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
Comments
-
Here is a good letter from the Irish Times today......
Sir, – Imagine this scenario. I am living in the United States and I buy a ticket to a Garth Brooks concert “subject to licence”. The licence was granted for the date shown on my ticket and the singer simply decided not to perform. The same situation applied to 240,000 other customers. Would those customers quietly accept this? Or would there instead be a class action lawsuit to bring the performer to his senses?
I am sure that Mr Brooks is relieved to be getting off so lightly from his long-abandoned Irish fans, otherwise more than his heart would be crushed. – Yours, etc.
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/garth-brooks-and-croke-park-1.18722930 -
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Peter Aiken, Garth Brooks, Peter McKenna (Director of Croke Park), Paraic Duffy ( Director General of the GAA) all state that Owen Keegan, right up until July 2nd, gave no indication that he was unhappy with the efforts of either Croke Park (with regards to the additionality of addressing the concerns of the residents) or with Peter Aiken, during either informal discussions or during the statutory meetings which had been held at various points after the event management plan was submitted, and then:
On July 1st: this story breaks.
On July 2nd: Owen Keegan phones Aiken and refuses to licence two of the concerts.
Coincidence? I think not.
Keegan denies outright their claims.0 -
-
-
Amazing they only bring this up now... one wonders what the catalyst might be...
I know someone who has complained that the park has been practically unusable for the last month on account of concerts.
I don't think it's the cancellation of 5 Garth Brooks concerts. I think it's having gone through 8 concerts just culminating in a three day festival. I could hear the music from Marlay Park and it's 15km from where I live.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Starting to look like we need to use more venues and spread the gigs around the country a bit more. Garth has changed everything. I doubt any urban out door venue would take more than 3 gigs from now on.0
-
Had a few interesting conversations around this issue over the weekend.
Reading back over some of the recent posts, I find the "Brooks had his Bluff called" angle slightly humorous. He proved he wasn't bluffing. I don't endorse or condone his position but as I have posted before the default opinion of many posters here, the general population and many media outlets was that Brooks is/was motivated by the money. He, to me (and I repeat - not a fan) patently wasn't, if so he would have taken the 3 gig option. F$ck the fans, and count his money. Consistantly throughout he has peddled the "it's about the fans" line and secondly, I believe it was more about the creating a legacy event but that's purely my opinion. He broke box office records here with the sales, no one has done 5 gigs in Croker (nor I believe ever will) and no one has entertained 400,000 in Ireland before in one stand. U2 & 1D both did 3 nights (I think maybe Westlife and/or Take That did too but not sure) so there was no stand out element in 3 nights. His legacy or ego wasn't going to be flattered by that.
The apply earlier argument goes no where but in circles. Aiken applied 4 weeks early, fact. The reality is you cannot apply more than a certain period before an event (I think it's either 9 or 12 months) and then you must have applied a minimu of 10 weeks before hand. The application has to include submissions from statutory bodies such as the Gardai, Fire Service etc. That engagement takes weeks & months, there is no "off the shelf" event plan with them. I spoke to a colleague over the weekend who was involved in management of a certain event over the last number of years. He said the slowest part of the process was always collating the application. For instance he said the Gardai would not engage as early as some would like (as they are busy with other things) but then when they did capacity meant nothing in a broad sense, they want to know how many tickets are sold, where were they sold (as that has a bearing on traffic plans) and then projected further sales. They don't just say right it's 80,000 bods here's a plan.....! So that straight away encourages and promotes a situation of "selling to licence". I'm not blaming the Gardai in particular (far from it) but just giving an example of why the current system needs addressed. Anyone who thinks MCD or Livenation or such would have handled the application process differently is deluded. In that regard I am not endorsing Aiken, they got carried away going for 5, but I can see nothing wrong in how they followed the procedures beyond that. Most events are issued with licences in the days before the event (as happened with some of the Marley gigs in the last few months), so Aiken being 4 weeks early is actually unusual as many are submitted close to or on the deadline.
As I posted before I thought Keegan/Keogan spoke well on Friday. That said, as was pointed out by a friend at the weekend, here's an interesting (I thought) take. It would have been unacceptable in some legal sense for Keegan to tell Aiken/GAA that the event may not be passed in full, so how is it not unacceptable in the same legal sense for him to spend months giving "support" by his own admission? From a professionalism point of view I think they have let themselves down here. The "professional" thing to do would be to engage on a neutral standpoint and let the process run so I can accept how some on the Brooks/Aiken/GAA side could feel aggrieved (that is not to negate the mistakes they made along the way)
Having looked at the event plan (http://crokepark.ie/getmedia/409e1110-3ab6-4c80-aaee-9fd3916a4d5e/Licence_Application_Garth_Brooks.pdf) briefly what is clear is that it was applied for as a single "5 night event", not as 5 individual concerts. I revert to the references before to house planning (i.e. apply for a 5 bed house and get approval for only a 3 bed), that simply doesn't happen, it should have been a pass or fail. If they weren't happy with any one of the nights they should have turned them all down. I contend this creates a precedent which could affect festivals and multi night events nationally, I do know from speaking to people in the events industry this is a worry to many of them.
Next, a friend raised an interesting point at the weekend. GAA couldn't give in to no events next year as they were already contractually bound to some events. Brooks starts a world tour in September, could it be he is pencilled in for a return visit? Not many acts capable of filling Croke Park even once have confirmed plans to tour in 2015 yet?
Last I was in the company of a "CP resident" on Saturday evening, lives inside the cordon. Has no issue whatsoever with the concerts, has lived there for 19 years and works Tuesday to Saturday (leaves home at 7:30am, returns at 7pm on work days). Reckons the cordon, passes etc all worked well including for them getting their car in/out. They sided with neither the anti CP folk nor the pro CP folk. He did say when he closes his windows there is little by way of noise, he gets more annoyed by the students partying on one side of him in his terrace and the deaf elderly man on the other side who watches the TV night & day "turned up to 11". He can hear yer mans TV over any concert or match noise! He does, I will accept, live in a street that has little or no traffic during events as it is not one of the designated routes in/out so that kind of disturbance doesn't feature. But, what he did say, is that many of the Pro CP folk have been verbally jeering the Anti CP folk since this kicked off, so the heckling mentioned already may have been part of that. Many of those Pro CP folk were not necessarily fans of any act but looking at the earning potential they had I would guess.
Think a new non Brooks thread should be started about the consequences for events going forward. At this stage Brooks milk is spilt, it's been wiped up and the floor has since been polished, why are we still crying?!0 -
-
Here is a good letter from the Irish Times today......
Sir, – Imagine this scenario. I am living in the United States and I buy a ticket to a Garth Brooks concert “subject to licence”. The licence was granted for the date shown on my ticket and the singer simply decided not to perform. The same situation applied to 240,000 other customers. Would those customers quietly accept this? Or would there instead be a class action lawsuit to bring the performer to his senses?
I am sure that Mr Brooks is relieved to be getting off so lightly from his long-abandoned Irish fans, otherwise more than his heart would be crushed. – Yours, etc.
http://www.irishtimes.com/debate/letters/garth-brooks-and-croke-park-1.1872293
Typical US reaction, scream SUE THEM whenever anything slightly not to plan happens. **** happens sometimes, deal with it. This is why you should have travel insurance for costs and you're getting the ticket refunded. What more do you want?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Anyone get their money back yet?0
-
Keegan licensed three of the concerts. The reason they are not going ahead has everything to do with Garth Brooks making that decision and nothing to do with Keegan.
The fact that our system is so fcuked up, that two concerts, which 160,000 people are due to attend, can get cancelled just three weeks before those concerts are due to take place, when flights and hotels are books, shows us that the system is seriously flawed and that, has feck all to do with the performer.Secondly, you're right in that it was a huge undertaking. A lot of that work will have been done before the concerts were even announced.
