for the millionth time, you are saying that Keegan should have been able to tell them on the spot what applications would be green lighted, rendering the whole consultation process pointless.

No I'm not, you are confusing me with another poster most likely. Again keep up.

The organiser could clearly have been given an indication of the refusal before it was decided and irreversible. This doesn't mean on the spot and it doesn't render anything pointless. It means working with all parties to avoid the sort of disaster we have just experienced on a massive scale.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

you don't thin local residents or emergency services should have any say in organising 400,000 people arriving at one urban location over 5 nights.

Never said anything of the sort. But sure let what I actually say get in the way of your ranting.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Effects wrote: »

Gareth is the one who let everyone down.

No he did not. He did his best.

Will Young was just a better singer is all.

Ash.J.Williams

Love the Ireland Garth b - Germany hasslehoff comparison

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nice try. I said ALL concerts going was GB's fault. You seem keen to answer your own questions here which must be about the only thing you have left to go on.

You said all concerts were GB's fault in response to a post about two licence refusals of Monday and Tuesday. These clearly were not GB's fault and these were the ones that could have been worked on by DCC and the promoters better before they were point blank refused. This was the conversation we were having.

Enough of this one.