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…205206208210211…265

Comments

  • Options
    #6212
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


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

    The offer of a 4th gig was made (and it was a mistake) BEFORE the final decision was made to people (Aiken/GAA) who claim that there was NO consultation or negotiations or indications that 5 would be allowed.

    Keegan recieved a call next day (uncontested fact) from Aiken saying that Brooks would only play 5.
    DCC went ahead with their original decision.

    I want to know who was applying pressure on planners BEFORE a decision was made. Do you think one of the people I voted to represent me in government will ask that?

    Do you think it is important that we know who was pressuring a planning official BEFORE a decision was made?


  • Options
    #6213
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    What have they lied about? Please include links, quotes etc to back up your scurrilous insinuations.

    Duffy lied to the Oireachtas Committee when he said the residents he met in February had no problem with it.
    In fact it was reported that they were angry and threatened legal action after he at first denied the GAA had an agreement with the residents for 3 concerts a year, then when confronted by the residents with proof of the agreement he casually and arrogantly announced that "times have moved on".
    Which is how this thread started all that time ago.
    Next?


  • Options
    #6214
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    Lets ensure what really happened is never exposed.

    Why?


  • Options
    #6215
    hynesie08
    Registered Users Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭hynesie08


    paddyirish23 wrote: »
    Yes DCC voted for the motion to say Keegan's decision was wrong
    First i'm hearing of this. Link?
    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.
    We knew from the second he refused it it could only be challenged in the high court, And that still wouldn't have overturned it.


  • Options
    #6216
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why?

    To protect Duffy and the GAA of course!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6217
    Red Pepper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,567 ✭✭✭Red Pepper


    HardLuckWoman wrote: »
    Did people queue for the refund like they did to buy the tickets ?

    Madness

    :)

    The whole thing is mad.


  • Options
    #6218
    nc6000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,252 ✭✭✭nc6000


    HardLuckWoman wrote: »
    Did people queue for the refund like they did to buy the tickets ?

    Madness

    It says "Garth Brooks fans queuing for the tickets back in January" under the picture.


  • Options
    #6219
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why?

    To protect DCC, the politicans, and their cronies


  • Options
    #6220
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Reformed Character wrote: »
    ...the GAA had an agreement with the residents for 3 concerts a year
    Next?

    Is this agreement available anywhere online?

    It keeps being referred to but there seem to be denials of its existence.


  • Options
    #6221
    currins_02
    Registered Users Posts: 133 ✭✭currins_02


    Effects wrote: »
    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.

    It is true to say it's impossible to discuss anything reasonably on here. It's all about catching people out in minor detail.

    To be clear if I apply for a 5 bed house and the planners are not happy with minor detail there is engagement, for instance, in my parents house they (the planners) didn't want dormer windows on the front (South face) an updated plan was submitted as additional information with velux's instead and ultimately it was passed. There was never a case were they would have or could have said, you know what drop 2 bedrooms - that would be processed just as a fail with notification of the reasons and require a new application.

    There was a few versions of the event plan which would have included in the broad sense minor changes as required by the planners (the much mentioned additionality). If 5 weren't a runner but 3 were I would suggest the application for 5 should have been issued with a fail but a notice given that a simialr application for 3 may be considered.

    I stand over my point that I beleive from day one it should have been a pass or fail decision not a half ar$ed version. That's whether you (or I) are a fan, follower, objector or whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6222
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    More important thing is and what the Committee SHOULD be asking is...who was putting pressure on a planning decision.

    It was July 2nd. Any pressure that was coming his way, was more than likely just telling him to get his thumb out.

    And as for buying his 'mistake' nonsense. Pull the other one.

    The guy is like most muppets with decision making positions in the council: inept.

    A quick drive around Dublin and you can see how decisions on road markings alone should have resulted in sackings. Did this fool have signs he approved get ripped down at the cost of the tax payer. I'm just surprised ac calamity like this didn't occur before with idiots like this at the helm. He reminds of this plonker.


  • Options
    #6223
    nc6000
    Registered Users Posts: 3,252 ✭✭✭nc6000


    Is there anything to stop them refunding everyone who bought tickets for the 5 shows and then putting the 3 they have permission for on sale at 09.00 on Monday?


  • Options
    #6224
    paddyirish23
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭paddyirish23


    hynesie08 wrote: »
    First i'm hearing of this. Link?


    We knew from the second he refused it it could only be challenged in the high court, And that still wouldn't have overturned it.

    Garth Brooks was last night preparing to divert a ship containing the stage for his comeback if he’s banned from performing all five Croke Park gigs.

    Dublin Lord Mayor Christy Burke said the vessel was due to sail last night and if he didn't get the go-ahead for all five, the ship would not leave port.

    He revealed: “[City manager Owen] Keegan made it very clear the three concerts awarded to Garth Brooks and Aiken promoters is where it stands.”

    The move came after Dublin city councillors last night voted narrowly in favour of calling for all five concerts to go ahead.

    But despite the vote, Dublin City Council manager Owen Keegan has told councillors that it is not legally possible to change the decision on the concerts.

