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

Peppa Pig

First Up wrote: »

"The residents" being who exactly?

The ones who sat ina room in Croke Park a few days later and told Peter McKenna they would take legal action to stop the concerts.

The main item of discussion today is why did Owen Keegan not tell them 5 would not happen. We are losing sight of the fact that the GAA and Aiken knew fine well a ****storm was brewing and thought that by selling all the tickets so early nobody would have the balls to stop them .
Even with the line dancing TDs and Senators they could not succeed.

It's like Scooby Doo - if only for that pesky council we would have succeeded

tonyka

🔥

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Look, were around 315,000 members of the population due to attend the concerts or not?

No

Even from on here most posters had multiple tickets. That Girl is a cowboy even had tickets for every night. SoCal had 3.There were thousands for sale up to a week ago for three of the nights.

My estimation is about 180k individuals in Ireland had tickets. I also do not believe 70k individual people were coming in.

Its about 3.5% that had tickets, its about 1.5% that would have missed out had Garth Brooks done his 3 shows.
I cannot point anywhere to prove this, same as you cannot point anywhere to prove your point.

conorh91

Calina wrote: »

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.

That's a commercial decision. At the time those concerts were being put forward, Owen Keegan was indicating his support for the concerts.

All I'm saying is that the moment Keegan was aware that he could no longer offer DCC's support, it would have been sensible to call Aiken and say "hold your horses, I'm no longer in a position to stand by that support"

Commercial enterprises seek to act by the rule of law, and in doing so they seek guidance from those in authority so that they may predict stable outcomes. This is what makes commerce tick.

Owen Keegan should have been mindful of that, I suggest.

Calina

conorh91 wrote: »

That's a commercial decision. At the time those concerts were being put forward, Owen Keegan was indicating his support for the concerts.

But the residents were not and ultimately, Keegan should never have even had to make a decision for them.

My view is that it was also a very poor commercial decision from the point of view of ensuring continued access to the venue.

First Up

Peppa Pig wrote: »

The ones who sat ina room in Croke Park a few days later and told Peter McKenna they would take legal action to stop the concerts.

The main item of discussion today is why did Owen Keegan not tellthem5 would not happen. We are losing sight of the fact that the GAA and Aiken knew fine well a ****storm was brewing and thought that by selling all the tickets so early nobody would have the balls to stop them .
Even with the line dancing TDs and Senators they could not succeed.

It's like Scooby Doo - if only for that pesky council we would have succeeded

And were these "residents" mandated to represent the whole community and reflecting the views of the majority? How was that determined? Being the loudest and most aggressive counts for something but doesn't necessarily qualify them as spokesmen, or as the sole view to be quoted by DCC as the basis for the decision.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Will look forward to the independent review. Hopefully then even more of Keegan's contradictions will be revealed.

Keegan says he did tell GAA he’d support five Brooks concerts

Dublin city chief executive Owen Keegan has told the Oireachtas transport committee he did tell Croke Park stadium director Peter McKenna he would be supportive of five Garth Brooks concerts.

“I fully accept that I did indicate that I would support the five,” Mr Keegan said in his second round of questioning in relation to the concerts licensing decision concerning the American country singer.

However, he said this was not the same as saying the concerts would get licence.

“I gave absolutely no assurance, nor could I have given any assurance at that stage, that all five concerts would be licensed because no event licence application had been submitted in respect of the concerts.”

He said he made it clear his support was conditional on the “legitimate concerns” of residents being taken into account.

He said there was subsequently a failure by GAA and Aiken Promotions to address these concerns.

Mr Brooks formally announced the cancellation of all his Croke Park concerts – for which 400,000 tickets had been sold – last Monday and ticket refunds began yesterday.

Mr Keegan told the committee last Tuesday that Aiken Promotions would have been aware from the time the five concerts were announced that the council had “serious concerns” about the number and the promoter could not have had a “legitimate expectation” five licences would be granted.

However, the following day GAA director general Páraic Duffy told the committee it was “incomprehensible” the five gigs were not given the go-ahead.

He said there was not “even a hint” a licence would be refused for all five shows which had become an “unmissable national event”.

He said, prior to the submission of a licence application earlier this year, Mr McKenna had received a phone call from Mr Keegan advising him the council would “support a licence application for all five”.

Peppa Pig

conorh91 wrote: »

Commercial enterprises seek to act by the rule of law, and in doing so they seek guidance from those in authority so that they may predict stable outcomes. This is what makes commerce tick.

You do realise that this is abut planning and you have picked the most corrupt sector we have had in the last 30 years.

Has commercial enterprises done what you suggest we would not have ghost estates in every town and would not have needed a bailout

conorh91

Peppa Pig wrote: »

You do realise that this is abut planning and you have picked the most corrupt sector we have had in the last 30 years.

That sentence doesn't make any sense.

I'm going to repeat what I said.

Commercial enterprises seek guidance from law-enforcing authorities for guidance on planning and related environmental matters. I think everyone accept this and agrees that this guidance should be forthcoming.

The fact that some developers and Planning Authorities got involved in corruption in Dublin in the last 30 years seems irrelevant and tangental.

conorh91

Calina wrote: »

But the residents were not and ultimately, Keegan should never have even had to make a decision for them.

What do you mean Keegan should never have had to make a decision? Are you saying DCC should never have considered an application?

Peppa Pig

First Up wrote: »

And were these "residents" mandated to represent the whole community and reflecting the views of the majority? How was that determined? Being the loudest and most aggressive counts for something but doesn't necessarily qualify them as spokesmen, or as the sole view to be quoted by DCC as the basis for the decision.

Who knows - who cares.
Can you not see that people told the GAA and Aiken that they were not happy with these concerts and would go to court to get them stopped. Aiken/GAA had to know there would be problems. Listen to Keegan's testimony. He said he would support the concerts if they could get the residents onside.
Even he knew there would be issues with the residents, Aiken/GAA ignored the issue hoping it would go away.

They ended up in court looking to get Keegan's decision for 3 concerts overturned ffs

K.Flyer

First Up wrote: »

And were these "residents" mandated to represent the whole community and reflecting the views of the majority? How was that determined? Being the loudest and most aggressive counts for something but doesn't necessarily qualify them as spokesmen, or as the sole view to be quoted by DCC as the basis for the decision.

There is no requirement for someone, be it a single individual or a group, who wish to lodge an objection to a planning application to be "mandated" by anyone, not even their neighbours.
Neither are they required to represent the views of the majority, all that is required from them is that their objection has fair and reasonable grounds for consideration.

Calina

conorh91 wrote: »

What do you mean Keegan should never have had to make a decision? Are you saying DCC should never have considered an application?

No, upfront, I am saying that concerts 4 and 5 should never have even been considered as possible by the promoter. It was an awful commercial decision because they were already aware that it would cause contention with their venue's neighbours and it might impact on their ability to run concerts there in the future without increased hassle.

Keegan shouldn't have to make a decision about those two concerts because they were an awful commercial decision.

miss no stars

Who cares?

A plane full of innocent people was shot out of the sky yesterday. Nearly 300 people are dead. Yet people are still going on about a concert? The licensing laws will be reviewed in due course. Put it in perspective.

Time to get over it - both sides!

conorh91

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Who knows - who cares.
Can you not see that people told the GAA and Aiken that they were not happy with these concerts and would go to court to get them stopped.

The High Court can't "stop" the concerts, except by way of an interim injunction.

It could only refer the decision back to DCC asking them to have a second look *IF* the HC found that there had been some fault with how DCC arrived at its decision.

It isn't clear to me what grounds could be cited by the residents to fault the manner in which DCC arrived at its decision ,if DCC had given the concerts the go-ahead.

conorh91

Calina wrote: »

No, upfront, I am saying that concerts 4 and 5 should never have even been considered as possible by the promoter.

Why? because residents were grumbling?

Commercial enterprises and residents generally respect the rule of law. If the person applying for licence receives an indication that the Planner is supportive, they are perfectly right and entitled to proceed and apply for the licence, regardless of what the residents think.



I'm off for a pint. I suggest others do the same. Goodnight!

Dan_Solo

First Up wrote: »

And were these "residents" mandated to represent the whole community and reflecting the views of the majority? How was that determined? Being the loudest and most aggressive counts for something but doesn't necessarily qualify them as spokesmen, or as the sole view to be quoted by DCC as the basis for the decision.

That reminds me of the DJ in Good Morning Vietnam saying he was playing music for the millions of silent polka lovers out there.
All we know is they said nothing. It isn't evidence of anything.

Peppa Pig

conorh91 wrote: »

Commercial enterprises seek to act by the rule of law, and in doing so they seek guidance from those in authority so that they may predict stable outcomes. This is what makes commerce tick.

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm going to repeat what I said.
Commercial enterprises seek guidance from law-enforcing authorities for guidance on planning and related environmental matters.

Unless my eyes are deceiving me you have not repeated what you said, you have said something different. I'll assume you clarified it.

Let me give my view on it. A commercial enterprise with integrity will seek guidance and act within the law.
In this instance they tried every possible action to over rule the law. They even got the Oireachtas committee to seek a judicial review so that 5 concerts could go ahead at the last minute.

Peppa Pig

conorh91 wrote: »

Why? because residents were grumbling?

Commercial enterprises and residents generally respect the rule of law. If the person applying for licence receives an indication that the Planner is supportive, they are perfectly right and entitled to proceed and apply for the licence, regardless of what the residents think.



I'm off for a pint. I suggest others do the same. Goodnight!

Agus mise - slán go fóill

Dan_Solo

miss no stars wrote: »

Nearly 300 people are dead.

What? There's far more dead people than that!

muddypaws

miss no stars wrote: »

Who cares?

A plane full of innocent people was shot out of the sky yesterday. Nearly 300 people are dead. Yet people are still going on about a concert? The licensing laws will be reviewed in due course. Put it in perspective.

Time to get over it - both sides!

A friend of mine today said that she wished that all there was to talk about was Garth Brooks, the fact that the plane got blown up, people are being killed in Gaza make her sick about the world.

Maybe, people like to come on here and have a whinge, a moan and a debate about something else, something where nobody died because the other stuff is just too mind blowingly sad and difficult to contemplate?

Red Nissan

Aiken: Any chance of seven concerts?
Keegan: No chance at all.
Aiken: Any chance of five concerts?
Keegan: Sure boy make it easy for ME.

Aiken: Right SO then,
Croake Park: Any chance of five concert there?
Keegan: Sure boy, just make it easy for ME.
Croake Park: Right SO Then.
Aiken: We want five licenses now so then
Keegan: You did NOT make it easy for ME.
Aiken: What?
Croake Park: What?

Keegan: You did not make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Have we five or what?
Keegan: Yuos have three, ye bastards did not make it easy for ME.
Brooks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Four then ye bastards, I told ye to make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Four?

Keegan: AND I want a guarantee that all four will go ahead.
Aiken: All four guaranteed? What?
Broosks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Ye bastards, ye did not make it EASY FOR ME, Three or nuttin.
Brooks: **** OFF. Nuttin then.
OBAMA: What the **** happened here like?

nxbyveromdwjpg

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...

I do. But they don't usually throw around unverified numbers either, e.g. 375, when there are forgeries amongst them.
General elections are thorough that way (I hope at least)

Bobeagleburger

Red Nissan wrote: »

Aiken: Any chance of seven concerts?
Keegan: No chance at all.
Aiken: Any chance of five concerts?
Keegan: Sure boy make it easy for ME.

