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

secman

Have you seen these vouchers ?

Happyman42

currins_02 wrote: »

It just may be to some extent that all sides are lying to some degree - perish the thought!

For my money Keegan has already admitted to a bit of a "fib" by vociferously saying he had had no contact either formal or informal with Aiken/GAA re GB event prior to the licence application submission. His statement last night, following the accusations by the GAA/Aiken side, confirmed he personally had had informal conversations about the event (regardless of the content) as far back as February. That point alone could back to haunt him.

Where did he vociferously say he had had No Contact? link or source for that?

As for the posts about the updated event plans. For me that's a non story, I've been involved with transport on many large events for years (both punters & crew/artiste's). The traffic plan alone can be changed numerous times. For instance for 1D there was at least 3 previous variations on the final arrangements for punters coaches. The final one was only announced about 10 days before the event. That kind of thing and level of engagement would be fairly normal. While there can be a basic template the different demographics in different events force a situation where each plan must be somewhat unique. For instance, I doubt Mountjoy Square would have had to be used for a parent/child meet & greet for GB, although Garth did say that 75% of tickets were sold to under 25's!! (I should say 90% of the many people I have met with tickets were well over 25!)

The committee meeting will be interesting tomorrow and I believe there is a desire, whether right or wrong, for Keegan's head.

Where's John Downey hiding anyway?

And that is fair enough. I accept that, but the licence cannot be decided on until all that is in place.
And their submission proves that there was consultation going on at some level...but of course our disappointed TD's didn't see fit to probe or ask why these EMP's were needed.

ThisRegard

Muise... wrote: »

riddens

ahem, nothing to do with your mask.

muddypaws

Muise... wrote: »

For all intensive porpoises my mask slipped ages ago, so yeah, me too on the riddens, riding into the sunset irregardless. Hi ho.

For years I thought the Jeff Beck song was called Hi Ho Silver Dolphin :rolleyes:

secman

Muise... wrote: »

For all intensive porpoises my mask slipped ages ago, so yeah, me too on the riddens, riding into the sunset irregardless. Hi ho.

Jeez this is becoming mad all together...... dolphins. riding.........sun glasses........ the seven dwarfs...... hi ho........

Peppa Pig

I think Mr Rockford has got his second red card

muddypaws

secman wrote: »

Jeez this is becoming mad all together...... dolphins. riding.........sun glasses........ the seven dwarfs...... hi ho........

Don't forget the phoenix, people always forget the phoenix

Muise...

muddypaws wrote: »

Don't forget the phoenix, people always forget the phoenix

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!

No, wait...

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

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?

The "pressure" was realising the enormity of disaster being brought about by his bungling, not any lobbying. If you are prepared to look at it forensically, you will see that this incident alone undermines his entire argument.

Keegan knew back in February that 5 in a row was a "big ask" and he also knew that the impact on and attitude of residents was the key factor. As City Manager with responsibilities to the overall economic well-being of the city, he had both a duty and opportunity to get involved at a time when something might have been done. His defence for not doing so was that he could not be seen to "prejudice" the process.

Yet, when the decision to licence only three had been effectively taken, he was prepared to not only advise the promoter but to intervene at that stage in the decision making process. The actions in my view of a man in panic and an action that totally contradicts his earlier position.

As a piece of administrative bungling devoid of vision and leadership, you would be hard pressed to find better (or worse). The brighter members of the Dáil committee sussed this and it was their questions on these lines that had him squirming. I missed the GAA testimony yesterday but it hardly matters. Keegan's own testimony is more than enough to damn him.

reprazant

The brighter members of the Dáil committee? Bloody hell!

Keegan got involved when a massive sh*tstorm blew up over this. the GAA and the promotor had more than enough time to engage with the residents before applying for the license. The admitted that they didn't do anything even though they knew that there was issues. Yet when Keegan tried to something, he is in the wrong. I guess he should have just followed the promoter & GAA and, instead of trying to find an amicable solution, did nothing at all though I am sure you'd find fault with that also.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

The "pressure" was realising the enormity of disaster being brought about by his bungling, not any lobbying. .

Enormity of disaster?

It's a concert getting cancelled.

In the grand scheme of things it is neither enormous nor disastrous. It pretty much defines first world problem.

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

The "pressure" was realising the enormity of disaster being brought about by his bungling, not any lobbying. If you are prepared to look at it forensically, you will see that this incident alone undermines his entire argument.

Keegan knew back in February that 5 in a row was a "big ask" and he also knew that the impact on and attitude of residents was the key factor. As City Manager with responsibilities to the overall economic well-being of the city, he had both a duty and opportunity to get involved at a time when something might have been done. His defence for not doing so was that he could not be seen to "prejudice" the process.

Yet, when the decision to licence only three had been effectively taken, he was prepared to not only advise the promoter but to intervene at that stage in the decision making process. The actions in my view of a man in panic and an action that totally contradicts his earlier position.

As a piece of administrative bungling devoid of vision and leadership, you would be hard pressed to find better (or worse). The brighter members of the Dáil committee sussed this and it was their questions on these lines that had him squirming. I missed the GAA testimony yesterday but it hardly matters. Keegan's own testimony is more than enough to damn him.

Whoa yer horses there a minute.

DCC and Keegan have said that they DID say that they had problems with 5 nights. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that any planning I have gone through (in a different juristiction) for music festivals, music events and a house and business premises, that that is exactly how it worked, each and every time...plan presented, consultation, plan adapted, plan accepted.

Now, we still don't know and we need to know who is telling the truth here. And until then there is always the possibility that 5 or none was the attitude all the way through the process.


And also, you are assuming that Keegan was under pressure from public outcry before that outcry began...as it didn't really start until the licence was denied, most GB fans on here where insisting on their beliefs that there would be no problem. So I don't buy it that the pressure was coming from the public.

currins_02

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where did he vociferously say he had had No Contact? link or source for that?

During the committee meeting (if we get a transcript or clip) he was asked had he any advance contact and he said he had no formal or informal contact in advance of the application at which point it became a statutory process - or words to that effect.

I have never said the licence should be granted in advance or the process circumvented. The point I was making was that the process in all events is fluid with input from many bodies, i.e. local authority, H&S, Gardai, Fire, Security, Transport etc and as things develop they are tweaked. That needs to continue for all events.

I do accept that a full level of engagement through the licence process COULD have been interpeted by the Aiken/GAA/Brooks side in a posiitve light. Aiken went into detail yesterday about queries raised, meetings had (in Croke Park Hotel) and submissions adjusted around the de rig process as DCC (I think through the phantom like John Downey character) had concerns around the de rig process being completed between the Wedneday and the following weekend in time for games with minimal disruption to residents. I suspect they wouldn't have wanted another U2 de rig work all night situation and simialr protests.

I think the problem is we need a 2 tier process, those issues are fundamentals of event management but the licence, in my mind, could be a more general process pending proper plans (not unlike what some have said the licence process for 1D etc was). The late issue of licence is nothing new, according to one radio announcer in the last week the licence for Kings of Leon in Marley Park was only granted less than 48hours before kick off, allegedly, according to the same announcer, Oxigen Licence on one year was granted by Kildare Co Co less than 24 hours before event start! I haven't checked either out but it was reported on national radio.

Red Nissan

No one cares bout anything anymore, all the arguments have gone around ten, tewnty, thirty times already in five threads.

The race now is to be the last poster in this extremely historic thread.

bumper234

Red Nissan wrote: »

No one cares bout anything anymore, all the arguments have gone around ten, tewnty, thirty times already in five threads.

The race now is to be the last poster in this extremely historic thread.

No you

conorh91

First Up wrote: »

Yet, when the decision to licence only three had been effectively taken, he was prepared to not only advise the promoter but to intervene at that stage in the decision making process. The actions in my view of a man in panic and an action that totally contradicts his earlier position.

This is such a clear distillation of the problem with Keegan.

And it's not just his willingness to intervene and contradict himself, it's the material substance of his interventions that lead rational people to believe that he began to act in a state of panic.

The fact that the authority, presumably acting on Keegan's agency, were hospitable to this absolutely wacky matinee proposal involving 160,000 people going through this (apparently, residential) area per day makes me, as a Dublin person, very concerned about the judgement of this man.

The fact that he or his agents appeared willing to offer a fourth night, whilst arbitrarily claiming that five would be somehow a bridge too far seems to re-affirm the proposition that the man suffers from seriously inconsistent, weak judgement.

Happyman42

currins_02 wrote: »

During the committee meeting (if we get a transcript or clip) he was asked had he any advance contact and he said he had no formal or informal contact in advance of the application at which point it became a statutory process - or words to that effect.

Far as I recall he said no 'formal' contact.
He has agreed that 1 phone call at least was had before the application was submitted. So there was informal contact.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Does anyone know how ticketmaster refunds work.

Would you get an email to say the refund has been processed? Then just wait for it to get into your account.

Got an email to on Monday or Tuesday to say refunds are on Thursday. But still no email to say the refund has been processed here. Thought that would be a normal enough thing to do with refunds?

Happyman42

conorh91 wrote: »

This is such a clear distillation of the problem with Keegan.

And it's not just his willingness to intervene and contradict himself, it's the material substance of his interventions that lead rational people to believe that he began to act in a state of panic.

The fact that the authority, presumably acting on Keegan's agency, were hospitable to this absolutely wacky matinee proposal involving 160,000 people going through this (apparently, residential) area per day makes me, as a Dublin person, very concerned about the judgement of this man.

The fact that he or his agents appeared willing to offer a fourth night, whilst arbitrarily claiming that five would be somehow a bridge too far seems to re-affirm the proposition that the man suffers from seriously inconsistent, weak judgement.

Well to give him his due...he didn't succumb to the pressure.
I would like to know more about who was applying it and in what way before I judge him.
I think it is a red letter day, no longer can a citizen go to a clinic and use a politician to get a planning decision overturned, it has to be done through the proper transparent channels.

dandyo

Red Nissan wrote: »

No one cares bout anything anymore, all the arguments have gone around ten, tewnty, thirty times already in five threads.

The race now is to be the last poster in this extremely historic thread.

You hang up...

Effects

Bogdanistan wrote: »

Hmmm, how much are the vouchers for, sounds like a voucher in order to not hold someone liable. Some one must be very legally worried to be giving away 400,000 large vouchers

All for €100. Just in case there was any changes I've already spent mine on a ticket for Longitude this weekend.

Happyman42

I'm off for the evening, I have a gig to set up, funnily enough. Beer and music and a licence! Heaven!

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whoa yer horses there a minute.

DCC and Keegan have said that they DID say that they had problems with 5 nights. I don't know if that is true or not, but I know that any planning I have gone through (in a different juristiction) for music festivals, music events and a house and business premises, that that is exactly how it worked, each and every time...plan presented, consultation, plan adapted, plan accepted.

Now, we still don't know and we need to know who is telling the truth here. And until then there is always the possibility that 5 or none was the attitude all the way through the process.


And also, you are assuming that Keegan was under pressure from public outcry before that outcry began...as it didn't really start until the licence was denied, most GB fans on here where insisting on their beliefs that there would be no problem. So I don't buy it that the pressure was coming from the public.

That is exactly the problem. Knowing that five was a "big ask" (Keegan's words) and knowing the problem was the residents, it was screaming out for DCC to broker a deal in the wider interests of the whole city. If Keegan was up to the job of being City Manager (instead of being a pen pusher who likes painting bicycles lanes) he would have stepped in. But of course "he did nothing wrong"

Jaysus.

And I repeat, I have no interest whatever in listening to or watching Garth Brooks.

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

The fact that he or his agents appeared willing to offer a fourth night, whilst arbitrarily claiming that five would be somehow a bridge too far seems to re-affirm the proposition that the man suffers from seriously inconsistent, weak judgement.

This isn't a fact so it's a hill of beans the rest. They offered to put a fourth night through the correctly conducted procedure. Again, for the now billionth time this wasn't a guarantee of anything and was in fact doing Aiken/GB a favour.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

That is exactly the problem. Knowing that five was a "big ask" (Keegan's words) and knowing the problem was the residents, it was screaming out for DCC to broker a deal in the wider interests of the whole city. If Keegan was up to the job of being City Manager (instead of being a pen pusher who likes painting bicycles lanes) he would have stepped in. But of course "he did nothing wrong"

Jaysus.

And I repeat, I have no interest whatever in listening to or watching Garth Brooks.

Ah, so he should have trampled on local residents' rights because of the cash dollar bottom line?
What was that about conflict of interest then?

conorh91

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well to give him his due...he didn't succumb to the pressure.

But he did succumb to pressure in terms of intervening later with the "fourth night" and matinee nonsense.

The point that is being made though, is that by then it was too late. Keegan clearly recognized a problem existed and started to go all over the place. What he should have been doing was resolving the issue before it took legs as First Up said.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This isn't a fact so it's a hill of beans the rest. They offered to put a fourth night through the correctly conducted procedure. Again, for the now billionth time this wasn't a guarantee of anything and was in fact doing Aiken/GB a favour.

How can you manage to contradict yourself in such a brief, three-sentance post?

At first you say it isn't a fact so lets ignore it.
Then you say "in fact" it was a favour.

Keegan himself said he was willing to "allow" a fourth night.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

And I repeat, I have no interest whatever in listening to or watching Garth Brooks.

Neither do I.

However, you're arguing in favour of decisions that would force me to listen to him rather a lot.

I'm really not that grateful. I'd tolerate three nights over the weekend on the premise that a) I can skip the place Fri and Sat nights and b) Sunday had an earlier curfew per its licence.

Five nights on the other hand, of which I cannot justifiably escape three, that's really a lot. It's very generous of you again, but like I said, I'm not grateful.

I also am concluding that the next time the guy comes and plays, concert goers should be limited to one ticket. I'm really starting to think that if people got to go to one and one only GB concert, he'd have only needed 3 nights anyway.

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

How can you manage to contradict yourself in such a brief, three-sentance post?

At first you say it isn't a fact so lets ignore it.
Then you say "in fact" it was a favour.

Keegan himself said he was willing to "allow" a fourth night.

Because you cannot comprehend those three simple sentences? It was a favour to offer to explore the possibility of a 4th night. This does not make it a fact that a 4th night was approved.

conorh91

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Because you cannot comprehend those three simple sentences? It was a favour to offer to explore the possibility of a 4th night. This does not make it a fact that a 4th night was approved.

Keegan said he was willing to "allow" a fourth night, not that he was merely willing to "consider" a fourth night.

That's one sentence. One word matters. "Allow". What's the problem with understanding that?

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

Keegan said he was willing to "allow" a fourth night, not that he was merely willing to "consider" a fourth night.

That's one sentence. One word matters. "Allow". What's the problem with understanding that?

He personally? He makes all DCC decisions in person? No wonder people here are demanding instant off the cuff decisions on license applications...