A very small part of it would have been done before the concerts were announced, as they had no idea they would sell out five nights and so they would have been able to complete the vast majority of what goes into an event management plan.It seems to me you're willing to cut Aiken a humungous amount of slack here but will not cut Keegan and the DCC any slack at all. It's not because Keegan and the DCC weren't doing their jobs - they did, and their only failing was to make a decision some people didn't like - so why does Aiken get a free pass on leaving things late?
They did not "leave things late" - they submitted the licence application and event management plan four weeks before they had to. They initiated contact on Feb 1st.You see, you're putting him in a bind. Either he obtains the licence before he can sell the tickets, or else at least applies for it, or else he guesses the demand and plans concerts on that basis.
I'm saying the system is broken. Perhaps there should be mandatory pre licence application talks or a separate system for getting a provisional licence to sell tickets for events, separate to the main one. Whatever, but this current system is a joke as it has resulted in it becoming "common practice" for promoters to break the law, through no fault of their own as they would not be able to conduct business, in any significant way, if they didn't.Which would suggest 2, maybe 3 concerts was all you'd have gotten anyway.
Perhaps, but at least the promotor, venue and most importantly, the ticket holders would not have had to be through this bloody fiasco.0 -
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »The fact that our system is so fcuked up, that two concerts, which 160,000 people are due to attend, can get cancelled just three weeks before those concerts are due to take place, when flights and hotels are books, shows us that the system is seriously flawed and that, has feck all to do with the performer.
The decision to cancel three licensed concerts has everything to do with the performer. There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince of this as you are clearly unable to accept this. However those three concerts were cancelled by Garth Brooks. End of story.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »A very small part of it would have been done before the concerts were announced, as they had no idea they would sell out five nights and so they would have been able to complete the vast majority of what goes into an event management plan.
I remain to be convinced that you have much experience in the area of event management plans for stadium concerts.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »They did not "leave things late" - they submitted the licence application and event management plan four weeks before they had to. They initiated contact on Feb 1st.
They knew the concerts were contentious. They knew the licences could not be issued until roughly 10 weeks after the licence application was submitted. They left things late.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
I'm saying the system is broken. Perhaps there should be mandatory pre licence application talks or a separate system for getting a provisional licence to sell tickets for events, separate to the main one. Whatever, but this current system is a joke as it has resulted in it becoming "common practice" for promoters to break the law, through no fault of their own as they would not be able to conduct business, in any significant way, if they didn't.
This system has worked, in general for quite a number of years. It stopped working when a promoter overegged his pudding and sold tickets for concerts which he knew at the time of sale were contentious. I have no doubt that the system will be tightened up. The point I am making now is that it's not going to make it any easier to get five night specials with Garth Brooks.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Perhaps, but at least the promotor, venue and most importantly, the ticket holders would not have had to be through this bloody fiasco.
I think you'd have found three concerts would have been grumbled about but accepted. The fact you went through this heartbreak is because five were planned. And if the artist in question got off his high horse and played the three he got licensed for, you'd be better off.
In the meantime, yes, the licensing system will be updated. I think you need to accept that it will remove quite a bit of flexibility not from the council but from the promoters. I don't know any of them personally but given that both Slane and MCD have been of the opinion that the system has worked for them, it's not clear that the concert promotion business will be facilitated by this.0 -
The decision to cancel three licensed concerts has everything to do with the performer. There is absolutely nothing I can do to convince of this as you are clearly unable to accept this. However those three concerts were cancelled by Garth Brooks. End of story.
Just because you write end of story doesn't mean that it is.
Saying that something Garth Brooks did is what resulted in Keegan only licencing three nights is absurd. He hasn't the first clue how our system works and nor should he. His management would have been informed by Aiken but even they would be faultless here. The resident issue would have been told to them long after the tickets were sold for a start and so Garth Brooks should hardly be held responsible for not circumventing an issue he did not even now existed. You can have a go at him for not performing the three concerts, but it's ridiculous to suggest that he is responsible for the reasons why DCC made the decision they did.I remain to be convinced that you have much experience in the area of event management plans for stadium concerts.
