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

Ace2007

nm wrote: »

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

Simple.

ok so if it's change to you need a licence before you sell tickets, how will this help promotes, who in your view need to sell tickets first to get an idea of numbers before applying for the licence.



you keep skipping over this question and taking about "subject to licence" which is not what I'm asking.

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

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?

From what I understand the 1D concerts were pre-licenced, I'm not sure of the detail as I haven't looked into those.

They would be expecting 80,000 but if it were less the plan would change, the reasons for having to sell subject to licence were outlined by Aiken in the Oireachtas and was centred around traffic plans for the numbers, stage set up and such - I don't have it to hand but it's in the thread somewhere and is valid which is why it is standard procedure for all promoters for all events in the country, ie: not an Aiken or GB or CP issue.
If absolutely necessary I'll find it in the morning and re-post it (for anyone interested except Ace).

PTH2009

i put 4 euro on paddy power that there would be no concerts in ireland this year at 5/1 and i still didnt get paid for it :mad:

nxbyveromdwjpg

Ace2007 wrote: »

ok so if it's change to you need a licence before you sell tickets, how will this help promotes, who in your view need to sell tickets first to get an idea of numbers before applying for the licence.

That's not my call Ace but I would suggest a two-tier application of some kind.

Adamocovic

I said I wouldn't post because it's clear some people are trying to make posts just to get a reaction, but its hard to see who has a genuine opinion or who is just trying to keep the thread going.

I'll just leave with my opinion and I'm not posting anymore from here as this thread is going in circles.

Aiken Promotion only applied for the license 10 weeks after selling all the tickets. In the legislation you have to apply for the license at LEAST 10 weeks before the event takes place ,they complied with this. The license normally takes 5 weeks to be granted or denied. Presumably all tickets said "Subject to License". So customers can't complain.

The fact that the cancellation came nearly 15-20 weeks or so after people had bought tickets made this situation worse.

In the Legislation you have to advertise the event to help get a license approved. That doesn't stop you from applying for the license and announcing the ticket sales date afterwards (common practice in other countries).

It is common for Aiken and other promoters to just apply for the license after selling the tickets (one I do not agree with). But to wait 10 weeks after selling the tickets seem a bit crazy.

I can't see why people are blaming DCC and everyone else as they have done nothing wrong legally. In my view tickets shouldn't be sold until licenses are granted, and Id imagine they will change the legislation in the future to stop the common practice of selling tickets before getting a license.

But hey look at the bright side, we had One Direction :P

muddypaws

nm wrote: »

From what I understand the 1D concerts were pre-licenced, I'm not sure of the detail as I haven't looked into those.

They would be expecting 80,000 but if it were less the plan would change, the reasons for having to sell subject to licence were outlined by Aiken in the Oireachtas and was centred around traffic plans for the numbers, stage set up and such - I don't have it to hand but it's in the thread somewhere and is valid which is why it is standard procedure for all promoters for all events in the country, ie: not an Aiken or GB or CP issue.
If absolutely necessary I'll find it in the morning and re-post it (for anyone interested except Ace).

No, you're grand

But, I would still imagine that it would be pretty similar for most concerts in each venue, the capacity would usually be around the same.

Thinking about it, the 1D concerts probably would have had to take into account all of the parents milling around outside before and after to pick their kids up - I had to do that with the Backstreet Boys in London, thousands of screaming girls, and loads of parents dropping off and picking up, thankfully I didn't have to go and watch the actual gig.

Red Nissan

Ace2007 wrote: »

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?

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

No. Balancing tickets with demand and supply is difficult. Many concerts have been cancelled becsue they did not sell out. Many booked one night only in an attempt to sell out and could have sold many more nights. As many again get extra nights due to demand as tickets continue to sell.


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?

This is essentially the same question, Aiken is on record as saying he could have sold seven concerts such was the demand for Croke Park ~ for wahtever reason Croke Park was the attraction ~ where was unprecedented and possibly unique circumstances that could not have been foreseen, and a Aiken stopped selling at the fifth concert, makes me believe that five was the limit and not seven or eight.

nxbyveromdwjpg

muddypaws wrote: »

No, you're grand

Thanks

muddypaws wrote: »

But, I would still imagine that it would be pretty similar for most concerts in each venue, the capacity would usually be around the same.

Ok, probably right there so I take that back, but what I took from it essentially was that there is a level of detail required for the application around crowd management that either isn't available (at the amount of advance time they need to sell the tickets) or if it is available is subject to such an amount of change so as to render the application useless (at that point).
This led to such happenings as licences being granted the day before concerts took place, etc (Aiken actually gave examples of that happening but I don't remember them).

Red Nissan

nm wrote: »

(Aiken actually gave examples of that happening but I don't remember them).

The Boss in O'Keeffe last year for Cork, ONE sold out concert for THAT venue, 8 nights between Cork, Dublin, Belfast and a few more, three portable stage set ups, crews and transport.

All set and stage crew in Cork doing the sound checks and just four days before The Boss was to perform, the license was granted.

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

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

Simple.

Which Aiken could have done by waiting for the license. Especially as we all know full well that asking for 5 nights was dodgy and he's basically lying if he saying he was expecting 5 nights no bother.

Dan_Solo

Red Nissan wrote: »

The Boss in O'Keeffe last year for Cork, ONE sold out concert for THAT venue, 8 nights between Cork, Dublin, Belfast and a few more, three portable stage set ups, crews and transport.

All set and stage crew in Cork doing the sound checks and just four days before The Boss was to perform, the license was granted.

Which might be normal for those venues. For Croke Park it isn't. Aiken and the universe knew this.

Red Nissan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which might be normal for those venues. For Croke Park it isn't. Aiken and the universe knew this.

Can't let you away with that. It MIGHT? But it certainly is not for Croke Park?

WHY? Has Croke Park special treatment? Why has it special treatment?

This is actually the crux as why the Croke Park decision was a personal decision made randomly in the expectation of eliciting a responce.

Thanks but we do know how the Dublin Planning authority works. the facts are the planning laws has the same guidelines.

Dan_Solo

Red Nissan wrote: »

Can't let you away with that. It MIGHT? But it certainly is not for Croke Park?

WHY? Has Croke Park special treatment? Why has it special treatment?

This is actually the crux as why the Croke Park decision was a personal decision made randomly in the expectation of eliciting a responce.

Thanks but we do know how the Dublin Planning authority works. the facts are the planning laws has the same guidelines.

It's exactly because each stadium has an accepted level of usage, determined by local councils after consultation with residents, traffic departments and emergency services, that means there is nothing special at all about Croke Park. These deliberations have decided 3 concerts in a row is the maximum for public safety and local residents concerns. Why are you now telling them this has changed?

twowheelsonly

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

I'd imagine that GB would have access to a fair amount of legal clout as well though and I can't see any performer agreeing to a clause like that.

You might get away with it once but once word got out if something like this debacle were to happen again and a performer was 'forced' to play then never again would any international act sign up to a contract with that clause.

Red Nissan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

These deliberations have decided 3 concerts in a row is the maximum for public safety and local residents concerns. Why are you now telling them this has changed?

I'm not, YOU are. You made a special case for Croke Park. Go back and look at YOUR OWN reply to me. YOU made it.

Dan_Solo

Red Nissan wrote: »

I'm not, YOU are. You made a special case for Croke Park. Go back and look at YOUR OWN reply to me. YOU made it.

Nope. I said what might work for other stadiums in Ireland doesn't work for Croke Park. Different situations, different licensing restrictions. Is that too much to grasp?

Red Nissan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nope. I said what might work for other stadiums in Ireland doesn't work for Croke Park. Different situations, different licensing restrictions. Is that too much to grasp?

NO you absolutely did not, what you've just said would have mode more sense, but that's not what you said.

You said that that may work in that stadium but it isn't the way it works in Croke Park.

Whereas in fact, in LAW ~ in the bleedin law, it's the EXACT SAME. The procedure is exactly the same ~ one man depending on his whim or the envelopes he recieved in the past, either way it's wrong, though still legal, but it is still wrong.

Menas

Yippee! For the first time since its inception this thread has slipped off the first page!

Oh wait....

bumper234

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

So you would sack a man for doing his job and following the correct processes that he is required to follow by law so you could make an example of him? And please tell us what sort of example this would show the world.

Red Nissan wrote: »

it's already beeen said that both the Galway tent and the brown envelopes are the only things missing here.

The only way they are missing is because the Brooks fans like yourself are aghast that Keegan looked at the MANY things wrong with having 5 concerts in a row instead of going ZOMG THE MONIEZZZZZZZZ €€€€€€€€€€€€ :eek:

Amazing how many of them think Keegan should have been sacked, paid off, bribed (one of you even said a JUDGE should be bribed to get the concerts going ) and then accuse him of gombeenism when the things you are all calling for are the EPITOME of gombenism. You all need to sit down and stop listening to C&W music because it seems to have turned your brains to mush.

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

So you would sack a man for doing his job and following the correct processes that he is required to follow by law so you could make an example of him? And please tell us what sort of example this would show the world.




The only way they are missing is because the Brooks fans like yourself are aghast that Keegan looked at the MANY things wrong with having 5 concerts in a row instead of going ZOMG THE MONIEZZZZZZZZ €€€€€€€€€€€€ :eek:

Amazing how many of them think Keegan should have been sacked, paid off, bribed (one of you even said a JUDGE should be bribed to get the concerts going ) and then accuse him of gombeenism when the things you are all calling for are the EPITOME of gombenism. You all need to sit down and stop listening to C&W music because it seems to have turned your brains to mush.

He might be yet. Back in front of the committee today and a lot to answer for. The attempted inference that a different outcome would have required corruption is ludicrous. It would have required leadership and vision to bring the parties to a mutually agreeable position. That's all.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

He might be yet. Back in front of the committee today and a lot to answer for. The attempted inference that a different outcome would have required corruption is ludicrous. It would have required leadership and vision to bring the parties to a mutually agreeable position. That's all.

Brooks:

No way is he doing anything other than 5 in a row, 5 or nothing....His words not mine.

Residents:

Mo way are 5 concerts going ahead, We will throw injunction after injunction at this and block the streets.

Please tell me HOW you get both parties to come to a "mutually agreeable position" when both have drawn their lines in the sand?

dinorebel

bumper234 wrote: »

Brooks:

No way is he doing anything other than 5 in a row, 5 or nothing....His words not mine.

Residents:

Mo way are 5 concerts going ahead, We will throw injunction after injunction at this and block the streets.

Please tell me HOW you get both parties to come to a "mutually agreeable position" when both have drawn their lines in the sand?

Difference being the residents have the law on there side all Brooks has is his ego.

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

He might be yet. Back in front of the committee today and a lot to answer for. The attempted inference that a different outcome would have required corruption is ludicrous. It would have required leadership and vision to bring the parties to a mutually agreeable position. That's all.

I dare say, based on what we have seen so far, it will be a case of being savaged by a sheep at the committee today. Plenty of posturing from the GAA element and with another bit of huffing and puffing from DImmy Dooley if he isn't over missing his chance to do some line dancing.

Nobody in government has been able to sort the impasse between Croke Park and residents, that has been festering for many years. Why you think an official with the remit of planning should be burdened with sorting it, is beyond me.

Croke Park shouldn't be 'planning' anything until they as a publically funded organisation sort out their relationship with residents.

That is what 'government' should be legislating for instead of taking the scissors to a system that has worked fine for a long time and which other promoters (and Aiken himself) are more or less happy with.

'You cannot be licensed as a venue unless you have legal agreements (review every 5 yrs?) with residents within a set distance from the stadium'.

Cienciano

bumper234 wrote: »

Brooks:

No way is he doing anything other than 5 in a row, 5 or nothing....His words not mine.

Residents:

Mo way are 5 concerts going ahead, We will throw injunction after injunction at this and block the streets.

Please tell me HOW you get both parties to come to a "mutually agreeable position" when both have drawn their lines in the sand?

That's it, there were loads of compromises made by DCC, but brooks wouldn't. The thing is, if all the fans decided to just go to one night, and the event bandwagon jumpers who got caught up in the hype didn't get tickets for it, he'd be playing his 3 nights without any problems

Happyman42

dinorebel wrote: »

Difference being the residents have the law on there side all Brooks has is his ego.

And as we have seen, the planning office was the residents last line of defence here.
No TD was going to stand up for them, almost every single one of them too petrified to say...'Sometimes, there are more important principles than making money.'

I'll tell you what would sort this impasse between Croke Park and residents...a motion in the Dail, 'No public funding for organisations who haven't thrashed out legally binding arrangements with local residents'.

Problem sorted, 'stand out of the way of those white flag waving Gaels, I think they might stampede' :pac:

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

Please tell me HOW you get both parties to come to a "mutually agreeable position" when both have drawn their lines in the sand?

Give Brooks a pair of sunglasses?

I'm still baffled that he feels that people want to see him for his light show and not music.

Dan_Solo

Red Nissan wrote: »

NO you absolutely did not, what you've just said would have mode more sense, but that's not what you said.

You said that that may work in that stadium but it isn't the way it works in Croke Park.

Where did I say the system is different? Nowhere. What I said was there is a different arrangement in place, so if 100 Metallica concerts is OK for one stadium, 1 Shins gig might be too much for another one due to specific local reasons such as crowd saftey, parking, traffic, access to emergency services etc.

Red Nissan wrote: »

Whereas in fact, in LAW ~ in the bleedin law, it's the EXACT SAME. The procedure is exactly the same ~ one man depending on his whim or the envelopes he recieved in the past, either way it's wrong, though still legal, but it is still wrong.

FFS, you're telling us now that Keegan is receiving bribes to make these decisions? Tell me then, who's more likely to be passing him brown envelopes, residents in the Croke Park area (who are already paying for their objections actually) or a concert promoter with €60 million burning a hole in his pocket and a concert that looks like being completely canned because of a petulant spoiled prima donna?

chinguetti

Happyman42 wrote: »

Nobody in government has been able to sort the impasse between Croke Park and residents, that has been festering for many years. Why you think an official with the remit of planning should be burdened with sorting it, is beyond me.

Croke Park shouldn't be 'planning' anything until they as a publically funded organisation sort out their relationship with residents.

Government don't need to get involved in this at all. Croke Park appointed a liasion officer years ago and then they never meet with the residents in relation to the concerts either before or after the concerts were announced this year. The minutes are up of all meetings on their website and there's nothing since last year so they have to shoulder the blame. Its like buying a smoke alarm besides a firework factory and not putting a battery into the bloody alarm. Daft!

Croke Park could have sorted this all out months ago if they had a bit of cop on. Anyone looking for Keegan's head because he tried to give a reasonable decision should have a serious think.

The GAA got an awful easy time of it in the Dail the other day, from what I saw no one asked 'why didn't you talk to the residents in January' or 'did you think 5 nights in a row was daft and why not go for 3 nights, 2 nights off and the final 2 concerts?'

GAA have said very little on this and avoided all the flak which has gone to DCC instead.

Dan_Solo

Daith wrote: »

Give Brooks a pair of sunglasses?

I'm still baffled that he feels that people want to see him for his light show and not music.

Well he has put on a bit of weight I hear... might want a bit of distraction?

Happyman42

chinguetti wrote: »

Nobody in government has been able to sort the impasse between Croke Park and residents, that has been festering for many years. Why you think an official with the remit of planning should be burdened with sorting it, is beyond me.

Croke Park shouldn't be 'planning' anything until they as a publically funded organisation sort out their relationship with residents

Government don't need to get involved in this at all. Croke Park appointed a liasion officer years ago and then they never meet with the residents in relation to the concerts either before or after the concerts were announced this year. The minutes are up of all meetings on their website and there's nothing since last year so they have to shoulder the blame. Its like buying a smoke alarm besides a firework factory and not putting a battery into the bloody alarm. Daft!

Croke Park could have sorted this all out months ago if they had a bit of cop on. Anyone looking for Keegan's head because he tried to give a reasonable decision should have a serious think.

The GAA got an awful easy time of it in the Dail the other day, from what I saw no one asked 'why didn't you talk to the residents in January' or 'did you think 5 nights in a row was daft and why not go for 3 nights, 2 nights off and the final 2 concerts?'

GAA have said very little on this and avoided all the flak which has gone to DCC instead.

I think a simple rule for all venues would sort the whole thing.

Demonstrate that there is an legal agreement in place between you (The Venue) and Residents.

That simple requirement would mean this would NEVER have happened.