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

JRant

Red Nissan wrote: »

To ALL, I wish all the best.

Me personal boards 'enemies' have been quited today. I'm smug about that, sorry, but, no hard feelings going forward,

A unique experience and I'm delighted to have been part of it.

Ireland ABU!

Take care and enjoy the concerts, oh wait.....

mrsbyrne

end of the road wrote: »

not in this case as no law was faught or broken

EOTR, look P Aiken was clearly robbin people with a 6 gun, I fought the law, and the law won, OK?

JRant

nm wrote: »

?

Really what?

That you're not disputing there were legit complaints?

Anyways it's all over now bar the refunds and the independent review and the proposed legislation and the possible court cases.

Red Nissan

JRant wrote: »

Take care and enjoy the concerts, oh wait.....

The concerts have never gone away you know! Just not here. :cool:

roshje

Titzon Toast wrote: »

It's been fun watching the concerts get shot down in flames alright.
You're absolutely right there.

Only two were shot down not all:rolleyes:

nxbyveromdwjpg

JRant wrote: »

That you're not disputing there were legit complaints?

Anyways it's all over now bar the refunds and the independent review and the proposed legislation and the possible court cases.

64% of 200 were validated by the garda, they are not in dispute and never were by me.

You're right about one thing, it is over thank ****

JRant

mrsbyrne wrote: »

EOTR, look P Aiken was clearly robbin people with a 6 gun, I fought the law, and the law won, OK?

You know the way they say that if you have to explain a joke it's not really that funny. Well in this case it is just not true.

I don't think EOTR could get the point if you drew them a map, pointed them in the right direction and held their hand along the way.

JRant

nm wrote: »

64% of 200 were validated by the garda, they are not in dispute and never were by me.

You're right about one thing, it is over thank ****

Not taking them at face value, as you quite clearly stated, is disputing them though.

JRant

Red Nissan wrote: »

The concerts have never gone away you know! Just not here. :cool:

He'll be back.

There's only one thing our Garthy loves more than himself and that's money, loadsamoney.

The cash cow hasn't been milked yet. They're just waiting for the right milking parlour.

mrsbyrne

JRant wrote: »

You know the way they say that if you have to explain a joke it's not really that funny. Well in this case it is just not true.

I don't think EOTR could get the point if you drew them a map, pointed them in the right direction and held their hand along the way.

OK jrant I'll leave it.
I'm going to bed cos I'm tired.
I spent all day breakin rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won



.....gets coat.

JRant

mrsbyrne wrote: »

OK jrant I'll leave it.
I'm going to bed cos I'm tired.
I spent all day breakin rocks in the hot sun
I fought the law and the law won



.....gets coat.

We could rename this whole thread "The Clash", if you'll pardon my pun

nxbyveromdwjpg

JRant wrote: »

Not taking them at face value, as you quite clearly stated, is disputing them though.

I was referring to the other 36%, obviously and as stated

First Up

K.Flyer wrote: »

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.

But there is a requirement of the licensing body to properly evaluate them in the wider context - including the extent to which the objections were contrived as part of a wider fued.

MonsterCookie

First Up wrote: »

But there is a requirement of the licensing body to properly evaluate them in the wider context - including the extent to which the objections were contrived as part of a wider fued.

I think there is way too much emphasis being put on the 'objections'. Whether it was 1 objection or 1000, the DCC made their decision based on the expected disruption around that part of the city.

It's telling that they refused permission for the weeknight concerts, as this indicates they were all too mindful of the impact to rush hour traffic, in and out of the city. Even on weekends, if there is any sort if sellout event in Croker, traffic comes to a standstill e.g. Travelling towards the city from the airport is painful. Add this to workers commuting etc and it becomes a more significant problem again.

The fact that Croker is such a great venue doesn't disguise the fact that the infrastructure around it is not great.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

But there is a requirement of the licensing body to properly evaluate them in the wider context - including the extent to which the objections were contrived as part of a wider fued.

You're right,

First thing that need to be changed is that licence applications should be made 6 months in advance giving the licencing body plenty of time to "properly evaluate them in the wider context". No more throwing in a licence application just short of the deadline anymore hoping that they would be afraid to refuse licences due to concerts being sold out.

First Up

MonsterCookie wrote: »

I think there is way too much emphasis being put on the 'objections'. Whether it was 1 objection or 1000, the DCC made their decision based on the expected disruption around that part of the city.

It's telling that they refused permission for the weeknight concerts, as this indicates they were all too mindful of the impact to rush hour traffic, in and out of the city. Even on weekends, if there is any sort if sellout event in Croker, traffic comes to a standstill e.g. Travelling towards the city from the airport is painful. Add this to workers commuting etc and it becomes a more significant problem again.

The fact that Croker is such a great venue doesn't disguise the fact that the infrastructure around it is not great.

True, but Keegan put much more emphasis on the residents than on wider disruption.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

True, but Keegan put much more emphasis on the residents than on wider disruption.

You mean the disruption to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of citizens who would be affected on the Monday and Tuesday?

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean the disruption to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of citizens who would be affected on the Monday and Tuesday?

He made it clear that the biggest factor was the objections from residents. He did not quote objections from commuters who expected to be discommoded. I'm not saying that there would not have been disruption - just that this is not what Keegan offered as the reason for the decision.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

He made it clear that the biggest factor was the objections from residents. He did not quote objections from commuters who expected to be discommoded. I'm not saying that there would not have been disruption - just that this is not what Keegan offered as the reason for the decision.

Maybe because the residents would be the ones MOST affected by these concerts. He didn't only take into account the residents objections his decision was made on many factors, The residents objections being one of those factors.

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

Maybe because the residents would be the ones MOST affected by these concerts. He didn't only take into account the residents objections his decision was made on many factors, The residents objections being one of those factors.

No, more than that. He said it was the main reason why five was too many. The traffic disruption thing only applied to the two nights not licenced but Keegan absolutely attributed the decision to the resident objections.

Calina

First Up wrote: »

No, more than that. He said it was the main reason why five was too many. The traffic disruption thing only applied to the two nights not licenced but Keegan absolutely attributed the decision to the resident objections.

This doesn't make it an incorrect decision.

First Up

Calina wrote: »

This doesn't make it an incorrect decision.

That is obviously a matter of opinion. The point however is that a forensic analysis of how DCC acted raises many questions and does not show them in an impressive light.

MonsterCookie

First Up wrote: »

That is obviously a matter of opinion. The point however is that a forensic analysis of how DCC acted raises many questions and does not show them in an impressive light.

A matter of opinion yes.

In reality though, Aiken gave them a hospital pass so it's a little difficult given the circumstances for DCC to keep everybody happy and come up smelling roses. In my view they came up with a reasonable response, albeit one that should have led to only 160000 ticket holders being disappointed. The rest was down to GB and his needs.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

I can't believe that Owen Keegan is being allowed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here.

DCC said since July 3rd that 'over intensification' for the residents was the reason for the refusal of the licences. Then, after it becomes clear that Keegan at no stage gave the impression he had an issue with licence application, following evidence from Aiken and Croke Park, he excuses that behaviour by saying that he never gave the impression that he wasn't going to grant licences as he was more than happy to if Croke Park could make the the residents happy.

So which is it: The concerts would cause an over intensification? Or that they had to get the approval of the residents?

I mean, the only way that Keegan could not be lying is if both of the above were one and the same, but how could they be? How could anything that Croke Park did to make the residents happy and also change the fact that the five concerts would be over intensification for the area? It makes no sense. Unless that is, Croke Park could come with 80,000 teleportation devices, put them in the Phoenix park and then all the ticket holders entered and exited the concert that way.

It has to be noted, that after Keegan made his remark about how he would have licenced five concerts if they Croke Park could satisfy the residents and he was asked then just what Croke Park could have specifically done that would have meant in his mind that they would have been that "enormous effort" he spoke of.. he was left flummoxed and spat out a mealy mouthed reply which basically said that that was between Croke Park and the residents.. completely side stepping the question. Of course, he had no choice but to do that as the truth is that he has no fcuking idea what he wanted Croke Park to do. The man is a liar.

I don't believe for one second that there was any "enormous effort" that Croke Park could have done which would have seen them going the "full way" in Keegan's eyes and which would have somehow also meant there would be suddenly no "over intensification" of the area.. which there would have to be if the reason for the licence refusal was a truthful one.

bumper234

First Up wrote: »

No, more than that. He said it was the main reason why five was too many. The traffic disruption thing only applied to the two nights not licenced but Keegan absolutely attributed the decision to the resident objections.

Yeah

The traffic disruption was too much for the weekday concerts and so they didn't get licences. 5 was too much (even croke park.admitted that) but he was still willing to compromise and licence 3. Again we are back to the old....only one person stopped GB from playing here and that is GB himself!

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I can't believe that Owen Keegan is being allowed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here.

DCC said since July 3rd that 'over intensification' for the residents was the reason for the refusal of the licences. Then, after it becomes clear that Keegan at no stage gave the impression he had an issue with licence applications, following evidence from Aiken and Croke Park, he excuses that by saying that he never gave the impression that he wasn't going to grant licences as he was more than happy to if Croke Park if they could make the residents happy.

So which is it: The concerts would cause an over intensification? Or that they had to get the approval of the residents?

I mean, the only way that Keegan could not be lying, is if both of the above were one and the same, but how could they be? How could anything that Croke Park did to make the residents happy, change the fact that the five concerts would be over intensification? It makes no sense. Unless Croke Park could come with 80,000 teleportation devices, put them in the Phoenix park, and then all the ticket holders could enter and exit the concert that way.

It has to be noted, that after Keegan made his remark about how he would have licenced five concerts if they could come satisfy the residents and he was asked just what Croke Park could have done that he would have meant in his mind that they had done what was required of them , he was left flummoxed and spat out a mealy mouthed reply which basically said that was between Croke Park and the residents.. completely side stepping the question. Of course, he had no choice but to do that, as the truth is that he has no fcuking idea what he wanted Croke Park to do. The man is liar.

I don't believe for one second that there was any "enormous effort" that Croke Park could have done which would have seen them going the "full way" in Keegan's eyes and which would have somehow meant there would be no "over intensification" of the area.. which there would have to be if the reason for licence review was a truthful one.

It's truly amazing how you keep making up stuff.

Keegan and the DCC can only go with what they are presented. They don't and quite frankly shouldn't get involved between CP and the residents.

I've already outlined some of the measures CP and Aiken could have implemented but they did nothing. This was Aiken's ball to run with and he dropped it spectacularly.

The only person who I can see that was telling untruths was GB himself. He said he'd do anything to play for his fans, yet canned 3 gigs for no reason at all.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I can't believe that Owen Keegan is being allowed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes here.

DCC said since July 3rd that 'over intensification' for the residents was the reason for the refusal of the licences. Then, after it becomes clear that Keegan at no stage gave the impression he had an issue with licence applications, following evidence from Aiken and Croke Park, he excuses that by saying that he never gave the impression that he wasn't going to grant licences as he was more than happy to if Croke Park if they could make the residents happy.

So which is it: The concerts would cause an over intensification? Or that they had to get the approval of the residents?

I mean, the only way that Keegan could not be lying, is if both of the above were one and the same, but how could they be? How could anything that Croke Park did to make the residents happy, change the fact that the five concerts would be over intensification? It makes no sense. Unless Croke Park could come with 80,000 teleportation devices, put them in the Phoenix park, and then all the ticket holders could enter and exit the concert that way.

It has to be noted, that after Keegan made his remark about how he would have licenced five concerts if they could come satisfy the residents and he was asked just what Croke Park could have done that he would have meant in his mind that they had done what was required of them , he was left flummoxed and spat out a mealy mouthed reply which basically said that was between Croke Park and the residents.. completely side stepping the question. Of course, he had no choice but to do that, as the truth is that he has no fcuking idea what he wanted Croke Park to do. The man is liar.

I don't believe for one second that there was any "enormous effort" that Croke Park could have done which would have seen them going the "full way" in Keegan's eyes and which would have somehow meant there would be no "over intensification" of the area.. which there would have to be if the reason for licence review was a truthful one.

You're right

He should have just told them to **** off and not licenced any. Croke park won't make any idiotic plans for 5 concerts in a row in future until they have made a few grovelling apologies to the local residents and finally sat down to come to an agreement. Might take a year, might take 5.....but it will.happen..

JRant

bumper234 wrote: »

Yeah

The traffic disruption was too much for the weekday concerts and so they didn't get licences. 5 was too much (even croke park.admitted that) but he was still willing to compromise and licence 3. Again we are back to the old....only one person stopped GB from playing here and that is GB himself!

Absolutely agree regarding traffic disruption. Those Mon/Tues gigs would affect two major transport hubs for the city, Dublin Port and the airport.

Being honest I think Keegan and the DCC have done a great job for the city. The Giro was a wonderful event for the city to hold and I think we can all be proud of the fantastic job they did. I'd also agree with Keegan's cycle lane plans. Dublin city is completely clogged with cars and any measures to get more people out of the car and onto the bike should be welcomed. I'd also say the public bike scheme has being a huge success. Yet all people are worried about is a couple of concerts. Ireland is a very strange place indeed.

rossie1977

JRant wrote: »

Yet all people are worried about is a couple of concerts. Ireland is a very strange place indeed.

you have 117 posts on this thread alone, seems to me you are just as worried as everyone else

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

JRant wrote: »

It's truly amazing how you keep making up stuff.

Nothing I have said is made up

Keegan and the DCC can only go with what they are presented. They don't and quite frankly shouldn't get involved between CP and the residents.

I never said CP should get involved between both parties, nor implied it. I referred to Owen Keegan's own words from his evidence to the Oireachtas which are in direct contradiction to the reasons which the DCC gave in their statement when refusing to grant a licence for five concerts.

I've already outlined some of the measures CP and Aiken could have implemented but they did nothing. This was Aiken's ball to run with and he dropped it spectacularly.

Can you point out which one of them would have meant that had Croke Park implemented them, there would suddenly be no "over intensification" of the area during July 25th-29th.

The only person who I can see that was telling untruths was GB himself. He said he'd do anything to play for his fans, yet canned 3 gigs for no reason at all.

Back to Garth Brooks again.. yawn. Any chance you could stay on point?