Aiken: Right SO then,
Croake Park: Any chance of five concert there?
Keegan: Sure boy, just make it easy for ME.
Croake Park: Right SO Then.
Aiken: We want five licenses now so then
Keegan: You did NOT make it easy for ME.
Aiken: What?
Croake Park: What?

Keegan: You did not make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Have we five or what?
Keegan: Yuos have three, ye bastards did not make it easy for ME.
Brooks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Four then ye bastards, I told ye to make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Four?

Keegan: AND I want a guarantee that all four will go ahead.
Aiken: All four guaranteed? What?
Broosks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Ye bastards, ye did not make it EASY FOR ME, Three or nuttin.
Brooks: **** OFF. Nuttin then.
OBAMA: What the **** happened here like?

*Tumbleweed

end of the road

Peppa Pig wrote: »

A commercial enterprise with integrity will seek guidance and act within the law.

yes, the promotor is such a business and acted within the law. the GAA is such an entity and acted within the law

Peppa Pig wrote: »

In this instance they tried every possible action to over rule the law.

no they didn't, they did what was legally required and acted within the law.

Peppa Pig wrote: »

They even got the Oireachtas committee to seek a judicial review so that 5 concerts could go ahead at the last minute.

nothing wrong with that considering a lot of people bought tickets and they wanted to try to get the concerts back on so the people could go to them.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

JRant

Red Nissan wrote: »

Aiken: Any chance of seven concerts?
Keegan: No chance at all.
Aiken: Any chance of five concerts?
Keegan: Sure boy make it easy for ME.

Aiken: Right SO then,
Croake Park: Any chance of five concert there?
Keegan: Sure boy, just make it easy for ME.
Croake Park: Right SO Then.
Aiken: We want five licenses now so then
Keegan: You did NOT make it easy for ME.
Aiken: What?
Croake Park: What?

Keegan: You did not make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Have we five or what?
Keegan: Yuos have three, ye bastards did not make it easy for ME.
Brooks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Four then ye bastards, I told ye to make it easy for ME.
Aiken: Four?

Keegan: AND I want a guarantee that all four will go ahead.
Aiken: All four guaranteed? What?
Broosks: **** OFF.
Keegan: Ye bastards, ye did not make it EASY FOR ME, Three or nuttin.
Brooks: **** OFF. Nuttin then.
OBAMA: What the **** happened here like?

Keegan: What measures have you taken to address residents complaints?

Aiken/GAA: ermm well nothing.

JRant

end of the road wrote: »

yes, the promotor is such a business and acted within the law. the GAA is such an entity and acted within the law



no they didn't, they did what was legally required and acted within the law.



nothing wrong with that considering a lot of people bought tickets and they wanted to try to get the concerts back on so the people could go to them.

I fought the law and the law won.

Mrs Garth Brooks

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Every concert, every promoter, Aiken Promotion and MCD sells tickets without a licence. Always have in this country. Except in the O2. Some people are really blind not see that much.

JRant

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The promoter broke the law by selling tickets without a licence. Some people are really blind not to see that much.

For me the most important part of this whole process is lost on many. People keep asking "why didn't DCC let everyone know there were issues?", "why was the decision made in July?" etc etc. The real question is why Aiken so spectacularly dropped the ball?

They should have been on this like white on rice from the begining.

Simple measures like offering park & ride facities to limit traffic distruption.

Have only 2 main thoroughfares into and out of the grounds, jones road and clonliffe road. Thereby stopping people streaming down small side streets late at night.

Get the local community involved in the event. Give the local schools free tours of the skywalk. Have the kids somehow involved in the gigs, like an art show that Garth gets to see. You get the general idea I'm making here hopefully.

What they absolutely should not have done was nothing and that is exactly what they did. All the while blaming everyone and their mothers but accepting no responsibility themselves.

Shame really, as they have let a lot of genuine people down with the omnishambles of their own making.