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

bumper234

Bogdanistan wrote: »

The Oreachteas commited uncovered the fact the DCC fell overthemselves to encourage the 5 from the outset, otherwise Aiken/GAA would not have proceeded, that's what caused this mess. DCC tried to backtrack by pretending two matinees fufilled this.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:D

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

Incorrect. The decision had been made - it just hadn't been announced.

Yet another poster who just makes things up without presenting any evidence.
The 4 concerts where offered 'prior' to a decision.
That was given in evidence to a dail committee and put on paper by DCC.
Yet you present no evidence to contradict that. Great!

On the evening of Wednesday 2 July 2014 prior to a decision being made on the event licence application I spoke to Jim Clarke of Aiken Promotions. I wanted to advise him as a matter of courtesy of the imminent decision on the licence application. In the course of that conversation I informed Mr Clarke that the likelihood was that only 3 concerts would be permitted. Mr Clarke rang me back later to say that Garth Brooks would not perform 3 concerts. I then offered to discuss with the decision maker in the Planning Department (Mr Keogan) the possibility of permitting a fourth concert if Mr Clarke could give me a guarantee that Garth Brooks would fulfil the 4 concerts. I gave no commitment to Mr Clarke in this regard. On the morning of Thursday 3 July and before any conversation took place with the decision maker, Mr Clarke rang me back to say that unless all 5 concerts were permitted Garth Brooks would not come to Dublin at all. I then withdrew my offer. The decision was made to grant the licence for 3 concerts.

Bogdanistan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Go on then, back this up.

Watch the Oreachteas reports, and the transcipts when available will confirm this.
The GAA have submitted a sworn affidavit to this fact.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Gets caught out on posting bull****

What "bull****"? Link please?

instead of addressing that or admitting they where wrong (like nm did) we will just mock any point we cannot stomach.

Ha, says the guy who was waffling on all week about the DCC had to wait 10 weeks by law to make decisions on licence applications. Which would of course mean, that whenever a promoter submitted an event licence application on the day of that ten week deadline, DCC wouldn't be able to grant or refuse a licence until the day of the concert.

Tell me Happyman42, can you link to the post where you 'admitted you were wrong' on that?

secman

Effects wrote: »

Just checked my bank account and I've been refunded for all the tickets I bought. My wife also rang and told me when she opened the mail this morning there was a €100 voucher from ticketmaster there. Some sort of apology for the Garth Brooks ticket fiasco. Anyone else get this?

Take it this is a troll.............. as i know ........

Dan_Solo

Bogdanistan wrote: »

Watch the Oreachteas reports, and the transcipts when available will confirm this.

Shure.
So when they come out I'll be able to CTRL-F and find "the DCC fell overthemselves to encourage the 5 from the outset" there somewhere. Ya. Right.

Bogdanistan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Shure.

:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Bogdanistan wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Likewise mate whenever I hear someone say the evidence is here somewhere oh er um did I drop it down the back of the sofa... can't you just take my word for it... scout's honour.

PatrickJoseph

This whole thing just looks more rotten with every day that goes by

Bogdanistan

bumper234 wrote: »

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO:D

That's what happens when you don't bother to inform yourself of the latest

humanji

Happyman42 and Wishiwasa Littlebitaller, give up the bickering.

bumper234

Bogdanistan wrote: »

That's what happens when you don't bother to inform yourself of the latest

Ok you have made the claim so now it's time to show the evidence!

Bogdanistan wrote: »

The Oreachteas commited uncovered the fact the DCC fell overthemselves to encourage the 5 from the outset, otherwise Aiken/GAA would not have proceeded, that's what caused this mess. DCC tried to backtrack by pretending two matinees fufilled this.

Dan_Solo

Bogdanistan wrote: »

That's what happens when you don't bother to inform yourself of the latest

Would this sentence have made an ounce of sense if completed? It sure as duck doesn't now.

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yet another poster who just makes things up without presenting any evidence.
The 4 concerts where offered 'prior' to a decision.
That was given in evidence to a dail committee and put on paper by DCC.
Yet you present no evidence to contradict that. Great!

So much for Keegan's claims about the "integrity" of the process.

conorh91

bumper234 wrote: »

If it doesn't exist though then why have Croke park never come out and denied it's existence?

I clearly said, in the post you quote, that something exists.

What is it though? Is it likely to be a restatement of the original planning permission, which the residents have misinterpreted to give them a degree of protection that they are not entitled to?

Am I the only one who finds it really weird that the residents purportedly have a document that vindicates their position, and they don't want to share it with everyone, not even journalists?

Peppa Pig

end of the road wrote: »

well whether it exists or not which i suspect it doesn't or isn't legally binding the GAA did nothing wrong by allowing more then 3 concerts, the promotors did nothing wrong either, they applied for the events licences as required to

This is why your posts carry zero credibility.
Peter McKenna says it exists, you don't.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

What "bull****"? Link please?

Where you ran away from repeated questions about your bull**** contention that DCC where sitting on their hands until it was pointed out to you that they where STILL in mitigation with Aiken on the 29th June and delivered a decision on the 3rd of July.
The Aiken who claims that at no time that they believed that there was a problem with the application. Yet we KNOW there where 3 updated Event Management Plans requested.
Did any of the TD's at Committee question why that was? NO, they just wanted to go to a C?W gig:rolleyes:

Ha, says the guy who was waffling on all week about the DCC had to wait 10 weeks by law to make decisions on licence applications. Which would of course mean, that whenever a promoter submitted an event licence application on the day of that ten week deadline, DCC wouldn't be able to grant or refuse a licence until the day of the concert.

Tell me Happyman42, can you link to the post where you 'admitted you were wrong' on that?

Excuse me? Where was I 'waffling' 'all week' about that?

You need to adjust your exaggeration meter as I told you before.

bumper234

conorh91 wrote: »

I clearly said, in the post you quote, that something exists.

What is it though? Is it likely to be a restatement of the original planning permission, which the residents have misinterpreted to give them a degree of protection that they are not entitled to?

Am I the only one who finds it really weird that the residents purportedly have a document that vindicates their position, and they don't want to share it with everyone, not even journalists?

I agre but on the other hand is it not also strange that Croke park never came out and said no such thing exists? And then at a meeting actually say that times move on when the agreement gets mentioned?

Peppa Pig

Bogdanistan wrote: »

Watch the Oreachteas reports, and the transcipts when available will confirm this.
The GAA have submitted a sworn affidavit to this fact.

I watched them all.
McKenna said he would swear an affidavit that Keegan told him he would get 5.
Keegan denies it.

No affidavit has been sworn or submitted. Your post is wrong

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

So much for Keegan's claims about the "integrity" of the process.

Yes, and he apologised for succumbing to 'pressure'.

Now, don't you think it would fit our government (and it's committees) to find out WHO was applying pressure on a planning official prior to a planning decision being made, rather than crying into their cups about a gig a C/W singer had patently refused to fulfill his contract to play?

Bogdanistan

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I watched them all.
McKenna said he would swear an affidavit that Keegan told him he would get 5.
Keegan denies it.

No affidavit has been sworn or submitted. Your post is wrong

Have you proof it has not been submitted yet as you claim ?
Duffy has sworn to this and committed to it.
Funny how Keegan didn't commit to submitting a sworn affidavit.
So one of them is lieing through their teeth and that's what this all boils down to.

conorh91

bumper234 wrote: »

I agre but on the other hand is it not also strange that Croke park never came out and said no such thing exists?

No because they're not denying something exists. They seem to dispute its effect, i.e. they don't think it is binding on them.

If the residents deny this, and if they are correct to deny this, why not release the document?

bumper234

conorh91 wrote: »

No because they're not denying something exists. They seem to dispute its effect, i.e. they don't think it is binding on them.

If the residents deny this, and if they are correct to deny this, why not release the document?

Yeah

His quote was

"Times move on"

Not that it's not binding, they are just choosing to ignore it from now on.

Daith

conorh91 wrote: »

No because they're not denying something exists. They seem to dispute its effect, i.e. they don't think it is binding on them.

If the residents deny this, and if they are correct to deny this, why not release the document?

The agreement between Croke Park and the residents doesn't really matter.

Under the actual planning legislation of Ireland, Croke Park can hold three non-sporting events and can apply for more events under a public event licence.

Reformed Character

Bogdanistan wrote: »

Watch the Oreachteas reports, and the transcipts when available will confirm this.
The GAA have submitted a sworn affidavit to this fact.

No, A GAA official claimed he was willing to sign an affidavit, not the same thing.
I have no doubt that Mr Keegan is telling the truth, if that were not the case the GAA and Aiken would have sought injunctive relief and a Judicial Review weeks ago.
unfortunately, we know from Mr Duffy of the GAA previous actions that honesty, integrity, and his word would not be his strong points.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

So much for Keegan's claims about the "integrity" of the process.

So you want Keegan to consult with Aiken prior to making any decision (which aren't his in person to make anyway) but when it's shown he has done this you question his integrity?
Guy can't catch a break...

Bogdanistan

Reformed Character wrote: »

No, A GAA official claimed he was willing to sign an affidavit, not the same thing.
I have no doubt that Mr Keegan is telling the truth, if that were not the case the GAA and Aiken would have sought injunctive relief and a Judicial Review weeks ago.
unfortunately, we know from Mr Duffy of the GAA previous actions that honesty, integrity, and his word would not be his strong points.

Keegan is claiming Pauric Duffy, the Director general of the GAA, is a liar, yet Keegan has not undertaken to submit any affidavit. One thing is for certain, one of them is outright liar, that's the cause of this whole mess.

bumper234

Bogdanistan wrote: »

So you're claiming Duffy is a liar, yet Keegan has not undertaken to submit any affidavit.
One of them is outright liar, that's the cause of this whole mess.

And if Keegan goes into the meeting tomorrow and says he will swear an Affidavit? I think Keegan is hoping Duffy does do this because i think he has proof somewhere that Duffy is lying.

Daith

Bogdanistan wrote: »

Keegan is claining Duffy, the Director general of the GAA, is a liar, yet Keegan has not undertaken to submit any affidavit. One of them is outright liar, that's the cause of this whole mess.

The cause of the mess is the refusal by the promoters, Brooks and Croke Park to accept a planning permission judgment.

dinorebel

I think this thread will end up here.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576