Well, you have implied that I am posting from a point of view of a disgruntled ticket holder and so the fact that you are not convinced regarding my knowledge of what an event management plans entails, hardly surprises me.They knew the concerts were contentious. They knew the licences could not be issued until roughly 10 weeks after the licence application was submitted. They left things late.
The deadline for applications is 10 weeks. If the process took 10 weeks, then it would not be possible to reach a decision (on eleventh hour applications at least) until the day of the concert. So, what Aiken should have done, was wait until the deadline, submit the applications then and sure the concerts would have been underway before the DCC could refuse the licence. It's genius!This system has worked, in general for quite a number of years. It stopped working when a promoter overegged his pudding and sold tickets for concerts which he knew at the time of sale were contentious. I have no doubt that the system will be tightened up. The point I am making now is that it's not going to make it any easier to get five night specials with Garth Brooks.
Aiken / Croke park were given the impression that five was not "contentious". Why would the head of DCC say he "supported" the application otherwise. Sure, saying he supported them does not mean that he was guaranteeing or assuring that the applications would get granted, we all know that, as Dooley pointed out, but him saying that he supported them going ahead, implied that he and DCC, did not feel them to be contentious at all. In fact, Keegan stated in the hearings that had Croke Park got the agreement of the residents and adequately addressed their concerns, then he would have had no problem granting a licence for five nights.I think you'd have found three concerts would have been grumbled about but accepted.
"Grumbled"? I think the 160,000 people would have done more than grumble.The fact you went through this heartbreak is because five were planned.
Not a fan (of the music, just of the man) and had no intention of going to any of the concerts.. so eh, no heartreak here. Well, at least none caused by this sorry fiasco at least.And if the artist in question got off his high horse and played the three he got licensed for, you'd be better off.
He felt that it wasn't right to cancel concerts which 160,000 people had been looking forward to for five months, that many had booked tickets and flights for and which were due to take place just three weeks later. His only leverage to protest that decision was to say it was five or none. Had he accepted the three, then he would have looked like he didn't care for the 160,000 and was just grabbing whatever cash he could get his hands on. It was a no win situation for him.n the meantime, yes, the licensing system will be updated. I think you need to accept that it will remove quite a bit of flexibility not from the council but from the promoters. I don't know any of them personally but given that both Slane and MCD have been of the opinion that the system has worked for them, it's not clear that the concert promotion business will be facilitated by this.
I would suggest that major changes are coming as a result of this. One would hope so at least.0 -
To all of the GB fans whinging about the Croke park residents objecting to concerts and continuously saying things like "Well Marley park holds concerts and their residents don't mind"
I'll just leave this here for your perusal
http://gometro.ie/2014/07/marlay-residents-seek-concert-cap/
You should send this link to Owen Keegan, as he was the one pontificating at the Oireachtas hearing about how Marley Park know how to treat their residents well and so no reason why Croke Park couldn't.0 -
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »He felt that it wasn't right to cancel concerts which 160,000 people had been looking forward to for five months, that many had booked tickets and flights for and which were due to take place just three weeks later. His only leverage to protest that decision was to say it was five or none. Had he accepted the three, then he would have looked like he didn't care for the 160,000 and was just grabbing whatever cash he could get his hands on. It was a no win situation for him.
How is anyone buying that nonsense from Brooks??
Imagine if a special forces team were about to conduct a rescue operation to free 5 hostages and then they received intel that it will be practically impossible to save 2 of them...and they say -
"Oh well we will call off the rescue mission for the other 3 hostages then as it would not be fair on the 2 hostages that we can't help if we save those other 3"...
That's the absolute BS Brooks pulled, and the diehard fans will believe any crap he comes out with.0 -
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Just because you write end of story doesn't mean that it is.
It will be soon enough.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Saying that something Garth Brooks did is what resulted in Keegan only licencing three nights is absurd.
I did not claim that Garth Brooks contributed to Keegan's decision. The sequence of events is: Keegan licenses three out of the five concerts, Garth cancels those three concerts.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »He hasn't the first clue how our system works and nor should he. His management would have been informed by Aiken but even they would be faultless here.
Once he was told there was a licence issue, he should be informing himself. Other artists have managed this.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »The resident issue would have been told to them long after the tickets were sold for a start and so Garth Brooks should hardly be held responsible for not circumventing an issue he did not even now existed. You can have a go at him for not performing the three concerts, but it's ridiculous to suggest that he is responsible for the reasons why DCC made the decision they did.
I never suggested that he was. I made it clear he was responsible for cancelling the three licensed concerts. You don't seem to understand the order of events here.
As for the resident's issue; Brooks did not need to know it existed but Aiken should have done and it should have impacted on whether he attempted to do five or not. Personally I would have considered it far too risky commercially.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »The deadline for applications is 10 weeks. If the process took 10 weeks, then it would not be possible to reach a decision (on eleventh hour applications at least) until the day of the concert. So, what Aiken should have done, was wait until the deadline, submit the applications then and sure the concerts would have been underway before the DCC could refuse the licence. It's genius!
And it is paragraphs like this that result in me finding it very hard to take you seriously.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
Aiken / Croke park were given the impression that five was not "contentious".
He should have been aware that they were contentious from the point of view of many of the residents in the area. Specifically I mean Aiken here.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Why would the head of DCC say he "supported" the application otherwise. Sure, saying he supported them does not mean that he was guaranteeing or assuring that the applications would get granted, we all know that, as Dooley pointed out, but him saying that he supported them going ahead, implied that he and DCC, did not feel them to be contentious at all.
He is allowed be supportive but that in and of itself was never going to be adequate.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »In fact, Keegan stated in the hearings that had Croke Park got the agreement of the residents and adequately addressed their concerns, then he would have had no problem granting a licence for five nights.
Which they didn't therefore he was correct not to grant them a licence.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »
"Grumbled"? I think the 160,000 people would have done more than grumble.
Some of them have demonstrated a lack of maturity. In my view, I think a lot of them would have been gutted but would equally have understood. If they were in Ireland, they'd be aware there were issues around Croke Park from the day the concerts were announced.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »He felt that it wasn't right to cancel concerts which 160,000 people had been looking forward to for five months, that many had booked tickets and flights for and which were due to take place just three weeks later. His only leverage to protest that decision was to say it was five or none. Had he accepted the three, then he would have looked like he didn't care for the 160,000 and was just grabbing whatever cash he could get his hands on. It was a no win situation for him.
CF the posts I made about Destination Docklands in London in 1988. It cost Jarre a fortune but he came to an arrangement regarding a split and reschedule of the concerts. I'm sorry. Brooks could have just as easily rescheduled the two concerts he didn't get licences for.Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »I would suggest that major changes are coming as a result of this. One would hope so at least.
I dare say they'll come. I just doubt that they'll ever result in five Garth Brooks concerts.0 -
Fred Swanson wrote: »Travel insurance won't cover any event that is "subject to licence".
Surely it's considered an "act of god" though. It was the great man himself who pulled the pin on the concerts."Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
I did not claim that Garth Brooks contributed to Keegan's decision. The sequence of events is: Keegan licenses three out of the five concerts, Garth cancels those three concerts.
I never suggested that he was. I made it clear he was responsible for cancelling the three licensed concerts. You don't seem to understand the order of events here.
I of course am aware of the order of events, but you are not taking my point, I get yours: the three concerts would be taking place if Garth Brooks had not said no to them.. fine, I hear you loud and clear, just like I have heard the hundreds of other posts on the thread that made the same point. Yes, that's right.. you're not the first to have made it.
The point which you don't seem to be taking is that if he had just said: 'Grand so, I'll do the three' .. then he would have been vilified for not not being principled enough to say, if I may paraphrase the guy: 'You have sold 160,000 tickets for concerts here to my fans and now, just three weeks before the concerts, you are refusing to licence them? Well, the system is obviously broke and so I think it is a very poor way to treat people because of that. Allow the concerts and fix the system afterwards, don't expect 160,000 holders to carry the can for a flawed system'.
The three licenced concerts were his leverage and had he agreed to do the three regardless, then his words would have just been hollow and his actions would have made a hypocrite as a result.
He did and watched the hearings and meetings via webcam. Just because you don't agree with his ultimatum and the fact that he carried it out, does not mean that he was not informed on what the issues were after July 2nd.Once he was told there was a licence issue, he should be informing himself. Other artists have managed this.
I agree, which is why I have said all along that he should not get away with that.. he should be fined or whatever, but a system is flawed when it is possible for that to occur. Like I said, a provisional event licence should have to be held in order for tickets to be sold for events, separate from the main licence which grants permission for it to be held.As for the resident's issue; Brooks did not need to know it existed but Aiken should have done and it should have impacted on whether he attempted to do five or not. Personally I would have considered it far too risky commercially.
He should have been aware that they were contentious from the point of view of many of the residents in the area. Specifically I mean Aiken here.
Eh, what? That's the truth. You said it takes ten weeks for DCC to make a decision. We know the deadline is ten weeks and so, it's basic mathematics that if a licence application is submitted just under the deadline, the council would only be making the decision on the day of the concert.. if what you said was true, but it's not. Councils can make decisions anytime after the five week window for public submissions is closed.And it is paragraphs like this that result in me finding it very hard to take you seriously.
He gave them the impression that they had.. is the point.Which they didn't therefore he was correct not to grant them a licence.
Not in a row, no - but he'll return and do five concerts there for sure.I dare say they'll come. I just doubt that they'll ever result in five Garth Brooks concerts.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »He felt that it wasn't right to cancel concerts which 160,000 people had been looking forward to for five months, that many had booked tickets and flights for and which were due to take place just three weeks later. His only leverage to protest that decision was to say it was five or none. Had he accepted the three, then he would have looked like he didn't care for the 160,000 and was just grabbing whatever cash he could get his hands on. It was a no win situation for him.
I just got a little bit sick in my mouth.0 -
CF the posts I made about Destination Docklands in London in 1988. It cost Jarre a fortune but he came to an arrangement regarding a split and reschedule of the concerts. I'm sorry. Brooks could have just as easily rescheduled the two concerts he didn't get licences for.
These concerts weren't part of his world tour. It was his comeback special.... Rescheduling concerts and people are getting a completly different thing. ... He comes backs in middle of his of world tour or at the end and plays his comeback concert all over again.0 -
-
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Stop referring to Keegan in that way will ya.
He means Garth Brooks.0 -
Never..0
-
Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »Stop referring to Keegan in that way will ya.
"Our father, who art in heaven, Garth Brooks be thy name. By kingdom come thy gigs are done, in Croke Park all due to Aiken""Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
HardLuckWoman wrote: »These concerts weren't part of his world tour. It was his comeback special.... Rescheduling concerts and people are getting a completly different thing. ... He comes backs in middle of his of world tour or at the end and plays his comeback concert all over again.
Just wont be the same though. You could have witnessed greatness but you'll never know as he let so so many of his fans down by cancelling."Well, yeah, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
0 -
"Our father, who art in heaven, Garth Brooks be thy name. By kingdom come thy gigs are done, in Croke Park all due to Aiken"
Our father, who art in heaven
Keegan be thy name
Said you's can have the eight
Just don't sing too late
But then a court injunction was read
He shat the bed
And yet still offered seven.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Reformed Character wrote: »Except he didn't.
He's in full "I love Garth but i'm not a fan **** you DCC and keegan" mode at the moment, there will be no rational posts for at least an hour or 4.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement