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

Dan_Solo

bumper234 wrote: »

So all objections should be binned?

Deja vu... we've been through this before. So I just send in one fake objection when I plan my 100 Anthrax concerts in Stephen's Green and hey presto. All the legitimate objections have to be ignored.
Magic!

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

So all objections should be binned?

No the verified ones are valid

Dan_Solo

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Even the director general of the GAA knows the screwed up and publicly admitted it

He's lying obviously. Everybody's lying who doesn't agree with nm. Got it now?

Peppa Pig

nm wrote: »

So 128 verified objections.

Why is crazy Dan shouting capitalised minimum 256 I wonder

Because this figure is what the guards reckon .........

Another way to look at it is only 64 confirmed forgeries. Still 2:1

conorh91

Strazdas wrote: »

Am I right in saying that Keegan never gave any indication there was a problem with the concerts? I notice he says he never gave any assurances but he doesn't seem to have indicated that there was a strong chance some of the concerts wouldn't have been allowed either. If so, it's understandable that all parties concerned (Brooks, Aiken, the GAA etc) were stunned when his decision was announced.

Yeah Timmy Dooley made that point today but Keegan didn't directly respond to it.

Keegan indicated that he expressed support for the concerts, but that at the time he was new to the job and wasn't aware of the history with Croke Park residents. That's fair enough.

But after that, when he started to become aware, you'd think some person would pick up the phone to Aiken and the GAA and say "Guys, I'm aware of what I said previously, and I'm also aware that huge undertakings are being made by your side, so I just want to tell you my support can no longer be relied upon".

Before anyone jumps in and says he was under no obligation to correct his earlier statement, I know he wasn't.

It would just have been the decent and sensible thing to do. That, or not to give a general expression of support in the first place.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Peppa Pig wrote: »

What about Paraic Duffy saying on the news that the GAA accepted that 8 concerts was too much for the residents to take.
Even the director general of the GAA knows the screwed up and publicly admitted it

Pretty sure the wording was 'a big ask' which is quite different to 'too much to take'. If they didn't think they could take it it wouldn't have been planned.

As for the second bit I've never said the GAA were blameless, far from it

Dan_Solo

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Because this figure is what the guards reckon .........

They're lying too I guess. Didn't you get the memo?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Because this figure is what the guards reckon .........

Another way to look at it is only 64 confirmed forgeries. Still 2:1

Why did they stop? Objectors were not contactable if I'm not mistaken. It's not a huge leap to think uncontactable objectors will have a higher chance of being forgeries.

Out of interest, who do we think was behind the forgeries, and why?

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

Why did they stop? Objectors were not contactable if I'm not mistaken. It's not a huge leap to think uncontactable objectors will have a higher chance of being forgeries.

Not only do you know better than DCC, apparently you know better then An Garda Siochana now too. Mutlitalented or what.

Peppa Pig

nm wrote: »

Pretty sure the wording was 'a big ask' which is quite different to 'too much to take'. If they didn't think they could take it it wouldn't have been planned.

I don't know the exact phrase-so I'll happily take your word.

Keegan made a huge deal of it today - I reckon that's what calmed O'Mahoney down. He had DCC statements before they started unlike Tuesday and I thought his warning about privilege was directed to Owen Keegan but I'd now say it was to Timmy Dooley

bumper234

nm wrote: »

No the verified ones are valid

So there you go, DCC made their decision (partly) on the legitimate objections made. Why do some keep bringing up the tiny few that were bogus?

K.Flyer

nm wrote: »

What's majority got to do with anything? The majority of CP residents did not object to the concerts at all

A huge percentage of our population does not exercise the right to vote at general elections. Consequently a government will be elected by a small percentage of the Irish voters and this is acceptable... get my drift...

Strazdas

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah Timmy Dooley made that point today but Keegan didn't directly respond to it.

Keegan indicated that he expressed support for the concerts, but that at the time he was new to the job and wasn't aware of the history with Croke Park residents. That's fair enough.

But after that, when he started to become aware, you'd think some person would pick up the phone to Aiken and the GAA and say "Guys, I'm aware of what I said previously, and I'm also aware that huge undertakings are being made by your side, so I just want to tell you my support can no longer be relied upon".

Before anyone jumps in and says he was under no obligation to correct his earlier statement, I know he wasn't.

It would just have been the decent and sensible thing to do. That, or not to give a general expression of support in the first place.

Yes, if he had warned Aiken and the GAA much earlier that there were potentially huge problems brewing, the situation may have been salvageable. Everyone keeps using the word 'fiasco', but a large part of this comes from the fact that the ruling was announced so close to the concerts, and seemingly took just about everyone completely by surprise.

Peppa Pig

nm wrote: »

Why did they stop? Objectors were not contactable if I'm not mistaken. It's not a huge leap to think uncontactable objectors will have a higher chance of being forgeries.

Out of interest, who do we think was behind the forgeries, and why?

I thought they just hadn't bothered to get to all the others.
If they are not contactable then the address is invalid as is the objection.

To met it sounds like the guards know who is behind it and (hopefully) they are focussing on this.

Crazily enough I'll go for GAA people behind it. I have zero evidence but there is no particular love for the GAA hierachy at grass roots level (at least the clubs in our area)

bumper234

nm wrote: »

Pretty sure the wording was 'a big ask' which is quite different to 'too much to take'. If they didn't think they could take it it wouldn't have been planned.

As for the second bit I've never said the GAA were blameless, far from it

They didn't care if it could be taken or not they just thought they could bully their way through, !"400,000 tickets lads there's no wayyyyyyy DCC will refuse us licences"


OOPS;)

bumper234

K.Flyer wrote: »

A huge percentage of our population does not exercise the right to vote at general elections. Consequently a government will be elected by a small percentage of the Irish voters and this is acceptable... get my drift...

Still by a majority though.

Peppa Pig

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, if he had warned Aiken and the GAA much earlier that there were potentially huge problems brewing, the situation may have been salvageable. Everyone keeps using the word 'fiasco', but a large part of this comes from the fact that the ruling was announced so close to the concerts, and seemingly took just about everyone completely by surprise.

He explained this on Tuesday and today.
He could legally not give any indication on the licences before the process has taken place.
Can you imagine the reaction if he told them in February they would be unsuccessful. It would be carnage.

Mind you it should have been announced earlier in June, but either way Garth Brooks was not budging. 5 or nothing.

Santa Cruz

In any case it will be a great stunt for the future. Just stick in a load of forged objections to muddy the waters

Strazdas

Peppa Pig wrote: »

He explained this on Tuesday and today.
He could legally not give any indication on the licences before the process has taken place.
Can you imagine the reaction if he told them in February they would be unsuccessful. It would be carnage.

Mind you it should have been announced earlier in June, but either way Garth Brooks was not budging. 5 or nothing.

Certainly, but surely he could have given them some indication there was a potential problem looming : I can't believe he would be banned by law from even having a courtesy phone conversation with either Aiken or the GAA. He could say something like "We have received a lot of objections from residents and this is presenting us with a major difficulty".

K.Flyer

bumper234 wrote: »

Still by a majority though.

By the majority of the voters of course.
But the point I was making was not the majority of the country!
In other words, people may be thinking in a certain way, for or against, but only some will actually go to the trouble of having their vote (in this case objection) say something.

Dan_Solo

Strazdas wrote: »

Certainly, but surely he could have given them some indication there was a potential problem looming : I can't believe he would be banned by law from even having a courtesy phone conversation with either Aiken or the GAA. He could say something like "We have received a lot of objections from residents and this is presenting us with a major difficulty".

I think they were, judging by the repeat reapplications by Aiken. Aiken himself must have known there'd be trouble, but GB and crew must have told him 5 or nothing from the start. Aiken's been in this game a while now. He knows the score with big venues.

Reformed Character

Strazdas wrote: »

Certainly, but surely he could have given them some indication there was a potential problem looming : I can't believe he would be banned by law from even having a courtesy phone conversation with either Aiken or the GAA. He could say something like "We have received a lot of objections from residents and this is presenting us with a major difficulty".

He shouldn't have needed to, the residents told the GAA and Aiken in February that they would go to court if necessary to stop the concerts, a full 5 weeks before Aiken bothered to apply for the licences, on Feb. 7th a thread was started in AH on newspaper reports that the residents were threatening to seek an injunction if a licence was granted, so it was public knowledge.

First Up

Reformed Character wrote: »

He shouldn't have needed to, the residents told the GAA and Aiken in February that they would go to court if necessary to stop the concerts, a full 5 weeks before Aiken bothered to apply for the licences, on Feb. 7th a thread was started in AH on newspaper reports that the residents were threatening to seek an injunction if a licence was granted, so it was public knowledge.

"The residents" being who exactly?

conorh91

Peppa Pig wrote: »

He explained this on Tuesday and today.
He could legally not give any indication on the licences before the process has taken place.

But Keegan and the Authority did give indications.

Keegan initially indicated that the application had his support; thereafter the Local Authority, via Owen Keegan said:

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/promoter-rejected-olive-branch-of-fourth-garth-brooks-concert-1.1859859

[to] the promoters there was little likelihood five concerts would be permitted and it was probable licences would be granted for just three.

If he could give that indication then, why couldn't he give similar indications when he became aware of problems?

secman

Santa Cruz wrote: »

In any case it will be a great stunt for the future. Just stick in a load of forged objections to muddy the waters

Well the other stunt doesn't work..............sell a shed load of tickets for a shed load of nights....... .wait as near as possible to gig and apply for license.......

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

"The residents" being who exactly?

Residents

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=resident

One who resides in a particular place permanently or for an extended period, as:

a. A diplomatic official residing in a foreign seat of government.

b. A colonial official acting as adviser to the ruler of a protected state, often having quasi-gubernatorial powers.

c. A member of an intelligence-gathering or nonuniformed law enforcement agency who resides and oversees operations in a certain locale: the FBI resident in St. Louis.

d. One who lives in a dormitory.

2. A physician receiving specialized clinical training in a hospital, usually after completing an internship.

3. A nonmigratory bird or other animal.

adj.

1. Dwelling in a particular place; residing: resident aliens.

2. Living somewhere in connection with duty or work.

3. Inherently present: resident anxieties.

4. Nonmigratory: resident fauna.

Calina

conorh91 wrote: »

Yeah Timmy Dooley made that point today but Keegan didn't directly respond to it.

Keegan indicated that he expressed support for the concerts, but that at the time he was new to the job and wasn't aware of the history with Croke Park residents. That's fair enough.

But after that, when he started to become aware, you'd think some person would pick up the phone to Aiken and the GAA and say "Guys, I'm aware of what I said previously, and I'm also aware that huge undertakings are being made by your side, so I just want to tell you my support can no longer be relied upon".

Before anyone jumps in and says he was under no obligation to correct his earlier statement, I know he wasn't.

It would just have been the decent and sensible thing to do. That, or not to give a general expression of support in the first place.

It's a matter of opinion but to be honest with you, from the outset, my view is that the decent and sensible thing to do would have been not to schedule concerts 4 and 5. No one in Aiken or Croke Park should have needed a phone call to know that the neighbours were going to find that unpalatable and any decent business tactic would have endeavoured not to put their backs up any more than necessary. I mean, I assume they are going to want to have more concerts in the future, right?

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

Residents

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=resident

Ah yes, but "the residents" whose views have been (exclusively) used as the basis for DCC's decision. Can these be described in more detail?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Reformed Character wrote: »

Percentages are not your thing are they./
Firstly you fraudulently asserted that 7% of the population missed out on this event..

I "fraudulently asserted"? :P
<
Look, were around 315,000 members of the population due to attend the concerts or not? If not, what percentage of the population do you think were going to attend? Be honest now.

..and now you claim that 11 out of almost 400 is a LARGE percentage of almost 400.
Back to school for you, D-

Well, ignoring the personal abuse, I was actually referring to the one third and as I feel 33% is quite a large percentage, that's what I decided to say. Tell you what though, when the Gardai are done with their investigations into the forgeries, should that number change, I'll use a different adjective from that point on. How's that.

Titzon Toast

Reformed Character wrote: »

He shouldn't have needed to, the residents told the GAA and Aiken in February that they would go to court if necessary to stop the concerts, a full 5 weeks before Aiken bothered to apply for the licences, on Feb. 7th a thread was started in AH on newspaper reports that the residents were threatening to seek an injunction if a licence was granted, so it was public knowledge.

Thank you. I've been saying this all along. Aiken deliberately waited until the very last second to apply for the licences in the hope that a, There wouldn't be enough time for those against his plans mount a decent challenge. And B, the fact that 400,000 tickets had already been sold,he assumed that DCC wouldn't dare throw a spanner in the works.

I blame Aiken and the GAA for this mess. I'm glad Garth insisted on 5 or nothing too. It meant there was none.
Brilliant!