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

Reformed Character

Red Nissan wrote: »

No it's not, we could get another two hundred pages showing how this is not the case and in fact this has been the practice for centuries, this is not the first concert to be refused a license, but the grounds are questionable.

How are they questionable, you last post stated DCC were legally correct

Red Nissan

secman wrote: »

Stay off the magic mushrooms .... ffs

Tis the season an all.

Adamocovic

Red Nissan wrote: »

No it's not, we could get another two hundred pages showing how this is not the case and in fact this has been the practice for centuries, this is not the first concert to be refused a license, but the grounds are questionable.

Ha it's clear what your opinions on the matter is. Personally when it comes to these things I just look at the evidence.

It would have been lovely money but in my view to sell tickets to an event before gaining a license is irresponsible. I'm aware that many promoters practise this but that doesn't make it any more professional.

We can argue all day about who said what in this shambles of an event. But at the end of the day if Aiken promotions had have acted professionally and waited to get confirmation before pursuing selling and promoting tickets everything would have been ok.

Reformed Character

Red Nissan wrote: »

Tis the season an all.

Still and all I would exercise a little purdicious judence

nxbyveromdwjpg

Adamocovic wrote: »

I really don't understand it, the Irish Examiner said on social media 55% blamed "Ireland" (whatever that means) for the gigs not going ahead and only 15% blamed Aiken Promotions/GAA.

Have to put blame on Aiken Promotions, selling tickets before a license is granted...end of debate really.

Seriously now, if you've read even a tiny fraction of any of any of the threads you'd know that the selling subject to licence is standard practice so if Aiken was in the wrong for that then so are all promoters and all concerts in this country, since god knows when, still now, and still going forward until the process is changed.

Red Nissan

Reformed Character wrote: »

How are they questionable, you last post stated DCC were legally correct

No I did not.

I had a preposition before that.

Again, WHY was there such an effort to change these decision?

Oh I left out the Mexican ambassador, I'd not want to do a Jeremy Clarkson on it would I? No but all these leaders and bigwigs got involved because the decision was the WRONG one.

It was the wrong one, but be that as it may, it had the law behind it, so it was legal.

That in no way support the thesis that it was correct.

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

Who said you were told a "million times"?

Oh dear god.. so we're now taking phrases literally for the purposes of argument? Like children?

This thread has really taken a turn for the pathetic in the last 36 hours or so.

dub_skav

nm wrote: »

Oh dear god.. so we're now taking phrases literally for the purposes of argument? Like children?

This thread has really taken a turn for the pathetic in the last 36 hours or so.

A lot longer than 36 hours

muddypaws

Adamocovic wrote: »

I really don't understand it, the Irish Examiner said on social media 55% blamed "Ireland" (whatever that means) for the gigs not going ahead and only 15% blamed Aiken Promotions/GAA.

Who did the rest blame?

Red Nissan

Adamocovic wrote: »

Ha it's clear what your opinions on the matter is..

And to repeat them again, I want to enter this thread into the Guinness Book of Records.

And to facilitate that, at the end. I will be asking the mods to merge all Brooks threads.

Adamocovic

nm wrote: »

Seriously now, if you've read even a tiny fraction of any of any of the threads you'd know that the selling subject to licence is standard practice so if Aiken was in the wrong for that then so are all promoters and all concerts in this country, since god knows when, still now, and still going forward until the process is changed.

Ha I've already stated a few times that I know it is common practice for promotors to sell tickets before obtaining the license. And as I said before just because it is common practice doesn't make it safe or professional in my opinion.

I just know that I wouldn't try sell tickets to a huge event until I had the license request approved.
Would you have sold 400,000 tickets before obtaining a license?

First Up

Adamocovic wrote: »

Ha it's clear what your opinions on the matter is. Personally when it comes to these things I just look at the evidence.

It would have been lovely money but in my view to sell tickets to an event before gaining a license is irresponsible. I'm aware that many promoters practise this but that doesn't make it any more professional.

We can argue all day about who said what in this shambles of an event. But at the end of the day if Aiken promotions had have acted professionally and waited to get confirmation before pursuing selling and promoting tickets everything would have been ok.

In the way the international music/entertainment business works, that is effectively impossible. Bookings and schedules are set up in some cases more than two years in advance. It is impossible to apply for a licence that far ahead. To insist on waiting for a licence before selling tickets would mean we simply don't have acts of that calibre coming here.

Adamocovic

muddypaws wrote: »

Who did the rest blame?

I can't remember fully it was a mixture of Brooks himself and The DCC, can't remember exact percentage.

Happyman42

Ace2007 wrote: »

Do you believe it is professional to sell 400,000 tickets to an event with no licence, knowing there is a possibility of it not being granted, and hence disappointing so many people who would it turn lose out because of other plans they have.

Not to mention the astonishing fact that they didn't tell the performer either that these concerts had no licence.

Sounds to me like they where hunting with the hare and running with the fox.
I wouldn't believe a word out of their mouths.

If you go through the paperwork (the only actual evidence we have) it is quite clear to me that Aiken/Croke Park where fully engaged with DCC and also where entering documents in mitigation.

Again I ask, which member of the Oireachtas (representing all of us citizens) is going to probe what exactly they where doing in that mitigation process?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Adamocovic wrote: »

Would you have sold 400,000 tickets before obtaining a license?

Yea, because I'd need to know how many people are coming as that information is vital and part of the application.

That's the system they use, are forced to use or whatever but that's the way it is. That needs to change, I agree with that much. But I doubt Aiken invented it nor did he do anything unusual.

Adamocovic

So Ive only realised some people are just trying to make the thread continue so they are posting stuff in order to get a response. :P

I guess I'll call it a day...Garth out!

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

Yea, because I'd need to know how many people are coming as that information is vital and part of the application.

That's the system they use, are forced to use or whatever but that's the way it is. That needs to change, I agree with that much. But I doubt Aiken invented it nor did he do anything unusual.

So are you saying that they booked Croke Park for 5 nights without knowing how many tickets were going to be sold?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Red Nissan wrote: »

And to repeat them again, I want to enter this thread into the Guinness Book of Records.

And to facilitate that, at the end. I will be asking the mods to merge all Brooks threads.

Don't forget the one in Politics.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

So are you saying that they booked Croke Park for 5 nights without knowing how many tickets were going to be sold?

The information that requires tickets to be sold subject to licence is already in the thread.

No I won't re-post or re-post the source for you, find it yourself.

Uriel.

First Up wrote: »

In the way the international music/entertainment business works, that is effectively impossible. Bookings and schedules are set up in some cases more than two years in advance. It is impossible to apply for a licence that far ahead. To insist on waiting for a licence before selling tickets would mean we simply don't have acts of that calibre coming here.

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head.

To be honest, out of the whole debacle, the one thing I don't put blame on Aiken for is selling the tickets without a licence. Whether it's the "correct" thing or not, it is common practice across most entertainment events in Ireland. Hell even Oxegen etc. was sold without licence being in place.

I think our system in how licences are granted is not fit for purpose and dedicated legislation and processes is required. Events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but to do so, some realism needs to be injected into the system. 10 weeks or whatever before the desired dates is not a proper system. Longer lead in times are required.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Uriel. wrote: »

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head.

To be honest, out of the whole debacle, the one thing I don't put blame on Aiken for is selling the tickets without a licence. Whether it's the "correct" thing or not, it is common practice across most entertainment events in Ireland. Hell even Oxegen etc. was sold without licence being in place.

I think our system in how licences are granted is not fit for purpose and dedicated legislation and processes is required. Events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but to do so, some realism needs to be injected into the system. 10 weeks or whatever before the desired dates is not a proper system. Longer lead in times are required.

Amen.

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

The information that requires tickets to be sold subject to licence is already in the thread.

No I won't re-post or re-post the source for you, find it yourself.

that wasn't my question - keep ignoring it - yourself and Red Nissan are good at ignoring questions that you don't want to answer.

Ace2007

Adamocovic wrote: »

Would you have sold 400,000 tickets before obtaining a license?

nm wrote: »

Yea, because I'd need to know how many people are coming as that information is vital and part of the application.

Uriel. wrote: »

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head.

To be honest, out of the whole debacle, the one thing I don't put blame on Aiken for is selling the tickets without a licence. Whether it's the "correct" thing or not, it is common practice across most entertainment events in Ireland. Hell even Oxegen etc. was sold without licence being in place.

I think our system in how licences are granted is not fit for purpose and dedicated legislation and processes is required. Events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but to do so, some realism needs to be injected into the system. 10 weeks or whatever before the desired dates is not a proper system. Longer lead in times are required.

nm wrote: »

Amen.

you say Amen to a post which states, events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but about 10 mins ago you said you would need to sell tickets before getting licence because it would be vital part of the application...

Make up your mind.

Happyman42

Uriel. wrote: »

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head.

To be honest, out of the whole debacle, the one thing I don't put blame on Aiken for is selling the tickets without a licence. Whether it's the "correct" thing or not, it is common practice across most entertainment events in Ireland. Hell even Oxegen etc. was sold without licence being in place.

I think our system in how licences are granted is not fit for purpose and dedicated legislation and processes is required. Events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but to do so, some realism needs to be injected into the system. 10 weeks or whatever before the desired dates is not a proper system. Longer lead in times are required.

If I was one of the 240,000 with a ticket to a licensed event I would want a TD on the Committee to ask (and be severely critical of Aiken/Croke Park) why they did not have a contract that informed the performer that the gigs where subject to licence and have an enforceable clause insisting that the performer play whatever gigs are licensed.

That would be common sense to me, and should have been to a promoter and venue with plenty of legal clout and years of experience.

Aiken/Croke Park should be able to follow Brooks and his management here and recoup their costs and any fan out of pocket as well.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

that wasn't my question - keep ignoring it - yourself and Red Nissan are good at ignoring questions that you don't want to answer.

I'm ignoring all of your questions after the last day when it went like this:

• Question
• Answer
• Post source
• Source posted
• I don't believe that source
• The source is quoting xyz
• Ok I do believe that source now, but xyz is lying, post his source
• Sigh

I throw you a reply or two but I'm not jumping through hoops for more of that thank you as it's all been posted already so you can find it on thread.
Feel free to put me on ignore, save yourself getting into a headspin again.

Red Nissan

Ace2007 wrote: »

that wasn't my question - keep ignoring it - yourself and Red Nissan are good at ignoring questions that you don't want to answer.

Answer. ALL question have been answered twenty five thousand times and counting.

Me, right, me, OK. I'd sack Keegan and make an example of him because we have far too much this kind of nonsense in this country, it's already beeen said that both the Galway tent and the brown envelopes are the only things missing here.

And think BACK to Owen O'Callaghan's testimony to the Tribunal and Others where the minister for planning wanted €100,000 euro and the City Manager would need the same. Owen never gave a bride, he thought it was normal business.

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

Yea, because I'd need to know how many people are coming as that information is vital and part of the application.

That's the system they use, are forced to use or whatever but that's the way it is. That needs to change, I agree with that much. But I doubt Aiken invented it nor did he do anything unusual.

Uriel. wrote: »

I think this guy has hit the nail on the head.

To be honest, out of the whole debacle, the one thing I don't put blame on Aiken for is selling the tickets without a licence. Whether it's the "correct" thing or not, it is common practice across most entertainment events in Ireland. Hell even Oxegen etc. was sold without licence being in place.

I think our system in how licences are granted is not fit for purpose and dedicated legislation and processes is required. Events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but to do so, some realism needs to be injected into the system. 10 weeks or whatever before the desired dates is not a proper system. Longer lead in times are required.

Whilst I agree to a certain extent, and understand why these concerts were put on sale subject to licence, this wasn't the case with the 1D concerts, so did they not need to know how many people would be turning up for the event management plans as well? Or was their management plan not submitted until after the tickets went on sale, as the licence was already covered by the existing planning permission?

Surely if a venue holds 80,000 and you are putting 3 nights on sale to start, you would be expecting 80,000 a night, otherwise you wouldn't be selling the 3 nights, you'd just stick with 1. And then each night after that would be the same, it would still be 80,000 people, and I imagine, the same event management plan?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

you say Amen to a post which states, events should be licenced fully before tickets go on sale, but about 10 mins ago you said you would need to sell tickets before getting licence because it would be vital part of the application...

Make up your mind.

It is made up, Aiken did no wrong, tickets were sold subject to licence as per normal, this needs to change going forward.

Simple.

slimjimmc

nm wrote: »

Yea, because I'd need to know how many people are coming as that information is vital and part of the application.

That's the system they use, are forced to use or whatever but that's the way it is. That needs to change, I agree with that much. But I doubt Aiken invented it nor did he do anything unusual.

I don't think you need to specify how many people are coming, rather you need to specify how many people you plan to cater for. For example you could plan for 80,000 people per night for 4 nights and base your licence application on that, and restrict your sales to that volume.

Ace2007

Red Nissan wrote: »

Answer. ALL question have been answered twenty five thousand times and counting.

Me, right, me, OK. I'd sack Keegan and make an example of him because we have far too much this kind of nonsense in this country, it's already beeen said that both the Galway tent and the brown envelopes are the only things missing here.

And think BACK to Owen O'Callaghan's testimony to the Tribunal and Others where the minister for planning wanted €100,000 euro and the City Manager would need the same. Owen never gave a bride, he thought it was normal business.

My question to you was, for the third time:

Do you believe it is professional to sell 400,000 tickets to an event with no licence, knowing there is a possibility of it not being granted, and hence disappointing so many people who would it turn lose out because of other plans they have.

You have an opinion that DCC acted in an unprofessional but legal manner, do you accept that Aiken also acted in an unprofessional but legal manner in selling so many tickets without a licence?