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…202203205207208…265

Comments

  • Options
    #6122
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    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.



    Never said anything of the sort. But sure let what I actually say get in the way of your ranting.
    That's exactly what I claimed you said. DCC should apparently give licenses out before the consultation process according to you. 100% identical.


  • Options
    #6123
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    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.
    But the fact that ALL concerts were canned WAS GB's fault. Which is exactly what I said.
    Sorry about that. Maybe you should read things more than once before assuming you have grasped them?


  • Options
    #6124
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That's exactly what I claimed you said. DCC should apparently give licenses out before the consultation process according to you. 100% identical.

    Where have I said that?


  • Options
    #6125
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    But the fact that ALL concerts were canned WAS GB's fault. Which is exactly what I said.
    Sorry about that. Maybe you should read things more than once before assuming you have grasped them?

    I never disputed that GB cancelled the other 3 shows. We were talking about 2 shows, 160k.

    I feel like I'm wasting my time talking to a child here, who jumps between points and topics and subjects midflow getting themselves confused constantly.


  • Options
    #6126
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    No, the above is bullshit.

    Considering it, is green lighting it when you are dealing with the DCC as 99% of the time they will not consider putting anything to the planners which the planners would not be happy with. They deal so closely with one another, day in day out, that they are almost one in the same. You are being extremely disingenuous when you suggest otherwise. If the DCC were not happy for the matinees to go ahead, then they would NOT issue the statement they did after having the discussions with Aiken. They were clearly quite happy for the planners to give the go ahead and that is DCC green lighting it and therefore, Owen Keegan, in just the same way as offering to put the option of four concerts to the planners was ALSO Keegan green lighting them. To suggest it is not, is suggesting that after the planners approved the matinees or the four gig option, that Keegan would then say he was not granting the licences or approving the updated event management plan anyway. Obviously that wouldn't happen.





    Following a meeting this morning between Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions and Owen Keegan, Chief Executive of Dublin City Council, the City Council has agreed to a proposal from Aiken Promotions designed to break the impasse that has arisen.Under the proposal the City Council will consider an updated Event Management Plan, to be submitted in accordance with the Licence, whereby the three concerts will proceed but the Saturday and Sunday concerts will start earlier to facilitate separate matinee audiences on these two days. This will allow everybody who bought a ticket to see Garth Brooks. The Council is satisfied that the event licensing procedure was applied correctly in this particular case by the City Council and that the decision reached was appropriate and balanced having regard to all the competing interests. However, in response to the disappointment of ticket holders who purchased tickets in good faith for the cancelled Monday and Tuesday concerts and in light of concerns that these ticket holders could turn up on the other days creating security and public safety concerns the Council has agreed, following consultation with An Garda Siochana, to consider a revised Event Management Plan prepared on the basis outlined above. It will be a matter for Aiken Promotions and Garth Brooks to decide if they wish to pursue this suggestion.
    nm wrote: »
    Don't engage them in case they can resolve it. Good plan.

    Read and try to understand the bolded bits. If you can't understand what that means in reality then should you be posting?
    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.

    You also need to refer to the primary source, they where engaged in negotiations and mitigation, 3 updated event Management Plans where requested by DCC and submitted,
    17th June,
    26th June
    29th June,
    after which the final decision was given on 3th July.

    Please stop misrepresenting the case, they where fully engaged.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6127
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    Where have I said that?
    before it was decided
    Pretty simple that. You want DCC to give a decision before they make a proper decision based on consultation of the plan presented to all concerned parties.
    Do you think Aiken should apply for a license for "some number of concerts sometime" and have people write objections and the Gardai and HSE work out crowd control and safety based on that? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #6128
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    @Happyman
    NO WAY! They're supposed to decide YES or NO! Not bloody consider things!


  • Options
    #6129
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Pretty simple that. You want DCC to give a decision before they make a proper decision based on consultation of the plan presented to all concerned parties.
    Do you think Aiken should apply for a license for "some number of concerts sometime" and have people write objections and the Gardai and HSE work out crowd control and safety based on that? :rolleyes:

    I'll make it a simple as I can for you:

    indication
    ɪndɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1.
    a sign or piece of information that indicates something.


    decision
    dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.


