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

muddypaws

For those who say that Brooks shares no blame in this, and didn't know they were subject to licence, something to consider. I would understand an artist and his management not to know the licensing requirements in each territory that they play on a world tour. Brooks has worked with Aiken in the past, Aiken is an experienced and knowledgeable promoter, so I would expect Brooks and his management to let Aiken get on with his job. However, much has been made of the fact that this was not part of a world tour, but instead was a very special, huge, one off event. Therefore surely the management company should have been on top of every aspect of this, and by extension Brooks himself, as he seems a very smart business man who looks after his commercial affairs very carefully. Brooks flew into Dublin to promote these gigs, thats how big it was, very difficult to accept that he didn't talk to Aiken about any possible difficulties with putting on such a radical event.

First Up

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?

You start by acting like someone paid to look out for the whole city's interests, get off your high horse (or bike in this case) and engage in dialogue. There is a lot at stake here.

Nothing is non-negotiable; DCC is not in a position to negotiate with Brooks; it is in a position to facilitate dialogue with residents. Of course there is a deal possible; you just have to find it.

You know the old one; "If you think you can - you might. If you think you can't - your right."

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

You start by acting like someone paid to look out for the whole city's interests, get off your high horse (or bike in this case) and engage in dialogue. There is a lot at stake here.

Nothing is non-negotiable; DCC is not in a position to negotiate with Brooks; it is in a position to facilitate dialogue with residents. Of course there is a deal possible; you just have to find it.

You know the old one; "If you think you can - you might. If you think you can't - your right."

There was a deal. 3 concerts.....Brooks came back and said 5 or nothing!

Or do you mean a "deal" where all 5 concerts go ahead and the residents get ****ed over?

Daith

First Up wrote: »

Nothing is non-negotiable; DCC is not in a position to negotiate with Brooks; it is in a position to facilitate dialogue with residents. Of course there is a deal possible; you just have to find it.

Nothing is non-negotiable except negotiation with Brooks.......

Retrovertigo

This whole fiasco has put me off line dancing altogether.

Happyman42

muddypaws wrote: »

For those who say that Brooks shares no blame in this, and didn't know they were subject to licence, something to consider. I would understand an artist and his management not to know the licensing requirements in each territory that they play on a world tour. Brooks has worked with Aiken in the past, Aiken is an experienced and knowledgeable promoter, so I would expect Brooks and his management to let Aiken get on with his job. However, much has been made of the fact that this was not part of a world tour, but instead was a very special, huge, one off event. Therefore surely the management company should have been on top of every aspect of this, and by extension Brooks himself, as he seems a very smart business man who looks after his commercial affairs very carefully. Brooks flew into Dublin to promote these gigs, thats how big it was, very difficult to accept that he didn't talk to Aiken about any possible difficulties with putting on such a radical event.

This is just common business sense. ^
You DO NOT put contingencies in place when you are cocksure that contingencies will not be required.

Nobody in Aiken Promotions, Croke Park or Brooks camp had a single contingency in place...therefore they thought that there would never be a problem.

That assumption alone makes a mockery of the planning process...but not anymore. Any one entering into an event like this without a contingency plan will be a fool.

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

You start by acting like someone paid to look out for the whole city's interests, get off your high horse (or bike in this case) and engage in dialogue. There is a lot at stake here.

Nothing is non-negotiable; DCC is not in a position to negotiate with Brooks; it is in a position to facilitate dialogue with residents. Of course there is a deal possible; you just have to find it.

You know the old one; "If you think you can - you might. If you think you can't - your right."

I think you will find that that is what the decision was based on, using planning criteria.
'A balanced and fair decision that is in the whole city's interests, = 3 gigs awarded'

What happened next is not and never was within the control of DCC, you need to look elsewhere.

Cienciano

muddypaws wrote: »

For those who say that Brooks shares no blame in this, and didn't know they were subject to licence, something to consider. I would understand an artist and his management not to know the licensing requirements in each territory that they play on a world tour. Brooks has worked with Aiken in the past, Aiken is an experienced and knowledgeable promoter, so I would expect Brooks and his management to let Aiken get on with his job. However, much has been made of the fact that this was not part of a world tour, but instead was a very special, huge, one off event. Therefore surely the management company should have been on top of every aspect of this, and by extension Brooks himself, as he seems a very smart business man who looks after his commercial affairs very carefully. Brooks flew into Dublin to promote these gigs, thats how big it was, very difficult to accept that he didn't talk to Aiken about any possible difficulties with putting on such a radical event.

Brooks is 100% responsible for no concerts going ahead. There's no arguing that. To be honest, he doesn't come across as a smart businessman to me at all. It seems to me he has a good team of people around him and he knows well that Garth Brooks is a brand and not an artist. But he has to make decisions every so often to show his team who's in charge and no matter how stupid that decision is, he's sticking to it. This is one of those stupid decisions.
(by good team of people I mean business people rather than music)

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

There was a deal. 3 concerts.....Brooks came back and said 5 or nothing!

Or do you mean a "deal" where all 5 concerts go ahead and the residents get ****ed over?

I've said it often enough to be entitled to expect you to get it. A deal that is acceptable to all.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

You start by acting like someone paid to look out for the whole city's interests,

You appear to be assuming the whole city's interests are served by playing fast and loose with planning legislation, it seems to me.

However, I'd argue - and have done in this thread - that the whole city's interests are served by money's interests being shown that they cannot just buy their way around problems or plead too big to have to conform to legislative requirements.

The application of a licence for any event does not automatically result in that licence being issued and this is desirable as it should not amount to a rubber stamping event.

Also - as you don't appear to be able to understand this: a deal acceptable to all is unlikely as you don't appear to countenance a deal that resulted in any fewer than five concerts being played.

In this respect, I rather wish Owen Keegan and his staff had decided not to license any as possibly, you'd be considering three as a viable compromise in that case.

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you will find that that is what the decision was based on, using planning criteria.
'A balanced and fair decision that is in the whole city's interests, = 3 gigs awarded'

What happened next is not and never was within the control of DCC, you need to look elsewhere.

It's not about what happened next. It's about what should have - but didn't - happen before.

First Up

Calina wrote: »

You appear to be assuming the whole city's interests are served by playing fast and loose with planning legislation, it seems to me.

However, I'd argue - and have done in this thread - that the whole city's interests are served by money's interests being shown that they cannot just buy their way around problems or plead too big to have to conform to legislative requirements.

The application of a licence for any event does not automatically result in that licence being issued and this is desirable as it should not amount to a rubber stamping event.

Also - as you don't appear to be able to understand this: a deal acceptable to all is unlikely as you don't appear to countenance a deal that resulted in any fewer than five concerts being played.

In this respect, I rather wish Owen Keegan and his staff had decided not to license any as possibly, you'd be considering three as a viable compromise in that case.

The "all" includes the 160,000 with tickets for the two extra gigs.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

I've said it often enough to be entitled to expect you to get it. A deal that is acceptable to all.

And here we go again.

What would a deal that is "Acceptable to all" consist of? Please tell us in detail how YOU would have gotten a deal that is acceptable to all when at least one of the parties REFUSED to budge a single inch on the issue.

Daith

First Up wrote: »

The "all" includes the 160,000 with tickets for the two extra gigs.

The "all" includes the 5 gigs not happening on consecutive nights.

You don't have the answer. Don't see why you are blaming someone else for not having the answer.

paddyirish23

Has anyone actually gotten refunds automatically yet??

Calina

First Up wrote: »

The "all" includes the 160,000 with tickets for the two extra gigs.

The all also includes anyone living within 10 km of the stadium but you do not care about them given that at least one of them reckons five nights consecutive including two weekday nights should be ruled out.

Dan_Solo

Daith wrote: »

The "all" includes the 5 gigs not happening on consecutive nights.

You don't have the answer. Don't see why you are blaming someone else for not having the answer.

Another millionth time no answer question to the GB fans.
I don't know what I want, but I want it now!

secman

HardLuckWoman wrote: »

There appears to be a lot of hatred towards croke park from the residents with some residents being cycinal and critical of croke park. With the 370 submissions that was sent in with some believed to be forged, of the remainder - how can an authority establish an objection was based on a geniune issue and not a grudge held towards croke park.

The objections submitted would not be the only criteria reviewed when the planning decision was made, the permission granted by an Bord Pleanala would have carried weight too, and then there would be a precedent set for 5 nights in a row. There would also be many people who didn't submit objections who are also glad the 5 nights in a row were not permitted. The CP/residents rows are going back a long, long time now, and in fairness what exactly have the GAA done to try and sort these issues out. They could have agreed to signing up to an enforceable agreement on the maximum number of non sporting events in a year. The opposing residents believed they had one in existence only to be told last Feb......that was then .this is now........... So how can you not see why the residents have a problem with the GAA.
These are concerts to you and the rest of the GB fans, have you tried to put yourself in their shoes ? In all fairness , do you really not accept that Aiken/ GAA/ GB were not pushing the boat out on a 5 night in a row , never happened before, all of them WELL knowing the issues pertaining..... really in all honesty,do you really believe Aiken/GAA that they really really believed there would be no issues to 5 nights in a row.............Really ! Many people have accused Keegan of lying,but in my book the biggest lie is Aiken /GAA saying they did not see any problem with 5 nights in a row......

And yes I really do feel sorry for the fans (even though I just don't get GB at all), but Aiken/GAA should not have gambled on this........ demand should not have coloured their judgment.They should and I dare say did know it was a big gamble but they honestly believed the pressure to not permit the 5 would be too great on DCC... but they were wrong. We cannot go back to the old days of political interference in planning. DCC could not let the fact that 5 nights were sold to colour their judgment, this would lead to a very dangerous precedent, one I have no doubt promoters would have jumped on. Who would look after the residents then ? the GAA.?.. promoters.?. Artists..... ?

I found the Oireachtas enquiry to be unbalanced and biased , they seemed to think that their sole responsibility and objective was to get the 5 nights back on at any cost... even emergency legislation was mentioned .... very very sad indeed. How often do you see this solution being offered for REAL scandals ... of which there are so many........

secman

paddyirish23 wrote: »

Has anyone actually gotten refunds automatically yet??

I would say NO...... not yet.

Dan_Solo

secman wrote: »

The objections submitted would not be the only criteria reviewed when the planning decision was made, the permission granted by an Bord Pleanala would have carried weight too, and then there would be a precedent set for 5 nights in a row.

This is where Aiken really screwed up. He knew well what the current norm was for Croke Park usage and made no allowances whatsoever. If he wanted a special case then he damn well should've started the whole process much earlier. I'm not saying this would necessarily affect DCC who may have felt they were being railroaded and kicked back (unacceptable as that would be) but there's no way it could have helped their proposals.

Dan_Solo

I also think it's well accepted that emergency legislation is almost always bad legislation? Well that's the mantra I keep hearing from politicians anyway, if they're to be believed... (yeah, I know)

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

It's not about what happened next. It's about what should have - but didn't - happen before.

Howe long should he have to look for a deal?

Should he still be looking for one? When do you say..no deal is possible here and call out those responsible for not moving?

You are adding a level of responsibility here on the wrong people.
Venue at loggerheads with residents for years...there is the root cause of ALL of this.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

It's not about what happened next. It's about what should have - but didn't - happen before.

Arguably the number one item on that would be an application for an event licence somewhat earlier than April.

That is not, AFAIK, the responsibility of DCC either.

paddyirish23

Anyone see tv 3 news this morning?

They reporting that the film crew have been rebooked for next weekend for the concerts.. is someone taking the p*ss now??

First Up

Happyman42 wrote: »

Howe long should he have to look for a deal?

Should he still be looking for one? When do you say..no deal is possible here and call out those responsible for not moving?

You are adding a level of responsibility here on the wrong people.
Venue at loggerheads with residents for years...there is the root cause of ALL of this.

Ah, so it might not be the concerts per se - they are just another brick in the ongoing stone throwing between CP and the residents. In that case, should DCC have put so much store in the "objections", given the potential benefits to the city of the concerts going ahead?
As for when should they have started, I would say as soon as the 400,000 tickets were snapped up.

bumper234

paddyirish23 wrote: »

Anyone see tv 3 news this morning?

They reporting that the film crew have been rebooked for next weekend for the concerts.. is someone taking the p*ss now??

Cue footage of Garthy and a few of his fans outside Croke park crying about the unfairness of it all for his world tour DVD.

Red Nissan

Retrovertigo wrote: »

This whole fiasco has put me off line dancing altogether.

You owe Garth a debt of thanks then. Send his a nice bunch of flowers.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

Ah, so it might not be the concerts per se - they are just another brick in the ongoing stone throwing between CP and the residents. In that case, should DCC have put so much store in the "objections", given the potential benefits to the city of the concerts going ahead?
As for when should they have started, I would say as soon as the 400,000 tickets were snapped up.

Who says DCC made a decision any or all of the objections? For all you know they may have made their decision solely on the massive disruption these weekday concerts would have caused to the hundreds of thousands of citizens who would be trying to go about their normal business on these days.

nxbyveromdwjpg

paddyirish23 wrote: »

Anyone see tv 3 news this morning?

They reporting that the film crew have been rebooked for next weekend for the concerts.. is someone taking the p*ss now??

Ah here..

Happyman42

First Up wrote: »

Ah, so it might not be the concerts per se - they are just another brick in the ongoing stone throwing between CP and the residents. In that case, should DCC have put so much store in the "objections", given the potential benefits to the city of the concerts going ahead?
As for when should they have started, I would say as soon as the 400,000 tickets were snapped up.

That's what GB fans are not taking on board here. The CP residents ONLY did what they have done many times before, 'legally object' (leave the forged ones aside, there where plenty of genuine objections)

For them, they where faced with a precedent being set here and having to live with this every year.
There was much much much more at stake for them, than those facing a partially lost weekend.
If a business is depending on revenue from 5 days activity, then I would suggest they are doomed anyway. Sure business lost out here, but they do all the time...swings and roundabouts.
If the residents lost this time, they may as well have sold up.