Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…226227229231232…265

Comments

  • Options
    #6842
    Peppa Pig
    Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    end of the road wrote: »
    they chose to live there, chose to stay there, knowing croke park was there.
    Exactly - it their own fault.


    It's like the Irish Rail employees who have just said they are going on strike due to the company ignoring their agreement with them and implementing pay cuts.
    They chose to work there and chose to stay working there - they should have known that their pay could go down.

    It's actually liberating and refreshing to support the big guys - isn't it


  • Options
    #6843
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    bobmalooka wrote: »
    Correct

    Knowing that the GAA were restricted to 3 non sporting events per year.
    Dang, you spotted that curious omission too? But it's a stadium! Local residents can't complain if there's 365 Slayer concerts there a year, 'cos, ya know, it's a stadium!


  • Options
    #6844
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    Paddy Power giving 2/1 on Keegan not answering a question with a straight 'Yes' or 'No'.

    Cracking bet.


  • Options
    #6845
    smileyj1987
    Registered Users Posts: 5,325 ✭✭✭smileyj1987


    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.

    Yeah it did set a precedent ! That no matter what the gaa , Aiken or anyone else says 5 concerts in the trot will never happen at croke park .


  • Options
    #6846
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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
    It's moot for the time being, but the State is already legally bound to ensure that access to justice for citizens in relation to environmental litigation must not be prohibitively expensive.

    They might not get legal aid, but they may well get an interlocutory costs order in their favour, essentially meaning that they don't pay the other side's costs or that their contribution to the other side's costs are capped. Essentially, the law is on the side of the residents in terms of costs, although in the case of Garth Brooks it's moot as I said.

    The situation outlined above is sometimes unfair and encourages cranks and busybodies with very dubious objections to take to the courts if you ask me, but c'est la vie.
    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.
    But a parade is different.

    Croke Park has been up there, just off the Clonliffe Road, since the Victorian era. Everybody knew it was there. Many of the residents are (relatively) new to the area and bought their houses well after the last major expansion of Croke Park.

    A parade is not foreseen in the same way as a 16 acre stadium complex at the top of the road ought to be foreseen.

    Property prices in Dublin 3, in the shadow of Croke Park, reflect the presence of the stadium and all of the hurly burly that goes along with that and with metropolitan life in general. There is no legitimate comparison to an unpredicted parade passing through a genuinely residential suburb way outside the inner metropolis.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6847
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    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

    Free legal Aid is only available in criminal cases, look it up.


  • Options
    #6848
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Exactly - it their own fault.


    It's like the Irish Rail employees who have just said they are going on strike due to the company ignoring their agreement with them and implementing pay cuts.
    They chose to work there and chose to stay working there - they should have known that their pay could go down.

    It's actually liberating and refreshing to support the big guys - isn't it
    All these people whining about the GB concerts being cancelled... they KNEW the DCC was in charge of licensing, they KNEW they voted for the politicianw that put this system in place, they KNEW the accepted usage level of Croke Park...
    So it's basically Garth Brooks' fans own fault for living in Ireland and voting.
    Am I doing this right?


  • Options
    #6849
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    bobmalooka wrote: »
    Correct

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

    No restriction, they just need to apply for licences beyond 3 which is par for the course in all venues.


  • Options
    #6850
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Totally agree - they got their own way in the end.

    no, only the few who have issues with the GAA and were using the concerts as a way of getting at them.
    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    No concerts at all

    causing the city and the local community to lose out.
    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    2009 agreement adhered to and now guaranteed forever.

    afraid not as it doesn't exist, more then 3 concerts will happen, the precedent has been set.
    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Victory for the little man against the big, rich uncaring corporate bigwigs who think they can trample over anyone.

    Victory for those who were using the concerts as a way to get at the GAA because of their underlying issues with the GAA that most likely are non-issues, nobody was trampled on, immotive gibberish from the few anti-GAA heads around croke park.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #6851
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
    Paddy Power giving 2/1 on Keegan not answering a question with a straight 'Yes' or 'No'.

    Cracking bet.
    How many did Aiken manage?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6852
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Reformed Character wrote: »
    Free legal Aid is only available in criminal cases, look it up.
    Wrong. Again.

    You need to stop making these assertions, a simple google search would correct you.


  • Options
    #6853
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    end of the road wrote: »
    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

    The agreement is not "supposed", nor is the planning permission.
    The only way around it would be to negotiate with the residents, but the GAA are like the Orange Order, negotiating with residents is something they don't believe in!


  • Options
    #6854
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nm wrote: »
    No restriction, they just need to apply for licences beyond 3 which is par for the course in all venues.
    Which they didn't get as it was unacceptable and beyond the current usage pattern.
    Next.


  • Options
    #6855
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    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.
    of course it does, the council could have just not given planning permission for the re-development but they did give it, so they have okayed the expansian increased usage and diversification

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #6856
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    end of the road wrote: »
    Victory for those who were using the concerts as a way to get at the GAA because of their underlying issues with the GAA that most likely are non-issues, nobody was trampled on, immotive gibberish from the few anti-GAA heads around croke park.
    More or less emotive gibberish than saying your dead mother is crying over not being able to play 5 concerts?


  • Options
    #6857
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    end of the road wrote: »
    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

    No there shouldn't


  • Options
    #6858
    Reformed Character
    Closed Accounts Posts: 710 ✭✭✭Reformed Character


    conorh91 wrote: »
    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:




    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?
    More horseshít.
    Once an application is lodged it is the role of the DCC to adjudicate on said application, not to act as a mediator between the applicant and the objectors.


  • Options
    #6859
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    end of the road wrote: »
    the residents weren't ****ed over

    No they were'nt they got what they wanted :D


  • Options
    #6860
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    end of the road wrote: »
    of course it does, the council could have just not given planning permission for the re-development but they did give it, so they have okayed the expansian increased usage and diversification

    I seem to recall reading that there was a limitation on the use of the stadium for non-sports events in the planning permission as given. How you can assert that this means they okayed increased usage and diversification is beyond me.


  • Options
    #6861
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    end of the road wrote: »
    of course it does, the council could have just not given planning permission for the re-development but they did give it, so they have okayed the expansian increased usage and diversification
    Hang on there mate. Non-sequitur alarm just went off.
    Who told them they could expand the usage to, for example, 5 extra night times concerts a year on the back of the Croke Park expansion? Was that part of their planning application or, you know, did you just make that up two seconds ago?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6862
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    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

    Tell us again how Croke park won and the residents lost please :D


  • Options
    #6863
    nxbyveromdwjpg
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,402 ✭✭✭nxbyveromdwjpg


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Which they didn't get as it was unacceptable and beyond the current usage pattern.
    Next.

    So they're not restricted to 3 then?

    I mean they did get 6. You're all over the place, again.


  • Options
    #6864
    brooke 2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,472 ✭✭✭brooke 2


    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. 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........

    That Oireachtas committee meeting with Eoin Keegan illustrated perfectly why it
    was appropriate for him to question beforehand how many on the inquiry
    panel had affiliations with the GAA. The contrast between his and Keogan's
    treatment, as opposed to that given to Duffy and McKenna the following day,
    was truly sickening. Timmy Dooley and Eamon Coughlan were pathetic.


  • Options
    #6865
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    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'm sure you have evidence that the residents get free legal aid? I mean it wouldn't be like you to make an accusation without having the evidence to back it up right?


  • Options
    #6866
    Red Nissan
    Registered Users Posts: 3,055 ✭✭✭Red Nissan


    Calina wrote: »
    I seem to recall reading that there was a limitation on the use of the stadium for non-sports events in the planning permission as given. How you can assert that this means they okayed increased usage and diversification is beyond me.

    This is a myth. The use of the stadium is limited only by non granting of licenses above the three recommended.

    Anyone can apply for as many as varied usage as they want, but through the planning offices.


  • Options
    #6867
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    smileyj1987 wrote: »
    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 .
    how are they going to fund their injunction? surely feeding the children if they have them is more important?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #6868
    Wishiwasa Littlebitaller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭Wishiwasa Littlebitaller


    nm wrote: »
    So they're not restricted to 3 then?

    I mean they did get 6 7 (8 of you include the matinees). You're all over the place, again.

    FYP ;)


  • Options
    #6869
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, only the few who have issues with the GAA and were using the concerts as a way of getting at them.



    causing the city and the local community to lose out.



    afraid not as it doesn't exist, more then 3 concerts will happen, the precedent has been set.



    Victory for those who were using the concerts as a way to get at the GAA because of their underlying issues with the GAA that most likely are non-issues, nobody was trampled on, immotive gibberish from the few anti-GAA heads around croke park.

    The precedent has not been set, Just because 3 licences were granted does not mean a quick court injunction would stop that. Residents have rights, get used to it.


  • Options
    #6870
    conorh91
    Registered Users Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Reformed Character wrote: »
    More horseshít.
    Once an application is lodged it is the role of the DCC to adjudicate on said application
    I didn't say it is an obligation.

    I said it is a right of the the Local Authority to act, essentially, as a mediator by holding consultative meetings between the two sides with a view to resolving the issue early in the process, when a problem becomes apparent.

    They did not do this.

    You said that such a consultation would be unlawful.

    You are incorrect.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6871
    hynesie08
    Registered Users Posts: 9,767 ✭✭✭hynesie08


    end of the road wrote: »
    how are they going to fund their injunction? surely feeding the children if they have them is more important?

    Why do you think they can't afford both?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement