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

First Up

bumper234 wrote: »

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..

This post neatly encapsulates the type of adversarial attitude that bedevils much of Irish life and society. Better we all lose than the other guy wins.

What was needed to break the impasse was some leadership and imagination but DCC is obviously not where we we'll find it.

conorh91

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What law? Be specific.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What piece of legislation are you looking at that would allow for a €12 million fine?

bumper234 wrote: »

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".

So lets get this straight.

A reasonably well-known band that gigs at fairly small concerts, and wants to play at a fairly small, 5,000-man festival in a parish field somewhere in Ireland needs to wait six months before they can even acquire a licence (that duration seemingly chosen at random). They then need to start selling tickets and planning the event, which for a 5,000-man event, might take three or four months.

That's nine or ten months notice.

So basically if in March you want to sing in a field in Ireland in the Summer, you have to wait until the Summer of the following year?

Are you for real?

You probably are. But I think everyone else can immediately see how ridiculous and irrational you're being.

JRant

rossie1977 wrote: »

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

You obviously missed all the other points I was making in that post so.

Worried, no.

Interested in the discussion, yes.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

So lets get this straight.

A reasonably well-known band that gigs at fairly small concerts, and wants to play at a fairly small, 5,000-man festival in a parish field somewhere in Ireland needs to wait six months before they can even acquire a licence (that duration seemingly chosen at random). They then need to start selling tickets and planning the event, which for a 5,000-man event, might take three or four months.

That's nine or ten months notice.

So basically if in March you want to sing in a field in Ireland in the Summer, you have to wait until the Summer of the following year?

Are you for real?

You probably are. But I think everyone else can immediately see how ridiculous and irrational you're being.

If they were playing at a festival, then the festival would apply for the licence, not the band and yes, I would assume that a festival organiser would apply for the licence in that time frame, to ensure they could get the bands they wanted at the festival. I'm not sure why they would add the extra time on for organisation though, as I can't see where anyone is saying it would take 6 months for a licence to be granted. You apply 6 months prior to the event, it would still take the time it does now, lets say 2 months, that still leaves 4 months to get it organised.

First Up

JRant wrote: »

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.

So traffic disruption for a bike race is OK, but not for a concert?

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Nothing I have said is made up



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.



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.



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

Almost every post you make has some sort of made up point in it.

"It's the largest event in the city for years" - It was not.

"Keegan is a liar" - you've no proof of this yet keep banging on about it.

"7% of the population were going to the concerts" - again no proof to back up this claim, just taking one arbitrary number and dividing it by another number does not make it a fact.

"DCC had no consultation with Aiken before the granting of the 3 licenses" - not true.

The chairman of the committee stated that DCC did nothing wrong yet you know better.

Regarding the disruption, park and ride facilities would have taken huge pressure off the road infrastructure. Why didn't they organise special buses to ferry people from the many park and ride facilities, like Dunboyne and at the red cow?

Love the irony of you telling people to stay on point. Your posts read like "the goalposts are over >>>>>, no I meant over <<<<<<<"

JRant

First Up wrote: »

So traffic disruption for a bike race is OK, but not for a concert?

The Giro was on a Sunday, you know one of the weekend days. Traffic is alot lighter on Sundays, people are off work and it might just inspire more kids to get out on their bikes.

Just like they hold the marathon at weekends or bank holidays.

The only benefit from concerts is for the artist involved, promoter and venue.

conorh91

muddypaws wrote: »

II can't see where anyone is saying it would take 6 months for a licence to be granted. You apply 6 months prior to the event, it would still take the time it does now, lets say 2 months, that still leaves 4 months to get it organised.

I'm inferring from the poster's words that the 6-month time frame is to "properly evaluate [applications] in the wider context" envisages a significantly longer waiting process than currently exists.

Nevertheless, whether 6 months or 9 months would be required before playing any gig, this idea is impractical for many smaller performers, and I think any rational person reading these suggestions must be rolling their eyes at that idea.

