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

Mrs Garth Brooks

Calina wrote: »

Any deal that involved the concerts not going ahead on consecutive nights but split in some respect appears to have been unacceptable to Brooks.

Splitting the concerts should have been done from the start. Not two weeks before. How can you expect GB to give up his time while his touring and booked out. ...Matinees are also half assed and no way would Dublin cope with it.

And you're saying GB is being unreasonable.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

Not you then, but how about a large majority, with the forgeries and hidden agendas exposed? Or do you have a veto?

YOu mean the 8 or what forgeries that have been proven so far? The, ya know, 2% of objections lodged?

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

Not you then, but how about a large majority, with the forgeries and hidden agendas exposed? Or do you have a veto?

11 out almost 400 are alleged to be forged,
Seems like an overwhelming majority of resident objections were wholly legitimate and indeed to be expected after Duffy met the residents in February and they made known their anger at his attitude to the existing agreement and that they would go to court if need be, hence the first GB thread on Boards which started on February 2nd and asked what posters felt about the residents threat to seek an injunction.
So it is obvious from the facts that the residents made their objections known at an early stage, that the GAA were aware of them, that Aiken was aware of them, and that the resident made it clear that they would not accept 5 in a row.

conorh91

Calina wrote: »

Any deal that involved the concerts not going ahead on consecutive nights but split in some respect appears to have been unacceptable to Brooks.

Was it acceptable to the majority of the residents?

I'd be shocked if the residents were in favour of 160,000 people stomping up and down their (apparently residential) streets with earlier (all day long?) soundchecks and traffic restrictions.

I'd also be surprised if the majority of residents were in agreement with a total of 8 concerts split over the year, however that split was made. Even if so, you'd almost be guaranteed a limited few who would seek legal action. So this isn't all about the event planners.

Reformed Character

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

And you're saying GB is being unreasonable.

That is now the commonly held view of almost every commentator.
Indeed unreasonable is way too mild in my opinion.

Calina

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Splitting the concerts should have been done from the start. Not two weeks before. How can you expect GB to give up his time while his touring and booked out. ...Matinees are also half assed and no way would Dublin cope with it.

And you're saying GB is being unreasonable.

Yes. I've been through something similar with Jean-Michel Jarre in London. He didn't throw ultimata of my way or no way around the place the way this happened. The splitting of the concerts is nothing something that DCC should have to tell Aiken et al to do from the start. They should have known themselves.

currins_02

Daith wrote: »

Why would Aiken propose a matinee idea when Brooks was opposed to it?

I have reason to believe (and cannot point to a link but it sounds plausible to me and I have no reason to doubt how I heard it) that what was initially suggested was Matinee's on Monday & Tuesday thereby being a different concept to the "night" concerts. What I heard was doors at 4pm and over by 8pm, thereby having the whole traffic etc issues moved away from peak weekday traffic etc. Somewhere between concept and publication that became Matinee's on the Saturday & Sunday. I would suggest based on his press conference Brooks may have agreed to early shows on the Monday & Tuesday - he said he would consider Matinee's once it wasn't to detriment of that or the other shows and his performance or words to that effect. But it was madness to ask anyone to perform his style of show twice a day over 2 days let alone the practical considerations. What I found crazier about the aspect of the saga is the DCC (and no one can doubt this element) jumped the gun to win PR points and released a statement saying they would consider the option before Aiken or his reps had had the chance to speak to Brooks or his people. That heightened the furore even more and I reckon it was a move by someone in DCC to score some PR points. Most media outlets innitially released it as "deal done" only to find out Brooks hadn't even been asked (as was all witnessed by the Indo reporter who was at the press conference).

currins_02

Dan_Solo wrote: »

TBH, who gives two fliuchs what the Oireachtas says about anything? It's always been a lame whinging shop, not just on this case.

Some might say not much different to here so!

First Up

Reformed Character wrote: »

11 out almost 400 are alleged to be forged,
Seems like an overwhelming majority of resident objections were wholly legitimate and indeed to be expected after Duffy met the residents in February and they made known their anger at his attitude to the existing agreement and that they would go to court if need be, hence the first GB thread on Boards which started on February 2nd and asked what posters felt about the residents threat to seek an injunction.
So it is obvious from the facts that the residents made their objections known at an early stage, that the GAA were aware of them, that Aiken was aware of them, and that the resident made it clear that they would not accept 5 in a row.

And my point is that in the face of that situation, and given the potential business that would accrue across the city, Keegan needed to treat this as more than a planning application to be handled in a routine way.

nxbyveromdwjpg

It's 11 that were contactable and were contacted and said they in fact did not object, so 3% contacted and false already.

There are many more uncontactable for which no one knows either way, hence "up to 40%" was suspected. It's probably 40% of the objections have contact details which are invalid.

Source: Oireachtas

In any case 375 is a very small percent of the residents there. I'm sure all the neutral and pro-concert residents don't want to be tarnished with that brush.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

And my point is that in the face of that situation, and given the potential business that would accrue across the city, Keegan needed to treat this as more than a planning application to be handled in a routine way.

So Garthy should have been treated special? No wonder he has such an inflated ego.

Tarzana

Can't believe this thread is still going.

Seriously, people, some perspective?

bumper234

nm wrote: »

It's 11 that were contactable and were contacted and said they in fact did not object, so 3% contacted and false already.

There are many more uncontactable for which no one knows either way, hence "up to 40%" was suspected. It's probably 40% of the objections have contact details which are invalid.

Source: Oireachtas

In any case 375 is a very small percent of the residents there. I'm sure all the neutral and pro-concert residents don't want to be tarnished with that brush.

Sigh


Have you seen the objections? Do you realise that 375 objections does not equate to 375 residents as many have multiple signatures on?

First Up

nm wrote: »

It's 11 that were contactable and were contacted and said they in fact did not object, so 3% contacted and false already.

There are many more uncontactable for which no one knows either way, hence "up to 40%" was suspected. It's probably 40% of the objections have contact details which are invalid.

Source: Oireachtas

In any case 375 is a very small percent of the residents there. I'm sure all the neutral and pro-concert residents don't want to be tarnished with that brush.

There is also a view (and so far only a view, although from a reasonable well placed source) that at least some of the objections are linked to the handball alley dispute in which the residents and Croke Park are also embroiled.

Given the magnitude of the issue, the superficial way DCC processed the objections is a valid criticism and one that was well made at the hearing the other day - to the annoyance of some here it seems.

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

And my point is that in the face of that situation, and given the potential business that would accrue across the city, Keegan needed to treat this as more than a planning application to be handled in a routine way.

So you wanted him to break the law?
DCC is statutorily obliged to follow a process, failure to follow that process would have been a breach of their statutory obligations and without a shadow of a doubt would have led to a an injunction.
Either the law means something or the law means nothing, DCC followed it as per their obligation to do so, because they had no other legal choice.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

It's 11 that were contactable and were contacted and said they in fact did not object, so 3% contacted and false already.

There are many more uncontactable for which no one knows either way, hence "up to 40%" was suspected. It's probably 40% of the objections have contact details which are invalid.

Source: Oireachtas

In any case 375 is a very small percent of the residents there. I'm sure all the neutral and pro-concert residents don't want to be tarnished with that brush.

How many pro-GB residents have registered their support and paid up like objectors have to?
PS: "It's probably" "it might" "up to" etc all mean the same thing: fcuk all.

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

So Garthy should have been treated special? No wonder he has such an inflated ego.

How long can the same party line be spat out? It's not about Garth Brooks in particular, it could be any artist, it's the fact that rightly or wrongly 400,000 tickets were sold, 70,000 overseas tourists were coming, 60,000 from the North were coming, hotels were booked, buses, flights, restaurants, etc etc.

This should have been taken on board and if the process needs to chance (it does) then it should have been done on the other side of it.

First Up

Reformed Character wrote: »

So you wanted him to break the law?
DCC is statutorily obliged to follow a process, failure to follow that process would have been a breach of their statutory obligations and without a shadow of a doubt would have led to a an injunction.
Either the law means something or the law means nothing, DCC followed it as per their obligation to do so, because they had no other legal choice.

For the umptey-eight time, I wanted him to BROKER A DEAL

nxbyveromdwjpg

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How many pro-GB residents have registered their support and paid up like objectors have to?
PS: "It's probably" "it might" "up to" etc all mean the same thing: fcuk all.

I must register my support for Electric Picnic, ensure it goes ahead. See how ridiculous that sounds? Probably not as you're a special case but to most people that's not how things work.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

And my point is that in the face of that situation, and given the potential business that would accrue across the city

This money that pubs and hotels etc would've made across Dublin: connection to residents near Croke Park who would have been inconvenienced by 5 nights of concerts please.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

For the umptey-eight time, I wanted him to BROKER A DEAL

SUCH AS??

First Up

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This money that pubs and hotels etc would've made across Dublin: connection to residents near Croke Park who would have been inconvenienced by 5 nights of concerts please.

For which they could have been compensated. That's what a deal means.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

For the umptey-eight time, I wanted him to BROKER A DEAL. Why is that so hard to understand?

And for the umptry-eight millionth time he did broker a deal: 3 nights.
Still haven't found a Brooks fan here with any other "compromise" than "give lovely Garth as many nights as he wants and a kiss on the backside for good measure".

bumper234

nm wrote: »

How long can the same party line be spat out? It's not about Garth Brooks in particular, it could be any artist, it's the fact that rightly or wrongly 400,000 tickets were sold, 70,000 overseas tourists were coming, 60,000 from the North were coming, hotels were booked, buses, flights, restaurants, etc etc.

This should have been taken on board and if the process needs to chance (it does) then it should have been done on the other side of it.

So all five should have gone ahead (despite legitimate objections) and then the planning process should have been rewritten?

First Up

Daith wrote: »

SUCH AS??

Exactly what Keegan should have been trying to establish.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

For the umptey-eight time, I wanted him to BROKER A DEAL

Yet you can't even tell.us what this deal.should be or how it would have come about other than it should have been made!

Brooks insisted all.5 concerts in a row or nothing!

Residents insist no way 5 in a row and jot budging!

How do you now get a deal.that accomodates both sides?

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

For which they could have been compensated. That's what a deal means.

So. Were they offered compensation? Let me guess Keegan should have been taken out and shot for not thinking of this and offering it to residents on behalf of Aiken. Makes sense now why DCC would offer to promote gigs, most people seem to want them to do all the running on this private concert.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

Exactly what Keegan should have been trying to establish.

It's not his job to broker bloody deals, especially as one side would not compromise.

You expect the residents to compromise and take money but not Brooks.

Phoebas

First Up wrote: »

Read this slowly....
A deal acceptable to all means a deal that enabled all tickets to be used, with the blessing of the residents. I don't know what such a deal would have looked like and I don't know if such a deal was possible. But it could and should have been tried.

What deal did Garth Brooks put forward that would have been acceptable to him?

First Up

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And for the umptry-eight millionth time he did broker a deal: 3 nights.
Still haven't found a Brooks fan here with any other "compromise" than "give lovely Garth as many nights as he wants and a kiss on the backside for good measure".

Or put another way "give 400,000 people what they paid for and for which a large number would have come to Dublin and spent money in the margin of, while compensating the inconvenienced residents in a manner that they find acceptable."

After numerous posts in which you show that you fail to grasp what a deal means, I have to include that you are either incurably thick, or are just trying to look stupid.