    Did they agree with Mr Keegan's Decision... i think not!!


  • Options
    #6225
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    HardLuckWoman wrote: »
    Mr Keegan's job is on the line.

    http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/garth-brooks-fiasco-motion-calling-3872119

    Good enough for him.

    His job is not on the line, it's a speculative piece. And if there was any truth to it, our democracy is a disgrace.


  • Options
    #6226
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    Reformed Character wrote: »
    the GAA had an agreement with the residents for 3 concerts a year

    One directon had already played three concerts in May, everyone knew this, so why was this not brought up by anyone when the first GB gig was mentioned ?


  • Options
    #6227
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    The guy is like most muppets with decision making positions in the council: inept.

    That sounds like a bias to me.


  • Options
    #6228
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


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

    Because chickens were counted before they hatched.


  • Options
    #6229
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    His job is not on the line, it's a speculative piece. And if there was any truth to it, our democracy is a disgrace.

    Correct, he'll be quietly retired off with a nice big fat pension in the next year or two, Irish 'democracy' style.


  • Options
    #6230
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    conorh91 wrote: »
    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.

    I have an opinion on this and wonder what you think.

    Do you think that maybe Aiken and GAA decided to salvage something out of this, i.e. lets kick up as big a fuss about this, kick to touch, keep the pressure on (that we know is useless) in the hope that very fuss will ensure that no planner will (or will be reluctant to) will refuse anything we propose again?

    If they managed to get Keegan's head here...who would step up again I wonder.


  • Options
    #6231
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,978 ✭✭✭Daith


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    One directon had already played three concerts in May, everyone knew this, so why was this not brought up by anyone when the first GB gig was mentioned ?


    The agreement allowed Croke Park to play three events uncontested. They then were allowed to apply for more events

    So the 1D concerts were allowed
    The five Brooks concerts all had to apply for permission


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6232
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    Correct, he'll be quietly retired off with a nice big fat pension in the next year or two, Irish 'democracy' style.

    You can't see any irony whatsoever in your statement can you ?

    Aiken and Brooks have been shown up for what they are, bluffers. Brooks said in his diddily eye press conference that if he had to he'd do matinees he would. He was given that choice, he said no.

    Aiken said in the oireachtas that it's not too late to salvage the gigs if the moves were made yesterday. Did he make any moves yesterday to salvage them ? Nope, because day in, day out, he has shown to be a bull****ter.


  • Options
    #6233
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    Daith wrote: »
    The agreement allowed Croke Park to play three events uncontested. They then were allowed to apply for more events

    So the 1D concerts were allowed
    The five Brooks concerts all had to apply for permission

    Are all such concerts not subject to licience in Ireland ?


  • Options
    #6234
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I have an opinion on this and wonder what you think.

    Do you think that maybe Aiken and GAA decided to salvage something out of this, i.e. lets kick up as big a fuss about this, kick to touch, keep the pressure on (that we know is useless) in the hope that very fuss will ensure that no planner will (or will be reluctant to) will refuse anything we propose again?

    If they managed to get Keegan's head here...who would step up again I wonder.

    My theory is that they want to save face.


  • Options
    #6235
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    To protect DCC, the politicans, and their cronies

    Why do DCC need protecting? And from what? Don't be shy....please feel free to tell us.


  • Options
    #6236
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    You can't see any irony whatsoever in your statement can you ?

    That's just the way it is, surely you've been in Ireland long enough to know how it works ?


  • Options
    #6237
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,978 ✭✭✭Daith


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    Are all such concerts not subject to licience in Ireland ?

    Yes but the residents didn't object to the three concerts because they signed an agreement with Croke Park for 3 events to go ahead.

    Once CP went over three the residents could object (as could anyone tbh)


  • Options
    #6238
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,081 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Is this agreement available anywhere online?

    It keeps being referred to but there seem to be denials of its existence.
    no doesn't seem to be availible if it even exists at all, even if it did exist no doubt its set up in such a way that more then 3 concerts could happen

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #6239
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    It was July 2nd. Any pressure that was coming his way, was more than likely just telling him to get his thumb out.

    And as for buying his 'mistake' nonsense. Pull the other one.

    The guy is like most muppets with decision making positions in the council: inept.

    A quick drive around Dublin and you can see how decisions on road markings alone should have resulted in sackings. Did this fool have signs he approved get ripped down at the cost of the tax payer. I'm just surprised ac calamity like this didn't occur before with idiots like this at the helm. He reminds of this plonker.

    Moving on to personal attacks now that it's definitely all over.

    The GB fans are showing their true colours now.


  • Options
    #6240
    Bogdanistan
    Registered Users Posts: 50 ✭✭Bogdanistan


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why do DCC need protecting? And from what? Don't be shy....please feel free to tell us.

    Exposure of the truth and public sector incompetance, a novel concept in Ireland I know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6241
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Bogdanistan wrote: »
    That's just the way it is, surely you've been in Ireland long enough to know how it works ?

    You don't see the fact that what the city manager did is somewhat contradictory to your cronyism points ?

    What's cronyism is how some member of the oireachtas committee are behaving.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement