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

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I never said there was and you can embolden as many words as you like but it won't mean that you understand what the hell you are talking about.

The DCC even made it clear after Brooks refused the matinee offer, that it was still on the table a few days later. You're acting as if Aiken put an idea to them and they just released their statement regarding it for the craic. They were fine with the matinees going ahead and you know it. Speaks volumes that you won't just accept that and get on with the discussion.

Did they APPROVE it or not? If they did show us all a statement which says 'We approve 2 matinees' for the Garth Brooks event.
They simply agreed to accept the submission of a proposal in the form of an updated Event Management Plan. Something there was no onus on them to do ordinarilly but because of 'the disappointment of fans' they showed flexibility to reach a compromise.

Go look up the meaning of 'we will consider'.
Getting ridiculous at this stage that both you and nm do not have the ability to understand simple english that is there in black and white.
At least nm could admit they where totally wrong.

Mrs Garth Brooks

secman wrote: »

TM waiting for Aiken to give the go ahead, TM were ready to start this morning but Aiken requested to stall yet again, stalling the inevitable.

Have you a source for this?

Ticketmaster has to give 12 hour notice before changing their minds.

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes it is. They would not make their suggestion to put the proposal to the planners and release a statement to that effect, unless they were willing to allow it if granted. It is pure semantics to suggest otherwise.

They were willing to allow 5 consecutive shows, IF IT WAS GRANTED.
It wasn't. They were not wiling to allow it.

They were willing to allow an updated plan to be submitted. If it was acceptable they would have allowed it.

If it is acceptable to build a 400 story high building in the middle of O'Connell street they would allow it.

He aid they would look at it and it could happen as it was covered by the decision they had already made.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Did they APPROVE it or not? If they did show us all a statement which says 'We approve 2 matinees' for the Garth Brooks event.
They simply agreed to accept the submission of a proposal in the form of an updated Event Management Plan. Something there was no onus on them to do ordinarilly but because of 'the disappointment of fans' they showed flexibility to reach a compromise.

Go look up the meaning of 'we will consider'.
Getting ridiculous at this stage that both you and nm do not have the ability to understand simple english that is there in black and white.
At least nm could admit they where totally wrong.

If I could do that. I would have done that. Have an honest discussion or have none at all.

You know well that Keegan / DCC was fine with matinees. This is all just about not conceding a point in a debate for the sake of it. The dogs on the bloody street know they were. The word consider carries far more weight in such statements than you wish to admit, which is why all media sources, even the respected ones, had headline articles stating that the DCC were happy to go ahead and have the matinees on Saturday and Sunday. Accept it or don't. Tis your choice but no matter which you choose, it won't change the truth, which is that Dublin City Council green lit the matinee proposal.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

If I could do that. I would have done that. Have an honest discussion or have none at all.

You know well that Keegan / DCC was fine with matinees. This is all just about not conceding a point in a debate for the sake of it. The dogs on the bloody street know they were. The word consider carries far more weight in such statements than you wish to admit, which is why all media sources, even the respected ones, had headline articles stating that the DCC were happy to go ahead and have the matinees on Saturday and Sunday.

If the level of comprehension was similar to yours then it is not a bit of wonder Aiken/GAA made a mess of this.

Indeed, 'wanting to believe something that just isn't there' has prolonged this whole thing.

Earlier you where pontificating that DCC where sitting around on their arses when they should have been giving a decision, until it was pointed out to you that the last updated Event Management Plan was submitted on 29th June a full 4 days before the final decision was reached.

Playing fast and loose with the facts will not a licence get...as Aiken/GAA/ Brooks have found to everyone's cost.

Daith

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

If I could do that. I would have done that. Have an honest discussion or have none at all.

You know well that Keegan / DCC was fine with matinees. This is all just about not conceding a point in a debate for the sake of it. The dogs on the bloody street know they were. The word consider carries far more weight in such statements than you wish to admit, which is why all media sources, even the respected ones, had headline articles stating that the DCC were happy to go ahead and have the matinees on Saturday and Sunday.

It doesn't matter though does it? Garth would only play provided

* All five concerts went ahead
* In the night time
* No rain or wind or thunderstorms or hail (I presume Garth controls nature)
* When Jupiter is ascending

Peppa Pig

hynesie08 wrote: »

€100 says that any of us who watched the committee meeting on Tuesday can tell who's behind this motion.

Could be one of a few. I reckon it's a GAA head, although that hardly narrows it down

Pretty sad that a governmental committee with responsibility for making laws believes the solution to a planning decision they did not want is to fire the guy who made it.

Had this been the Aviva and The Rolling Stones looking for 5 nights, there would not even be a committee.

The GAA currently have too much influence, too many friends in high places.

currins_02

Effects wrote: »

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.

I have done and have been involved in the build of 2 one off houses in 2 different municipal areas (my own home and then my parents new home). In both cases there was engagement, in one case there was an issue early on, plans were amended, all was gone through and planning was issued. There was no surprise element. The issue here is that the reduction to 3 was a "shock".

Aiken claims first he heard of it was a late evening call the evening before, GAA say same. Not taking them as gospel but they must be given some credibility in view of the fact that Aiken's timeline was accepted as being accurate plus Keegan scored a massive OG by claiming there had been no contact with him prior to the application whereas now he claims there was a call and he gave support but not an assurance.

In the house planning analogy you would never get a decision issued with little or no notice saying sorry about your 5 bed application we've just granted a 3 bed. It would be pass or fail and as far as I'm concerned this should have been no different. If DCC were not happy with the 5 nights as proposed there should have been no implied support, and the whole application should have been rejected on the basis of being a 5 night package. Maybe i'm looking at it in a simple sense but as someone who has been through house planning twice I don't understand or accept this unprecedented move of partial approval.

Peppa Pig

Effects wrote: »

I've gotten refunds for 10 tickets I bought with one card but still waiting for 8 I bought with a different card. I think it's down to the bank.

You're not a tout are you -

As an aside how many individual people were those tickets for? Was it 18?

Just curious

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Peppa Pig wrote: »

They were willing to allow 5 consecutive shows, IF IT WAS GRANTED.
It wasn't. They were not wiling to allow it.

They were willing to allow an updated plan to be submitted. If it was acceptable they would have allowed it.

If it is acceptable to build a 400 story high building in the middle of O'Connell street they would allow it.

He aid they would look at it and it could happen as it was covered by the decision they had already made.

LOL. All bullshit.

If that were the case, why is Keegan even there. You are suggesting he is just a conduit.

When Keegan phoned Aiken saying he was granting three licences, why did he then say he world GO BACK to the planners and put the option of four to them?? Why not five, if as you're saying, he would grant whatever they approved.

You clearly have no understanding of the sequence of events as they happened, or indeed, just how much Keegan's decision was what counted above all else.

hynesie08

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Could be one of a few. I reckon it's a GAA head, although that hardly narrows it down

Pretty sad that a governmental committee with responsibility for making laws believes the solution to a planning decision they did not want is to fire the guy who made it.

Had this been the Aviva and The Rolling Stones looking for 5 nights, there would not even be a committee.

The GAA currently have too much influence, too many friends in high places.

I'm leaning towards mary lou and that chap who demanded an apology for claims gaa members might be bias, then showed complete bias.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

When Keegan phoned Aiken saying he was granting three licences, why did he then say he world GO BACK to the planners and put the option of four to them?? Why not five, if as you're saying, he would grant whatever they approved.

He has explained that and has said it was a mistake made (yet he is an arrogant wanker to some) because of the pressure he was under.

More important thing is and what the Committee SHOULD be asking is...who was putting pressure on a planning decision.

paddyirish23

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Where are you getting this from - seriously, have you been following the story at all.
They voted for 5 concerts :rolleyes:
They agree matinee shows :rolleyes:
Neither of them hapened, the first one is pure fiction and the second was proposed by Aiken before he even spoke to Brooks.

They did discuss about October shows but yet again it was 5 consecutive nights or nothing.

As I said, they voted for the 5 concerts to go ahead yes it passed narrowly but passed nonetheless look it up!
They agreed to the matinée, subject to approval of the management plan but let's face it they were letting it happen if garth had said yes

hynesie08

paddyirish23 wrote: »

As I said, they voted for the 5 concerts to go ahead yes it passed narrowly but passed nonetheless look it up!
They agreed to the matinée, subject to approval of the management plan but let's face it they were letting it happen if garth had said yes

No, sinn fein voted and passed (by one vote) a motion to ask owen keegan to review his decision, even though before the vote he specifically said he could not legally review his decision.

Bogdanistan

I quitely smile at anyone willing to trust a word a place like DCC says.
Aiken/GAA should have known well their proven track record and warned Brooks.
If you leave any meetings trusting an organisation like DCC, or take their word for anything, you will regret it.

nc6000

Refunds beginning.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631270-garth-brooks/

First Up

hynesie08 wrote: »

No, sinn fein voted and passed (by one vote) a motion to ask owen keegan to review his decision, even though before the vote he specifically said he could not legally review his decision.

He couldn't review the decision, but he could still suggest a fourth concert when he realised (belatedly) the consequences of his decision?

bumper234

Bogdanistan wrote: »

I quitely smile at anyone willing to trust a word a place like DCC says.
Aiken/GAA should have known well their proven track record and warned Brooks.
If you leave any meetings trusting an organisation like DCC, or take their word for anything, you will regret it.

Unlike those bastions of truth that are the GAA and Aiken:rolleyes::rolleyes:

bumper234

nc6000 wrote: »

Refunds beginning.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631270-garth-brooks/

In the Immortal words of Mr Homer Simpson

paddyirish23

hynesie08 wrote: »

No, sinn fein voted and passed (by one vote) a motion to ask owen keegan to review his decision, even though before the vote he specifically said he could not legally review his decision.

Yes DCC voted for the motion to say Keegan's decision was wrong, and yes they knew it couldn't be overturned...until yesterday when Aikens mooted the review, they then come out and say they won't allow a no contest to it.
I'd hate to be relying on this shower for something serious to be sorted!!

Effects

currins_02 wrote: »

If I apply for planning for a 5 bed house, I expect a pass or fail.

currins_02 wrote: »

I have done and have been involved in the build of 2 one off houses. In both cases there was engagement, plans were amended and planning was issued.

Thanks for backing up my original point. You should have known better seeing as you have been through the planning process and twice no less.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

bumper234 wrote: »

Unlike those bastions of truth that are the GAA and Aiken:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What have they lied about? Please include links, quotes etc to back up your scurrilous insinuations.

Happyman42

Bogdanistan wrote: »

I quitely smile at anyone willing to trust a word a place like DCC says.
Aiken/GAA should have known well their proven track record and warned Brooks.
If you leave any meetings trusting an organisation like DCC, or take their word for anything, you will regret it.

Quitely smile all you want...what we are going on is all in b/w in the decisions and statements published by DCC in a very transparent process. Aiken/GAA have not produced one shred of evidence for what they say happened.

conorh91

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

It isn't logical for the Garth Brooks side/ Aiken to seek a judicial review. It's too late for the decision to go back to the decision-maker and begin afresh. It has been too late for judicial review for weeks now.

The only people JR suits is the residents. If the concerts were given a licence after the initial refusal, residents could go to the High Court and seek leave for a review on the grounds that DCC exceeded its powers in revising its own decision or that it erred in law in the course of granting a licence, etc. Naturally they would seek an interim/ injunction as part of that process to prevent the concerts going ahead if necessary.

The idea of Aiken going for JR must have been off the table for weeks.

Mrs Garth Brooks

nc6000 wrote: »

Refunds beginning.....

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0717/631270-garth-brooks/

Did people queue for the refund like they did to buy the tickets ?

Madness

Bogdanistan

Happyman42 wrote: »

Quitely smile all you want...what we are going on is all in b/w in the decisions and statements published by DCC in a very transparent process. Aiken/GAA have not produced one shred of evidence for what they say happened.

lol, fail, witness statements are evidence in any proceedings

Effects

fedor.2. wrote: »

These concerts will go ahead, I guarantee it.

Can you pay up on your guarantee now please?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

What have they lied about? Please include links, quotes etc to back up your scurrilous insinuations.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

That's priceless coming from you!

Bogdanistan

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Lets ensure what really happened, and why Dublin and Ireland lost milllions of Euro in business, is never exposed ?