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

Flem31

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

Perfect song to end this thread

The Dance by Garth Brooks

Or possibly "I fought the law and the law won" by the Clash

Too soon ?

Dan_Solo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4

Ace2007

conorh91 wrote: »

At that stage, holding a mediation-style meeting would be a sensible approach.

hmmm, there were loads of meeting.

The GAA even requested Kieran Mulvey to explore the possibility of an agreement with the Residents - But being the GAA, they didn't tell the residents that's why he was brought in.

conorh91

Ace2007 wrote: »

hmmm, there were loads of meeting.

The GAA even requested Kieran Mulvey to explore the possibility of an agreement with the Residents - But being the GAA, they didn't tell the residents that's why he was brought in.

I'm talking about a mediation style public meeting where residents groups would be represented with other stakeholders where the meeting is chaired by DCC

There was a considerable amount at issue here in respect of the night-time and local economy, and it was in DCC's interests to seek an equitable solution.

All DCC came up with was a solution that everyone seems to have opposed.

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm talking about a mediation style public meeting where residents groups would be represented with other stakeholders where the meeting is chaired by DCC

There was a considerable amount at issue here in respect of the night-time and local economy, and it was in DCC's interests to seek an equitable solution.

All DCC came up with was a solution that everyone seems to have opposed.

And you think putting Aiken, DCC, publican, hotel and residents' representatives into one big room would've come up with something?
Deluded.
And Brooks would've just cried some ****e about his dead mammy anyway and said no.

Ace2007

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm talking about a mediation style public meeting where residents groups would be represented with other stakeholders where the meeting is chaired by DCC

There was a considerable amount at issue here in respect of the night-time and local economy, and it was in DCC's interests to seek an equitable solution.

All DCC came up with was a solution that everyone seems to have opposed.

The Residents said from day 1 they would take legal action if the licences were granted.

The GAA said they would have 3 concerts in 2015 and 2016 and that was non-negotiable.

Books said it was 5 nights in a row or none.

So tell me where the flexibility was with the GAA and Brooks?

The issue about the residents and the GAA has been going on for years - it was going to explore one day.

conorh91

Ace2007 wrote: »

The Residents said from day 1 they would take legal action if the licences were granted.

The GAA said they would have 3 concerts in 2015 and 2016 and that was non-negotiable.

Books said it was 5 nights in a row or none.

So tell me where the flexibility was with the GAA and Brooks?

This attitude is exactly the problem.

Have people never heard of mediation? That thing that happens when parties to a dispute coming on before the courts, sit down together with a mediator and a solution is arrived at? It happens all the time.

At this stage people here are arguing for the sake of argument.

Is anyone seriously telling me they oppose mediation?

Is anybody seriously telling me level of flexibility that DCC actually employed, like agreeing in principle to matinee concerts, was a good idea?

DCC screwed up badly here, both from the point of view of the residents and from the point of view of Aiken and Brooks and fans, and local businesses.

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

Have people never heard of mediation?

Why should residents need to argue every few months about disruption in their area? The de facto deal was 3 concerts and Aiken/Brooks wanted to bluster their way over that and ended up looking like twits.

Daith

conorh91 wrote: »

DCC screwed up badly here, both from the point of view of the residents and from the point of view of Aiken and Brooks and fans, and local businesses.

Brooks screwed up by not willing to compromise. Why are you solely putting the blame on DCC? Are you saying Brooks performing in the day was not viable?

Fire ahead on mediation but Aiken should have submitted their planning application sooner so mediation would have been a viable option.

Dan_Solo

conorh91 wrote: »

DCC screwed up badly here, both from the point of view of the residents and from the point of view of Aiken and Brooks and fans, and local businesses.

Go on then, tell us YOUR compromise that would've given everybody what they wanted.
Careful now, anything other that "5 consecutive nights" as your answer and Brooks throws a wobbly and there's no shows at all. OK?

Ace2007

conorh91 wrote: »

This attitude is exactly the problem.

Have people never heard of mediation? That thing that happens when parties to a dispute coming on before the courts, sit down together with a mediator and a solution is arrived at? It happens all the time.

At this stage people here are arguing for the sake of argument.

Is anyone seriously telling me they oppose mediation?

Is anybody seriously telling me level of flexibility that DCC actually employed, like agreeing in principle to matinee concerts, was a good idea?

DCC screwed up badly here, both from the point of view of the residents and from the point of view of Aiken and Brooks and fans, and local businesses.

Just give me one solution that keeps everyone happy.

Kieran Mulvey was independent , and even he stated that it was a stalemate between the GAA and residents, GAA wouldn't negotiate and stated they had legal obligations to hold at least 3 concerts in 2015 and 2016.

So GAA come to the table - with no flexibility.

Aiken will come to table with all tickets already sold.

Everyone just wanted the residents to give in.

conorh91

Daith wrote: »

Brooks screwed up by not willing to compromise. Why are you solely putting the blame on DCC?

I am not.

I was critical of Aiken in this thread. But Aiken isn't the Local Authority. He doesn't have a public function and essentially, like any businessman, he doesn't owe anything to the local residents beyond what the law requires.

DCC is a representative body, which is supposed to reflect the interests of residents and businesses.

I am merely suggesting that DCC should have stepped in at an earlier stage to resolve this problem through mediation or a similar consultative process where all sides sat down together chaired by DCC.

Fire ahead on mediation but Aiken should have submitted their planning application sooner so mediation would have been a viable option.

Fourteen weeks is a whole month before the deadline, and that should have been sufficient. DCC is responsible for setting that deadline. If it needs to be shortened that's their responsibility.

Have you read the licensing application? It's enormous. People are being totally unrealistic here. If you were to apply with rigidity the strenuous demands that some have called for on this thread, international acts wouldn't be able to come to Ireland without 6 or 7 months notice. That's not viable for most acts.

conorh91

Ace2007 wrote: »

GAA wouldn't negotiate and stated they had legal obligations to hold at least 3 concerts in 2015 and 2016.

what legal obligations? when did they say this?

Daith

conorh91 wrote: »

I
I am merely suggesting that DCC should have stepped in at an earlier stage to resolve this problem through mediation or a similar consultative process where all sides sat down together chaired by DCC.

And this is my problem with your entire argument. It was not up to DCC to mediate nor consult.

Brooks would only accept 5 nights. Why are you blaming everyone else but Brooks when he is the one would not budge. Why blame DCC. Why blame the residents. Why should everyone apart from Garth fcuking Brooks compromise?

Is that much of a bloody deal to play his music in the day time. Jesus, sunset in July doesn't bloody happen till 9.30pm anyway!

Ace2007

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not.

I was critical of Aiken in this thread. But Aiken isn't the Local Authority. He doesn't have a public function and essentially, like any businessman, he doesn't owe anything to the local residents beyond what the law requires.

DCC is a representative body, which is supposed to reflect the interests of residents and businesses.

I am merely suggesting that DCC should have stepped in at an earlier stage to resolve this problem through mediation or a similar consultative process where all sides sat down together chaired by DCC.

Fourteen weeks is a whole month before the deadline, and that should have been sufficient. DCC is responsible for setting that deadline. If it needs to be shortened that's their responsibility.

Have you read the licensing application? It's enormous. People are being totally unrealistic here. If you were to apply with rigidity the strenuous demands that some have called for on this thread, international acts wouldn't be able to come to Ireland without 6 or 7 months notice. That's not viable for most acts.

Strange Croke Park has legal obligations for concerts in 2 years time, How long was it before the concerts did one direction sell out?

Maybe Aiken just saw the $$$ signs and tried to fast track everything.

Ace2007

conorh91 wrote: »

what legal obligations? when did they say this?

In Mulvey's report - go google it - educate yourself.

conorh91

Ace2007 wrote: »

Maybe Aiken just saw the $$$ signs and tried to fast track everything.

What did they try to fast-track?

I think you need to go away and figure out what the regulations say and how Aiken/ the GAA met those regulations with room to spare.

Every promoter in the country seems to have to do business this way, because the process is framed in such a way as there is almost never an alternative to selling tickets for 5000-man-plus events before a licence is granted. It's a cumbersome process.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

barney4001

has the container boat with brooks gear arrived yet maybe then we will learn just how many containers was supposed to be comeing here

Reformed Character

conorh91 wrote: »

I am not.

DCC is a representative body, which is supposed to reflect the interests of residents and businesses.

.

Wrong.
DCC is an administrative authority, some of whose functions are delegated to elected representatives, some of whose functions are reserved functions of the City Manager.
Neither statutorily nor, actually, is it a representative body.
IBEC is a representative body as is the Chamber of Commerce.

My name is URL

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes.. under no circumstances should laws be modernised so as to be more efficient. Everyone else should adapt to the outdated and inefficient laws instead.

That's probably the most 'Irish' thing posted in the thread so far

Daith

My name is URL wrote: »

That's probably the most 'Irish' thing posted in the thread so far

Nonsense. The most Irish thing is that we should ignore our planning laws for money.

secman

conorh91 wrote: »

This attitude is exactly the problem.

Have people never heard of mediation? That thing that happens when parties to a dispute coming on before the courts, sit down together with a mediator and a solution is arrived at? It happens all the time.

At this stage people here are arguing for the sake of argument.

Is anyone seriously telling me they oppose mediation?

Is anybody seriously telling me level of flexibility that DCC actually employed, like agreeing in principle to matinee concerts, was a good idea?

DCC screwed up badly here, both from the point of view of the residents and from the point of view of Aiken and Brooks and fans, and local businesses.

Aiken/ GAA / Brooks Screwed up by selling 5 nights on the trot, that my friend was the screw up. When the inevitable happened they cried foul.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

Have you read the licensing application? It's enormous. People are being totally unrealistic here. If you were to apply with rigidity the strenuous demands that some have called for on this thread, international acts wouldn't be able to come to Ireland without 6 or 7 months notice. That's not viable for most acts.

Of course its viable, do you honestly believe that major international acts just suddenly decide to tour 2 or 3 months before it starts? Most of them like to use the same lighting and sound crews each time, but they also work with other artists, so they have to be booked. Any backing singers etc, who would be session musicians, and also working with other acts also have to be booked. I would say 6 or 7 months notice is actually short.

slimjimmc

conorh91 wrote: »

what legal obligations? when did they say this?

Contractual obligations. Apparently the residents proposed no gigs for 2015-2016 in lieu of the extra gigs in 2014, Mulvey brought this back to the GAA who told him no can do, they've already signed contracts.

nxbyveromdwjpg

slimjimmc wrote: »

Contractual obligations. Apparently the residents proposed no gigs for 2015-2016 in lieu of the extra gigs in 2014, Mulvey brought this back to the GAA who told him no can do, they've already signed contracts.

Does the sacred hallowed 'contract' state music concerts explicitly, or is it just events that are not the GAA's own games?

If the latter the contract is probably the american football, they've a booking for 2016 and 2018 apparently.

nxbyveromdwjpg

My name is URL wrote: »

Yes.. under no circumstances should laws be modernised so as to be more efficient. Everyone else should adapt to the outdated and inefficient laws instead.

Updating the laws to suit the majority of the country, local businesses and everyone else would be 'trampling all over the people'. And don't forget it.

Selling tickets subject to licence and then cancelling 40% of them and 160,000 peoples plans for 364 people is the way to go, it's worked out great.

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

Updating the laws to suit the majority of the country, local businesses and everyone else would be 'trampling all over the people'. And don't forget it.

Selling tickets subject to licence and then cancelling 40% of them and 160,000 peoples plans for 364 people is the way to go, it's worked out great.

Show me where it's only 364 people.

Dan_Solo

My name is URL wrote: »

Yes.. under no circumstances should laws be modernised so as to be more efficient. Everyone else should adapt to the outdated and inefficient laws instead.

That's probably the most 'Irish' thing posted in the thread so far

What are you proposing, a "Poor auld Aiken n Brooks" bill? You mean more efficient as in just give him 5 nights so he doesn't spit out the dummy?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

Show me where it's only 364 people.

375 - 11 forgeries that we know of. 364.

Google it, I promised yesterday I wouldn't be going back and forth with you over stuff like this.