JRant

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm inferring from the poster's words that the 6-month time frame is to "properly evaluate [applications] in the wider context" envisages a significantly longer waiting process than currently exists.

Nevertheless, whether 6 months or 9 months would be required before playing any gig, this idea is impractical for many smaller performers, and I think any rational person reading these suggestions must be rolling their eyes at that idea.

IMO we can change the process but the most important aspect will still be the venues relationship with its neighbours.

CP need to sort this out themselves as nobody can do it for them. For instance, why are people allowed access the stadium through small narrow streets. Jones rd and Clonliffe rd should be the only thoroughfares into the grounds. That alone would mitigate alot of the issues. I'd also say they could do an awful lot more with marshalling crowds after events.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm inferring from the poster's words that the 6-month time frame is to "properly evaluate [applications] in the wider context" envisages a significantly longer waiting process than currently exists.

Nevertheless, whether 6 months or 9 months would be required before playing any gig, this idea is impractical for many smaller performers, and I think any rational person reading these suggestions must be rolling their eyes at that idea.

Its not for any gig, as gigs played in a music venue, such as the O2 are already licenced.

JRant

muddypaws wrote: »

If they were playing at a festival, then the festival would apply for the licence, not the band and yes, I would assume that a festival organiser would apply for the licence in that time frame, to ensure they could get the bands they wanted at the festival. I'm not sure why they would add the extra time on for organisation though, as I can't see where anyone is saying it would take 6 months for a licence to be granted. You apply 6 months prior to the event, it would still take the time it does now, lets say 2 months, that still leaves 4 months to get it organised.

That's a point lost on many. It is the venue that the license is applied for, not the artist.

conorh91

JRant wrote: »

CP need to sort this out themselves as nobody can do it for them. For instance, why are people allowed access the stadium through small narrow streets. Jones rd and Clonliffe rd should be the only thoroughfares into the grounds. That alone would mitigate alot of the issues. I'd also say they could do an awful lot more with marshalling crowds after events.

I'm not aware of the individual circumstances around Croke Park. However, from what I've heard in the media there appears to be blame on both sides. Croke Park have had issues in how events are handled, and the local residents seem to have sometimes unrealistic expectations.

That area around the Clonliffe Road is not suburbia by a long shot. And even areas that are 'suburbia, such as Marlay Park, have already had something like 8 concerts this year.

It's all reflected in house prices. You have to take the good with the bad.

muddypaws wrote: »

Its not for any gig, as gigs played in a music venue, such as the O2 are already licenced.

Obviously.

This is nothing to do with what I just said or the example I gave.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

Nevertheless, whether 6 months or 9 months would be required before playing any gig, this idea is impractical for many smaller performers, and I think any rational person reading these suggestions must be rolling their eyes at that idea.

That is exactly what you said.

conorh91

muddypaws wrote: »

That is exactly what you said.

OK.

Any relevant gig.

Glad this crucial point has been clarified.

demanufactured

So are the gigs cancelled then yeah?

JRant

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not aware of the individual circumstances around Croke Park. However, from what I've heard in the media there appears to be blame on both sides. Croke Park have had issues in how events are handled, and the local residents seem to have sometimes unrealistic expectations.

That area around the Clonliffe Road is not suburbia by a long shot. And even areas that are 'suburbia, such as Marlay Park, have already had something like 8 concerts this year.

It's all reflected in house prices. You have to take the good with the bad.

Obviously.

This is nothing to do with what I just said or the example I gave.

I am aware of the issues though, CP are aware of the issues and the residents are aware of the issues.

The blame surely lies squarely at the feet of CP though. They are a private organisation trying to put undue restrictions on those around them.

Marlay park on the other hand seems to have a very healthy relationship with the locals.

I've no idea what you mean by suburbia. Of course Clonliffe road is not suburbia, it's located in the city centre. Maybe you could clarify what you mean, cheers.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

OK.

Any relevant gig.

Glad this crucial point has been clarified.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point, if a band is playing in a music venue, it is already licenced. If a band is asked to play at a festival, with more than 5000 attendees, then it would most definitely be organised more than 6 months before it is on. Glastonbury tickets usually go on sale around October the preceding year, for the festival at the end of June.

Electric Picnic tickets went on sale at the beginning of December 2013 for the festival at the end of August 2014, almost 9 months before the event.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

JRant wrote: »

"It's the largest event in the city for years"

- It was not.

This again? You take someone out of context and fail to accept you did that. Have said all I am going to in this post.

"Keegan is a liar"

You've no proof of this yet keep banging on about it.

My proof is the testimony of Croke Park and the GAA. Keegan stated all along that he made it clear that that there were problems with the applications and implied that he was never going to grant a licence for five nights. It was not until evidence was given by the Croke Park delegates and Peter Aiken that he then changed his tune and began to admit the truth, which was that he had shown support throughout the licence application and that he had also been prepared to grant the five licences too but adds that the reason he was giving the impression all along that he would grant five licences, is that he was waiting for Croke Park to make an "enormous effort" to make the residents happy.

Why not share this information at the first Oireachtas committee meeting. Why wait until after the GAA and Croke Park had given their evidence? Cause he was covering his tracks, that's why. He knew he had to come up with a reason for giving the impression all along that he was going to grant the licences and so he excuses that by saying: 'Oh, I was acting like that as I would have granted the five night licence but you all just didn't didn't go the full way. Did I not make that clear? Ah, my bad lads. I'm new at the job'..

Repeating over and over again that he never gave assurances that he would grant five licences is strawman central and is just done to distract away from the fact that he did not do his job correctly. Nobody has said that he assured he would grant a five night licence as everyone knows that is not how the system works but it is his job to make it clear what he is looking for when he requests updated event management plans and he clearly did not do that, otherwise you would not have Croke Park, Aiken and the GAA perplexed at his decision. Their evidence makes it clear that he is a waffler. Are they supposed to be psychic or something?

As Dooley said to him, the reasons he gave for refusing the licences were "blindingly obvious" in Feb. So it should have been expressed more strenuously that this was of such concern, that the licencing of the concerts was in jeopardy, but it clearly was not. In fact, Keegan admits this and says that Keogan did this and not him, thereby passing the buck. Either way, his testimony now suggests that over intensification was not the reason at all, as he suggests that Croke Park could have done something for the residents which would have seen him happy to allow five nights and again, other than teleportation devices, I don't see how Croke Park could do anything to negate the fact that there would be an over intensification of people during those five nights.

"7% of the population were going to the concerts".

again no proof to back up this claim, just taking one arbitrary number and dividing it by another number does not make it a fact.

You keep making this point and then running away from the argument when I address it. This is the last time I reply to on this point. So answer the questions I put to you in relation to it, or don't bother bringing it back up:

330,000 tickets were sold in the ROI. I am allocating around 15,000 will be additional attendances. 315,000 people is roughly 7% of the population. If you don't accept either of those numbers, fine, tell what numbers you are willing to concede and also what percentage of the population you feel would have attended those five nights. Thanking you.

"DCC had no consultation with Aiken before the granting of the 3 licenses

- not true.

Are you kidding me? You used quotation marks there. Any chance you could actually you know, quote the post where I said that?

Why would I say something so absurd as Aiken and DCC never having consultation before July 2nd?? Are you say I make things up

The rest of your post was equally as nonsensical.

First Up

JRant wrote: »

The Giro was on a Sunday, you know one of the weekend days. Traffic is alot lighter on Sundays, people are off work and it might just inspire more kids to get out on their bikes.

Just like they hold the marathon at weekends or bank holidays.

The only benefit from concerts is for the artist involved, promoter and venue.

And the airfares, trainfares, bus fares, hotels, dinners, things bought in shops, pubs.... You think 400,000 people don't provide some business to someone?
The Giro was nice to have but the economic benefit was minimal in comparison. I know Keegan is a bike nut but he really needs a wider view of his job.

conorh91

JRant wrote: »

I've no idea what you mean by suburbia. Of course Clonliffe road is not suburbia, it's located in the city centre. Maybe you could clarify what you mean, cheers.

By suburbia, I mean residential communities which are located outside or adjacent to the central metropolitan districts, and which are sheltered from the anticipated disturbances that arise as a consequence of commercial enterprises in the central metropolis.

Basically, if you go and buy a house under the shadow of a 16 acres stadium complex, expect disturbances.

Marlay Park residents kick up stink about the concerts in Marlay Park, but I guess they also shrug and admit that it's been a big events venue of long standing, and that this was reflected in their house prices.

conorh91

muddypaws wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point, if a band is playing in a music venue, it is already licenced. If a band is asked to play at a festival, with more than 5000 attendees, then it would most definitely be organised more than 6 months before it is on. Glastonbury tickets usually go on sale around October the preceding year, for the festival at the end of June.

Glastonbury sells something like 120,000 tickets.

The gig I'm talking about would fit in the hurling field in a small town.

It's smaller than Cappamore Agricultural Show. It doesn't require extensive planning like Glastonbury.

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

This again? You take someone out of context and fail to accept you did that. Have said all I am going to in this post.



My proof is the testimony of Croke Park and the GAA. Keegan stated all along that he made it clear that that there were problems with the applications and implied that he was never going to grant a licence for five nights. It was not until evidence was given by the Croke Park delegates and Peter Aiken that he then changed his tune and began to admit the truth, which was that he had shown support throughout the licence application and that he had also been prepared to grant the five licences too but adds that the reason he was giving the impression all along that he would grant five licences, is that he was waiting for Croke Park to make an "enormous effort" to make the residents happy.

Why not share this information at the first Oireachtas committee meeting. Why wait until after the GAA and Croke Park had given their evidence? Cause he was covering his tracks, that's why. He knew he had to come up with a reason for giving the impression all along that he was going to grant the licences and so he excuses that by saying: 'Oh, I was acting like that as I would have granted the five night licence but you all just didn't didn't go the full way. Did I not make that clear? Ah, my bad lads. I'm new at the job'..

Repeating over and over again that he never gave assurances that he would grant five licences is strawman central and is just done to distract away from the fact that he did not do his job correctly. Nobody has said that he assured he would grant a five night licence as everyone knows that is not how the system works but it is his job to make it clear what he is looking for when he requests updated event management plans and he clearly did not do that, otherwise you would not have Croke Park, Aiken and the GAA perplexed at his decision. Their evidence makes it clear that he is a waffler. Are they supposed to be psychic or something?

As Dooley said to him, the reasons he gave for refusing the licences were "blindingly obvious" in Feb. So it should have been expressed more strenuously that this was of such concern, that the licencing of the concerts was in jeopardy, but it clearly was not. In fact, Keegan admits this and says that Keogan did this and not him, thereby passing the buck. Either way, his testimony now suggests that over intensification was not the reason at all, as he suggests that Croke Park could have done something for the residents which would have seen him happy to allow five nights and again, other than teleportation devices, I don't see how Croke Park could do anything to negate the fact that there would be an over intensification of people during those five nights.



You keep making this point and then running away from the argument when I address it. This is the last time I reply to on this point. So answer the questions I put to you in relation to it, or don't bother bringing it back up:

330,000 tickets were sold in the ROI. I am allocating around 15,000 will be additional attendances. 315,000 people is roughly 7% of the population. If you don't accept either of those numbers, fine, tell what numbers you are willing to concede and also what percentage of the population you feel would have attended those five nights. Thanking you.



Are you kidding me? You used quotation marks there. Any chance you could actually you know, quote the post where I said that?

Why would I say something so absurd as Aiken and DCC never having consultation before July 2nd?? Are you say I make things up

The rest of your post was equally as nonsensical.

So let me get this straight. You're using his testimony during the committee meeting meeting to call him a liar yet the chairman agreed that he did nothing wrong after listening to the same words. Seems to be a classic case of "it's not me, it's you" here.

I'd also be very reticent to quote Dooley on anything involved in this matter. He was absolutely trolling during the whole process, asking questions and having no interest in the answers. It really was a shameful performance with the chairman having to reign him in towards the end.

I'll play your numbers game then. 400,000 tickets sold. 150,000 individuals with single or multiple tickets. No tickets sold abroad, it was just Irish people using proxy servers. So by my completely arbitrary numbers we get around 3% but i will freely admit to pull those numbers out of my arse. You seem to take yours as a given.

No need for teleportation, park & ride would have taken a lot of the pressure off.

As for the rest of your points, meh. I've a wall beside me if I want to bang my head of it.

JRant

First Up wrote: »

And the airfares, trainfares, bus fares, hotels, dinners, things bought in shops, pubs.... You think 400,000 people don't provide some business to someone?
The Giro was nice to have but the economic benefit was minimal in comparison. I know Keegan is a bike nut but he really needs a wider view of his job.

1 million people along the routes has minimal economic benefits?

First Up

JRant wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You're using his testimony during the committee meeting meeting to call him a liar yet the chairman agreed that he did nothing wrong after listening to the same words. Seems to be a classic case of "it's not me, it's you" here.

I'd also be very reticent to quote Dooley on anything involved in this matter. He was absolutely trolling during the whole process, asking questions and having no interest in the answers. It really was a shameful performance with the chairman having to reign him in towards the end.

I'll play your numbers game then. 400,000 tickets sold. 150,000 individuals with single or multiple tickets. No tickets sold abroad, it was just Irish people using proxy servers. So by my completely arbitrary numbers we get around 3% but i will freely admit to pull those numbers out of my arse. You seem to take yours as a given.

No need for teleportation, park & ride would have taken a lot of the pressure off.
I
As for the rest of your points, meh. I've a wall beside me if I want to bang my head of it.

I said it before; doing nothing wrong is not the same as doing something right.

JRant

conorh91 wrote: »

By suburbia, I mean residential communities which are located outside or adjacent to the central metropolitan districts, and which are sheltered from the anticipated disturbances that arise as a consequence of commercial enterprises in the central metropolis.

Basically, if you go and buy a house under the shadow of a 16 acres stadium complex, expect disturbances.

Marlay Park residents kick up stink about the concerts in Marlay Park, but I guess they also shrug and admit that it's been a big events venue of long standing, and that this was reflected in their house prices.

They are no more sheltered than any other resident in the country. We all have rights and commercial enterprises cannot do a they please. The right to lodge objections is there to provide checks and balances to the system. Surely you can see that. Jaysus even the airport has restrictions placed on it. We live in a regulated society and that should be changed just to allow a couple of concerts.

Well if you buy/live beside a SPORTS stadium you most certainly have to accept disruptions from sporting events. CP cannot do as they please and turn it into something that was near envisioned during the planning stage i.e. Turning it into a MUSIC venue.

I'm sure there were complaints made by residents around the Marlay park area. However, as the DCC say themselves, the relationship between those residents and Marlay park is light years away from the confrontational stance taken by CP in recent years. In short Marlay park were obviously able to appease the locals enough for the council to allow the gigs go ahead. CP did not do this, neither did Aiken, and the blame is all theres.

JRant

First Up wrote: »

I said it before; doing nothing wrong is not the same as doing something right.

And sometimes doing nothing is the better options, just like the hippocratic oath states.

By the way, lying is most certainly doing wrong and I'm sure the committee would have been quick to point this out had they believed Keegan was telling porkies. Which they obviously didn't in this case because it never happened.

muddypaws

conorh91 wrote: »

Glastonbury sells something like 120,000 tickets.

The gig I'm talking about would fit in the hurling field in a small town.

It's smaller than Cappamore Agricultural Show. It doesn't require extensive planning like Glastonbury.

I did look, I couldn't find anything at all that has happened previously to fit in with your scenario of a fairly well known act wanting to put on a festival in a field in a small rural Irish town for 5,000 (ish) people to use as an example.

So, that being said if someone did want to do that, common sense would dictate that they would be aware that it is outside of the norm, and therefore preparation and planning would be paramount.

Its the same principle as planning permission surely, if you want to put an extension on the back of your house, and other houses in your road have already done that, then a precedent has been set, and your planning permission won't be a big deal, you could include details of the other properties along with your submission. If however you were the first person to do it in a particular area, it would require more work on your and the local council's part.

Nobody has ever played 5 consecutive gigs in Croke Park previously, so, any rational person, and certainly any rational, successful business man would, I assume take that into account and plan and prepare accordingly.

First Up

JRant wrote: »

And sometimes doing nothing is the better options, just like the hippocratic oath states.

By the way, lying is most certainly doing wrong and I'm sure the committee would have been quick to point this out had they believed Keegan was telling porkies. Which they obviously didn't in this case because it never happened.

Bad analogy. Keegan waved this one onto the rocks while he was the only one who could get to the rudder. The only "do no harm" he understands relates to covering his and DCC's ass.

JRant

muddypaws wrote: »

I did look, I couldn't find anything at all that has happened previously to fit in with your scenario of a fairly well known act wanting to put on a festival in a field in a small rural Irish town for 5,000 (ish) people to use as an example.

So, that being said if someone did want to do that, common sense would dictate that they would be aware that it is outside of the norm, and therefore preparation and planning would be paramount.

Its the same principle as planning permission surely, if you want to put an extension on the back of your house, and other houses in your road have already done that, then a precedent has been set, and your planning permission won't be a big deal, you could include details of the other properties along with your submission. If however you were the first person to do it in a particular area, it would require more work on your and the local council's part.

Nobody has ever played 5 consecutive gigs in Croke Park previously, so, any rational person, and certainly any rational, successful business man would, I assume take that into account and plan and prepare accordingly.

Failing to plan is planning to fail, as they say.

The whole thing stinks of amateurism by both CP and Aiken. Both kept harping on about not being told of any problems when the onus is on them to anticipate any problems, mitigate against them, and ensure that THEIR event goes ahead. Nobody owes either of these groups anything by way of holding their hands through the process.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

JRant wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You're using his testimony during the committee meeting meeting to call him a liar yet the chairman agreed that he did nothing wrong after listening to the same words.

You shot yourself in the foot there

John O'Mahony's closing statement:

"Who's right or wrong is not for this committee to decide".

I'd also be very reticent to quote Dooley on anything involved in this matter. He was absolutely trolling during the whole process, asking questions and having no interest in the answers.

It really was a shameful performance with the chairman having to reign him in towards the end.

No interest in the answers? Ha. He barely got answers to the question he put and had to pull Keegan up on stating the obvious on two or three occasions. Trolling? He's the one who got Keegan to admit that he "broadly supported"; having five concerts despite it being "blindingly obvious" that they would cause over intensification.

He strawmanned Dooley on at least seven occasions. The main one, and most irritating one, was when Dooley asked him why he gave McKenna the impression *"without assurances"* that if he submitted an application for five concerts, and met expectations, that they could expect a positive outcome and Keegan irritatingly replied, and I quote:

"Given the economical value of this to the city, If I had either refused to take a phone call or said we are totally opposed to this, right, you will never get a licence, I would have been accused of eh, you know, undermining a major event for the city."

Now, if the above is now dodging a question via strawman argument, I don't know what is. This reply can be seen at the 9m mark in the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDuybNev754

No tickets sold abroad, it was just Irish people using proxy servers.

LMAO. Ticketmaster don't use their customer's ISP to determine where they are. They use their bloody addresses