  • Options
    #6130
    dodzy
    Registered Users Posts: 9,978 ✭✭✭dodzy


    Rights folks, is it GAME OVER for the gigs ? Or are they all still faffing about ?


  • Options
    #6131
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    I'll make it a simple as I can for you:

    indication
    ɪndɪˈkeɪʃ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    1.
    a sign or piece of information that indicates something.


    decision
    dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n/Submit
    noun
    a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.
    Wow. You've just dug yourself one. Nice.
    So you want DCC to make an indication of a decision... so why bother with the decision? You are claiming indication and decision are synonyms? LOLOLOL.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6132
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    I never disputed that GB cancelled the other 3 shows. We were talking about 2 shows, 160k.
    Which part of "ALL" did you take to mean 2 shows? :D
    Getting a bit confused there?


  • Options
    #6133
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    @Happyman
    NO WAY! They're supposed to decide YES or NO! Not bloody consider things!

    It's kinda obvious here that some people haven't read the docs or have read them selectively.


  • Options
    #6134
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Wow. You've just dug yourself one. Nice.
    So you want DCC to make an indication of a decision... so why bother with the decision? You are claiming indication and decision are synonyms? LOLOLOL.

    I'm claiming the opposite. It's you who can't understand the difference, still, apparently.

    How can you not see that this could have been better handled? Look at the mess we're in. Is this the desirable outcome? Mind boggling.


  • Options
    #6135
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Following a meeting this morning between Peter Aiken of Aiken Promotions and Owen Keegan, Chief Executive of Dublin City Council, the City Council has agreed to a proposal from Aiken Promotions designed to break the impasse that has arisen.
    Can you read the emboldened part above?

    Tell me what his agreeing to? Do you think this just means to give it thought? You think the DCC would waste their time releasing a statement saying they are going to give some Aiken said a once over and consider it?

    If Keegan was not willing to put on four-gigs-in-a-row or matinees, then he would NOT put them to the planners. What about that do you not understand? In fact, it was Keegan / DCC that determined the matinees would be possible without changing the licence terms. It's absurd to say that they did not green light the matinee offer, absurd.


  • Options
    #6136
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    It's kinda obvious here that some people haven't read the docs or have read them selectively.

    You've quoted the suggestion of the matinee plan.

    Aikens and the GAA have sworn they were never given any indication that the two concerts were going to be refused until it was too late. If they were, they say, they could have made more plans to mitigate this happening.


  • Options
    #6137
    dinorebel
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭dinorebel


    dodzy wrote: »
    Rights folks, is it GAME OVER for the gigs ? Or are they all still faffing about ?
    Dead and buried at this stage I would think,has anyone got a refund yet?


  • Options
    #6138
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    I'm claiming the opposite. It's you who can't understand the difference, still, apparently.

    How can you not see that this could have been better handled? Look at the mess we're in. Is this the desirable outcome? Mind boggling.
    The desirable outcome was the result of a correctly adhered to licensing process: 3 nights.
    If that didn't happen move along from blaming Keegan and DCC because they didn't decide to can those.


  • Options
    #6139
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    nm wrote: »
    I'm suggesting he engage with the promoter and venue to attempt come up with a workable solution for all involved before coming to a decision that is irreversible and has no appeals process, thereby plunging all concerned into the chaos that we've just seen.

    That makes no difference. Gareth cancelled all the dates because he cares about his ego and not his fans.


  • Options
    #6140
    paddyirish23
    Registered Users Posts: 458 ✭✭paddyirish23


    Maybe someone can explain this to me, but they turned down 2 concerts, well Mr keegan did.
    Garth brooks says no to 3. it's all 5 or none.
    DCC **** themselves and voted to put all 5 concerts on but have no power to do so as Mr Keegan's decision cannot be appealed by law.
    They agree a matinee show for the Sat and Sun which is turned down by brooks.
    They then Agree to go co-promoters and want to put the 2 cancelled concerts on the end of Oct - Brooks says no as he has world tour on.
    Keegan, for a man who said that his original decision was the right one has been changing his mind a lot by giving them the extra 2 concerts choices, ( and no just because they are on a different date doesn't mean he hasn't, he has given in to putting them on!)
    So last chance was yesterday and the judicial review in which Keegan, who obviously has his job on the line in all of this, decides to go back to the 3 or none deal by saying he would contest it, but not only him. the DCC would contest it - Yes the crowd that voted for all 5 to go ahead when they knew the law couldn't be changed!!
    I'd feel sorry for Dubliners but after being on this thread with some of them, ye really deserve each other :)


  • Options
    #6141
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Can you read the emboldened part above?

    Tell me what his agreeing to? Do you think this just means to give it thought? You think the DCC would waste their time releasing a statement saying they are going to give some Aiken said a once over and consider it?

    If Keegan was not willing to put on four-gigs-in-a-row or matinees, then he would NOT put them to the planners. What about that do you not understand? In fact, it was Keegan / DCC that determined the matinees would be possible without changing the licence terms. It's absurd to say that they did not green light the matinee offer, absurd.

    There is no onus on DCC to review a planning decision once it is made, nor can they do it legally.

    Because of 'the disappointment of fans' Keegan simply 'agreed' to Aiken submitting 'a proposal' in the form of an 'updated Event Management Plan' within the terms of the original licence (just like the ones on 17th, 26th and 29th) that 'proposed matinees'.
    He was under no onus to do this, but he agreed that in this case and to be flexible and to CONSIDER' the updated plan.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6142
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    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.

    Sorry, you're wrong there.


  • Options
    #6143
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    nm wrote: »
    You've quoted the suggestion of the matinee plan.

    Aikens and the GAA have sworn they were never given any indication that the two concerts were going to be refused until it was too late. If they were, they say, they could have made more plans to mitigate this happening.

    Stop changing the subject...you said 'they were not engaged' between application and decision.
    Do you withdraw that and accept that is false?


  • Options
    #6144
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    currins_02 wrote: »
    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!

    I guess you have never applied for planning for a house. The often come back with changes you have to make before they approve planning.


  • Options
    #6145
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭Effects


    dinorebel wrote: »
    Dead and buried at this stage I would think,has anyone got a refund yet?
    They are all back on. Fri, Sat, Sun, and tickets for Monday and Tuesday are on the following Friday and Saturday.


  • Options
    #6146
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Is it true that Keegan has refused to reappear before the committee today and has said he will come in tomorrow instead?

    I missed that if already posted.


  • Options
    #6147
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    nm wrote: »
    Aikens and the GAA have sworn they were never given any indication that the two concerts were going to be refused until it was too late. If they were, they say, they could have made more plans to mitigate this happening.
    I wish someone had asked them yesterday what they possibly could have done, considering Garth Brooks has never waivered from 5 nights or none.

    The only thing I can think of is getting the decision overturned, by hook,crook or Timmy Dooley.

    Even if DCC told them in February you are not getting 5 nights, Garth would still have spit the dummy out and complained about 2 of his children being discriminated.


  • Options
    #6148
    hynesie08
    Registered Users Posts: 9,767 ✭✭✭hynesie08


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Is it true that Keegan has refused to reappear before the committee today and has said he will come in tomorrow instead?

    I missed that if already posted.

    Yep, He wanted time to prepare a rebuttal to aiken/mckennas claims.


  • Options
    #6149
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Stop changing the subject...you said 'they were not engaged' between application and decision.
    Do you withdraw that and accept that is false?

    Ok, wording change so

    engaged - given any indication that these would be the first licence refusals in 30 years


  • Options
    #6150
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    nm wrote: »
    Ok, wording change so

    engaged - given any indication that these would be the first licence refusals in 30 years

    I don't think they should have had to because frankly, they should never have been requested in the first place. It was obvious from the get go that five concerts in that venue was taking the proverbial.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6151
    Mrs Garth Brooks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,865 ✭✭✭Mrs Garth Brooks


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Is it true that Keegan has refused to reappear before the committee today and has said he will come in tomorrow instead?

    I missed that if already posted.

    Yes its true


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement