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

nxbyveromdwjpg

Cienciano wrote: »

I wonder if anyone involved in the meetings told Garth Brooks that he was being an arséhole or unreasonable? Or did they all tell him cancelling all 4 he was allowed to do was a great idea?

That doesn't seem possible, a lot of them would have been on his payroll and now won't see that pay cheque, they would not all have his bank balance either. Surely a solo run by the big GB for that one.

dub_skav

nm wrote: »

Have you heard of this parade? Apparently they close off streets of it, traffic chaos, 500,000 people!
Someone call Brian Duff, dust off the donated suit - we need a one man stand here (that's all it takes as we know, since the positives are to be disregarded).

You might be right, if the parade took place 5 days in a row and wasn't on a national holiday.

conorh91

Reformed Character wrote: »

DCC is an administrative authority

I clarified this with reference to the people whose interests the Local Authority represents. I'm pretty sure most people are now clear that is you who does not understand the legal situation. These comments look a bit silly now don't they?

You are obviously embarrassed at your mistake and are desperately seeking semantic misinterpretations to try and shift a focus away from this silliness which turns out to be wrong:

Reformed Character wrote: »

NOT HIS JOB, OUTSIDE HIS LEGAL REMIT
Capiche?

Reformed Character wrote: »

So you wanted him to break the law?
DCC is statutorily obliged to follow a process, failure to follow that process would have been a breach of their statutory obligations and without a shadow of a doubt would have led to a an injunction.

Are you now prepared to admit your mistake, and realize that in fact, Dublin City Council could have chaired a consultative series of meetings very early on, in order to mediate between the two sides and seek a resolution?

Dan_Solo

dub_skav wrote: »

You might be right, if the parade took place 5 days in a row and wasn't on a national holiday.

And in the afternoon. Apparently Garth Brooks wouldn't approve.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where you ran away from repeated questions about your bull**** contention that DCC where sitting on their hands until it was pointed out to you that they where STILL in mitigation with Aiken on the 29th June and delivered a decision on the 3rd of July.

They were still in mitigation on June 29th because they dragged their feet. You seem to be under the impression that because they were still in mitigation at this stage, that this is somehow indicative of the DCC dealing with all they had to, as quickly as they could but it isn't, at all. The first time DCC requested a meeting with Aiken, they got it immediately, the second time they requested a meeting, they got it immediately.. and the third and the forth. In other words, the DCC were driving the bus from April 17th.. not Aiken.

Sure, there was (and is) a five week public consultation period, but that does not prevent DCC meeting or consulting with Aiken during that time period if they wished. Why wait until June to contact Aiken regarding an event management plan submitted on April 17th? They were discussing the matter in the Dail before the licence application and so there can be no excuse for Keegan being so lax.

The Aiken who claims that at no time that they believed that there was a problem with the application. Yet we KNOW there where 3 updated Event Management Plans requested.

LOL. That means nothing. Or at least, not anything close to what you are suggesting it does. Updated event management plans are regularly asked for by councils, sometimes long *AFTER* event licences have been granted. It in no way whatsoever is suggestive of a council having a problem with an licence application to the degree that they are considering not to grant it. You're using smoke and mirrors here to try and make it look as if Keegan was giving Aiken the impression that he was contemplating not licencing the five concerts, in order to make it appear as if Aiken is lying saying what he said in the Oireachtas. Nice try but just a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what occurred to make Keegan not look as incompetent as he obviously is.

And also, you are assuming that Keegan was under pressure from public outcry before that outcry began...as it didn't really start until the licence was denied, most GB fans on here where insisting on their beliefs that there would be no problem. So I don't buy it that the pressure was coming from the public.

The concerts were being discussed in the media, daily, and in the dail, and there were also public protests. long before the licences were denied and so of course there was public pressure from before then. In fact, on April 7th, the DCC themselves called for a public meeting on the licencing of the concerts, so I'm not sure how you could make the above statement. In fact, during his informal discussions and telephone conversations with the GAA and Aiken, he still never gave them the impression he was considering not to grant the licences and according to the testimony of the Croke Park delegation, he in fact did the opposite and gave the impression that he would.

I think it is fairly obvious that at some point, Keegan changed his mind and is trying to cover his tracks now. All evidence points to the fact that he is not being honest. I see nothing to suggest Aiken or Croke Park are though, not a single thing. There story holds water, Keegan's does not. On June 8th, the following two statements were made:

Director of Croke Park Peter McKenna: “We hope to get the licence in the next couple of weeks and then we’ll give certitude to the event.

Patrick Gates, spokesman from the Clonliffe and Croke Park Residents Association:

“In my view it will go ahead and the five concerts will happen”.

The above two people were both in contact with Owen Keegan at the time or shortly before they said the above and so why would they make these public statements if he was giving indications to them that he had major issues with the five concerts going ahead, as is his claim. Add to that, that on July 2nd he is phoning Aiken offering four concerts and it all points to the fact that Owen Keegan planned all along to grant these licences and then changed his mind at the last second and tried to get one concert cancelled. Perhaps he thought the courts were about to cancel them all, and so perhaps felt it best to make it look as if he had some issues with granting the five licences all along and so refused to licence two of them in fear that he would look inept. He's quite a cagey chap Mr.Keegan, and I think he would have been well aware of how he would have looked had he licenced all five concerts and the courts stopped them going ahead shortly after.

Hopefully today tougher questions will be put his way as to why his version of events seems to fly in the face of what almost everybody else involved has to say with regards to the impression he was giving to all concerned throughout his dealings with them after the licence application was made, and indeed prior to it.

muddypaws

dub_skav wrote: »

You might be right, if the parade took place 5 days in a row and wasn't on a national holiday.

Try moving it to D4 and putting it through residential roads, and see what happens, just on one day

currins_02

Yes, initially apparently it was. Touted in many media outlets by the Mayor at the time too. The GAA were reluctant on the basis that they needed the dtaium back and DCC wanted a 10 week lead in time.

conorh91

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Aiken who claims that at no time that they believed that there was a problem with the application. Yet we KNOW there where 3 updated Event Management Plans requested.

Updated event management plans are part and parcel of the licensing process. As it gets closer to the event -- ten weeks, five weeks, two weeks away -- more and more service providers are contracted and questions around traffic flow and parking and so on are cleared up and insurance is granted, and updated plans are merely a reflection of that.

It's a red herring, and that's probably being generous to those even raising it.

Calina

muddypaws wrote: »

Try moving it to D4 and putting it through residential roads, and see what happens, just on one day

Assorted marathons.

secman

Bumping this..... feeling a little left out

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........

nxbyveromdwjpg

yopy wrote: »

Planning law is planning law. You can't pick and choose which laws you want to abide by.

But can you pick which events they apply to and which they do not?

dub_skav wrote: »

You might be right, if the parade took place 5 days in a row and wasn't on a national holiday.

I agree but I'm replying to a point made by Dan_Solo that the pros should not be considered in these matters, only the cons. They either should be or they shouldn't be, irrespective of the amount of days as as per above, planning law is planning law.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think we can say however that everybody benefits from a National Day and national holidays, not Aiken Promotions, Garth Brooks and concert goers. .

You can't speak for everybody. I'm certain there are people out there that don't benefit from the St Patricks Day parade. I know I don't. Or do you mean via the economy, like the GB gigs?

And again if we are going to apply your logic to this, what does it matter who benefits? Benefits are "Irrelevant".

end of the road

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?

don't give the residents free legal aid for their injunction, they won't be as willing to go for it then

muddypaws

Calina wrote: »

Assorted marathons.

And do you not think they have planning permission?

end of the road

Happyman42 wrote: »

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:

no, there should be some way always for the GAA to get around any supposed agreement with residents who have chosen to live near a large stadium

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

First Up wrote: »

As a piece of administrative bungling devoid of vision and leadership, you would be hard pressed to find better (or worse). The brighter members of the committee sussed this and it was their questions on these lines that had him squirming.

Indeed, I find it absurd that people are saying they were being biased when the reality is that is that he got off lightly. Aiken is promoting concerts for over 50 years and followed the process as he always does (their application was four weeks before the deadline in fact) and Croke Park followed the procedure with respect to instructions laid out by ABP and so neither have done anything wrong. Of course it is Keegan who has more questions to answer than anyone else. Especially someone who changed position so many times, and attempted to negotiate del boy style deals before being willing to put submissions to planners. He can apologise all he wants for that, but that just shows how slippery he is. He knew well if he didn't concede that he should not have done that, that he would have left himself open to be criticized for it.

Love how he can write to the Oireachtas implying that it's members who are also have GAA membership, perhaps should not be present due to a possible conflict of interest and yet he had the head of planning who owed a house in "shadow of Croke Park" sitting beside him as he gave his evidence. A neck like a jockey's bollox, there's no denying it.

I missed the GAA testimony yesterday but it hardly matters. Keegan's own testimony is more than enough to damn him.

Here's the highlights of both:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW05UXdXxjU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRzh7lQQNhE

Calina

muddypaws wrote: »

And do you not think they have planning permission?

I assume they obtain the required licences, yes. I'm responding to whichever poster was implying that if a large event like a parade was to go through D4 it would hardly be entertained.

I'm pretty certain both the mini-marathon and full marathon go through Dublin 4.

end of the road

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?

the residents weren't ****ed over

muddypaws

Calina wrote: »

I assume they obtain the required licences, yes. I'm responding to whichever poster was implying that if a large event like a parade was to go through D4 it would hardly be entertained.

I'm pretty certain both the mini-marathon and full marathon go through Dublin 4.

I've never said it wouldn't be entertained, I am putting the point that everything should be treated the same, whether it is a garth brooks concert or a st patricks day parade. I have no doubt there would be objections from residents if the parade was re-routed through residential streets, and so the DCC planning department would go through the application and deal with it, hopefully taking all sides into account, the way that I believe they did with the brooks concerts.

How much somebody is going to make out of an event shouldn't come into it, the process should be fair and unbiased every time.

Peppa Pig

end of the road wrote: »

the residents weren't ****ed over

Totally agree - they got their own way in the end.
No concerts at all, 2009 agreement adhered to and now guaranteed forever.

Victory for the little man against the big, rich uncaring corporate bigwigs who think they can trample over anyone.

Must be a bit confusing for some

end of the road

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't see why it should lead to more concerts at all. I hope it makes the application process easier yes, but the objections and input of residents, traffic, Gardai and the HSE still need to carry exactly the same weight.

we need more concerts, residents had an opportunity to object to croke parks re-development, simple case of not thinking out of the box and realising that a large venue like this was never going to get the same usage as it once did, it was always going to expand and diversify, and the usage increase

Dan_Solo

end of the road wrote: »

we need more concerts, residents had an opportunity to object to croke parks re-development, simple case of not thinking out of the box and realising that a large venue like this was never going to get the same usage as it once did, it was always going to expand and diversify, and the usage increase

Nonsense. Building a bigger stadium does not automatically entitle you to have gigs 365 nights a year without going through the same licensing process that involves consideration of residents' concerns.

smileyj1987

Calina wrote: »

I assume they obtain the required licences, yes. I'm responding to whichever poster was implying that if a large event like a parade was to go through D4 it would hardly be entertained.

I'm pretty certain both the mini-marathon and full marathon go through Dublin 4.

Yes but those events happen at weekends during the day . There wouldn't be anywhere near the level of noise from a marathon compared to a concert and people having a few drinks .

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

And again if we are going to apply your logic to this, what does it matter who benefits? Benefits are "Irrelevant".

According to the logic you are inventing and pretending I have put forward perhaps. If councils receive objections to St Patrick's day parades then they have to consider them. No difference. Do they receive them? I have no idea.
Any relevance to a single daytime parade on a national holiday in the whole GB affair?
Nope.

end of the road

secman wrote: »

Bumping this..... feeling a little left out

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........

a precedent for 5 nights has all ready been set, so it doesn't matter, lots of people to look after the residents but as i said, they chose to live there, chose to stay there, knowing croke park was there.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Adamocovic wrote: »

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

Go down today and buy a ticket for a concert in ticketmaster and chances are that it will be for a gig yet to be licenced. It is standard practice in this country as the country system is not fit for purpose. Suggesting that this whole debacle is in anyway caused by Aiken selling tickets for an licenced concert, is about as absurd as it gets, as if that were the case, we'd see mini versions of what happened here, happening on a weekly basis throughout the country.. but we don't, do we.

Calina

smileyj1987 wrote: »

Yes but those events happen at weekends during the day . There wouldn't be anywhere near the level of noise from a marathon compared to a concert and people having a few drinks .

Agreed. They also don't cause the same traffic chaos as a Monday/Tuesday night concert would in the area of Drumcondra. Nor do they run over five consecutive evenings. The weight on residents affected would be significantly less than it is on the residents who live near Croke Park were these concerts to go ahead.

Dan_Solo

end of the road wrote: »

a precedent for 5 nights has all ready been set, so it doesn't matter, lots of people to look after the residents but as i said, they chose to live there, chose to stay there, knowing croke park was there.

And you oh so conveniently "forgot" to add "and knowing the existing usage of Croke Park for concerts and events". Which Aiken/Brooks tried to change.

smileyj1987

end of the road wrote: »

don't give the residents free legal aid for their injunction, they won't be as willing to go for it then

I bet they would still object to it even if they had to pay for it out of their own pockets .
You seem to think money is the be all and end all . But the majority of people value happiness and a decent life more and guess what the residents must believe that a shed load of gigs will cause a lot of unnecessary stress on them that they don't want .

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Go down today and buy a ticket for a concert in ticketmaster and chances are that it will be for a gig yet to be licenced. It is standard practice in this country as the country system is not fit for purpose. Suggesting that this whole debacle is in anyway caused by Aiken selling tickets for an licenced concert, is about as absurd as it gets, as if that were the case, we'd see mini versions of what happened here, happening on a weekly basis throughout the country.. but we don't, do we.

No, we wouldn't and you know this.
5 nights in Croke Park is beyond the normal usage levels expected and accepted by local residents.

bobmalooka

end of the road wrote: »

a precedent for 5 nights has all ready been set, so it doesn't matter, lots of people to look after the residents but as i said, they chose to live there, chose to stay there, knowing croke park was there.

Correct

Knowing that the GAA were restricted to 3 non sporting events per year.