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

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

Exactly what Keegan should have been trying to establish.

Which would mean Keegan doing Aiken's job.
What was all that whining about conflict of interest again?

First Up

Phoebas wrote: »

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

One in which all the tickets could be used.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

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.

But your idea of a deal is entirely one sided?

First Up

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which would mean Keegan doing Aiken's job.
What was all that whining about conflict of interest again?

OK - thick then.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

One in which all the tickets could be used.

It's called the day time but oh no the Brooks fans would miss out on the light show!

First Up

Daith wrote: »

But your idea of a deal is entirely one sided?

For the sweet love of Jesus, how can a deal agreed to by all be one sided?

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

Or put another way "give 400,000 people what they paid for

They paid Aiken for an unlicensed concert. So, again, if I sell a million tickets to an open air sex show in Dame street, should DCC "give people what they want" when DCC tell me to get knotted on the license?

Daith

First Up wrote: »

For the sweet love of Jesus, how can a deal agreed to by all be one sided?

Yes that's it....but you're not suggesting a deal agreed by all.

You're suggesting the residents get paid off.

Why should the residents get paid off but Brooks can't play his music in the day time?

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

For the sweet love of Jesus, how can a deal agreed to by all be one sided?

Ok

And if the residents said no way to 5 in a row and stick your money up ur hole i want my kids to get a nights sleep? Why should they have to compromise and not Aiken/Brooks?

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

OK - thick then.

Aiken is thick? Brooks is thick? Come on man, spit it out already.

Peppa Pig

Dan_Solo wrote: »

They paid Aiken for an unlicensed concert. So, again, if I sell a million tickets to an open air sex show in Dame street, should DCC "give people what they want" when DCC tell me to get knotted on the license?

Going by the Oireachtas committee, yes they should.

Providing it was Garth Brooks performing.

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

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

NOT HIS JOB, OUTSIDE HIS LEGAL REMIT
Capiche?

Phoebas

First Up wrote: »

One in which all the tickets could be used.

No. He rejected two such potential ideas. One where two of the shows would be matinees and one where two of the shows would be rescheduled.

Brooks didn't put forward any compromise deal.

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

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?

You start by trying.

Calina

There's a lot of yelling going on in here now.

I think ultimately, you know, it's still just a concert and it still doesn't matter.

First Up

Calina wrote: »

There's a lot of yelling going on in here now.

I think ultimately, you know, it's still just a concert and it still doesn't matter.

The lost business matters to a lot of people.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

The lost business matters to a lot of people.

Still no excuse for the block caps.

First Up

Phoebas wrote: »

No. He rejected two such potential ideas. One where two of the shows would be matinees and one where two of the shows would be rescheduled.

Brooks didn't put forward any compromise deal.

The matinee idea was a complete joke. 80,000 in and out, while the next 80,000 queue outside? I can see good reasons (commitments, logistics) why re-scheduling was not acceptable. You can blame Brooks for that if you like but it should never have been allowed descend to that and the great majority of the blame (in my view) is with the people who all along had the power to say yes or no - Keegan and DCC.

Smidge

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Going by the Oireachtas committee, yes they should.

Providing it was Garth Brooks performing.

That's an unfortunate image

Reformed Character

First Up wrote: »

The matinee idea was a complete joke. 80,000 in and out, while the next 80,000 queue outside? I can see good reasons (commitments, logistics) why re-scheduling was not acceptable. You can blame Brooks for that if you like but it should never have been allotted descend to that and the great majority of the blame (in my view) is with the people who all along had the power to say yes or no - Keegan and DCC.

For following the law!:rolleyes:
Maybe you, Aiken, and GAA could just stage a coup and suspend the rule of law and the Constitution, after all, suspending the rule of law and the rights of the individual, is what you are persistently demanding!

Daith

First Up wrote: »

The matinee idea was a complete joke. 80,000 in and out, while the next 80,000 queue outside? I can see good reasons (commitments, logistics) why re-scheduling was not acceptable.

No no. The reason by Brooks was that his light show would be affected.

Funny how you see the logistics argument here though.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

and the great majority of the blame (in my view) is with the people who all along had the power to say yes or no - Keegan and DCC.

That's nice.
Now, any chance you'd tell us why when it was Brooks that actually cancelled the whole shebang?

Sideshow Mark

First Up wrote: »

You start by trying.

There was no end of trying on this:-

DCC said yes to 3. Unacceptable to Brooks & Aiken
Aiken offered 2 Matinée shows. Never put forward to DCC, unacceptable to Brooks
DCC said they'd look again at a fourth night. Unacceptable to Brooks.
Three shows now, three shows later in the year, unacceptable to Brooks.

There's a common denominator as to why these solutions failed, can you spot it?

muddypaws

First Up wrote: »

The lost business matters to a lot of people.

And the businesses down the country, who had been worried about that weekend and the hits they were going to take with a large exodus of the local population are relieved and looking forward to a busy summer weekend.

Phoebas

First Up wrote: »

The matinee idea was a complete joke.

That idea came from Aiken.
Anyway, its a bit late to discuss the relative merits of the particular compromise proposals. The point remains that Brooks himself didn't put forward any compromise proposal and indeed seemed to shut off any possibility of any compromise when he framed the whole thing as being like choosing between his children.

Dan_Solo

Daith wrote: »

No no. The reason by Brooks was that his light show would be affected.

Hang on, are we still talking about Jean Michel Jarre?

Dan_Solo

muddypaws wrote: »

And the businesses down the country, who had been worried about that weekend and the hits they were going to take with a large exodus of the local population are relieved and looking forward to a busy summer weekend.

You'd think all 400,000 were going to put their Brooks ticket fund straight into overseas investments or something the way people are flopping this "lost revenue for Ireland" nonsense.
And who cares anyway. The money pubs and hotels make is irrelevant to local residents' grievances.

First Up

Calina wrote: »

Still no excuse for the block caps.

Given the comprehension level of some people, I'm sorry it wasn't bigger.

Ace2007

First Up wrote: »

You start by trying.

DCC offered numerous alternatives and brooks kept saying 5 in a row or none.

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

Given the comprehension level of some people, I'm sorry it wasn't bigger.

So you think if you shout BS it's a better argument than if you just say BS?
Explains quite a bit...