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

So lads, has the question been answered?

Why did fri, sat, & sun night people deserve to see the concert, but mon & tue people not?

*runs, laughing maniacally*

testicle

I have a big willy

James Garner

Good for you!

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Cienciano wrote: »

I think you're delusional if you can't see the obvious problem in that. So he decided to disappoint everyone instead? You actually don't see the flaw in that? Brooks cut off his nose to spite his face.

You see the three concerts and fail to see the bigger picture as a result. You think that because he doesn't have the Mon and Tues, why not play the Fri, Sat and Sun as he has nothing to lose, right? Well no, that's wrong. That's a logical fallacy, which is why you keep coming back to: so he'd rather disappoint 400,000 than just 160,000.

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You see the three concerts and fail to see the bigger picture as a result. You think that because he doesn't have the Mon and Tues, why not play the Fri, Sat and Sun as he has nothing to lose, right? Well no, that's wrong. That's a logical fallacy, which is why you keep coming back to: so he'd rather disappoint 400,000 than just 160,000.

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

If he had fulfilled his legal contract he would only have to 'come back' twice.

Your analogy is as usual bull****, those people know each other, entirely different situation.
And also, Brooks didn't deny those people a gig, it had already been done. Nobody would have blamed him for anything.
You are ignoring the influence of Brooks management company, don't cod yourself that Brooks was making any decisions here, there was a huge investment of money in this and it wasn't Brook's alone. There would be a lot of backers. Those backers have lost money.
Brooks management didn't play any gigs because if they had played 3 they wouldn't be able to sue. That is the reason that no compromise solution could be reached, Brooks wittering on about his dead mother and broken hearts was done to appease the fans, who seem to be wide open to that emotive tosh.
Watch the press, there will be a court case for compensation.

miss tickle

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You see the three concerts and fail to see the bigger picture as a result. You think that because he doesn't have the Mon and Tues, why not play the Fri, Sat and Sun as he has nothing to lose, right? Well no, that's wrong. That's a logical fallacy, which is why you keep coming back to: so he'd rather disappoint 400,000 than just 160,000.

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

Well maybe it's for financial reasons, if he cancels due to breach of contract with his promoter, maybe it's more financially beneficial to cancel, make a heartwarming speech to his fans and wait for the cheque to hit his mail box, or maybe he is planning on suing his promoter for breach of contract, (which is more his style). No matter which way you look at it, he still wins and takes his fans for mugs. Why do none of his fans sue him for their financial loss due to his cancellation of three approved concerts.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Your analogy is as usual bull****, those people know each other, entirely different situation.

You mean the concerts don't know each other also??

What was a I thinking. My apologies. What was I doing comparing concerts with actually people. Forgive me. Please forgive me.

And also, Brooks didn't deny those people a gig, it had already been done. Nobody would have blamed him for anything.
You are ignoring the influence of Brooks management company, don't cod yourself that Brooks was making any decisions here, there was a huge investment of money in this and it wasn't Brook's alone. There would be a lot of backers. Those backers have lost money.

Brooks management work for what Garth Brooks wants. I have said already on this thread that the guy is a control freak when it comes to business decisions. Hence why he is only now about allow his music to go digital. You don't think there have been people around him for years wanting a piece of that pie? Please. You allowing your obvious dislike off Brooks to cloud almost every thought you have regarding this whole debacle.

Brooks management didn't play any gigs because if they had played 3 they wouldn't be able to sue. That is the reason that no compromise solution could be reached, Brooks wittering on about his dead mother and broken hearts was done to appease the fans, who seem to be wide open to that emotive tosh.
Watch the press, there will be a court case for compensation.

I'll bear my arse in Clery's window if Brooks attempts to get cash from Peter Aiken though the courts.

AngryHippie

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You mean the concerts don't know each other also??

What was a I thinking. My apologies. What was I doing comparing concerts with actually people. Forgive me. Please forgive me.

Brooks management work for what Garth Brooks wants. I have said already on this thread that the guy is a control freak when it comes to business decisions. Hence why he is only now about allow his music to go digital. You don't think there have been people around him for years wanting a piece of that pie? Please. You allowing you dislike off Brooks to cloud almost every thought you have with thise debacle.

I'll bear my arse in Clery's window if Brooks attempts to get cash from Peter Aiken though the courts.

Can Red Nissan Eat his hat out of your arse in Cleary's window please ?:D

It would be far more entertaining than the thread has become:rolleyes:

redarmy

whats that noise??????????????????

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You mean the concerts don't know each other also??

What was a I thinking. My apologies. What was I doing comparing concerts with actually people. Forgive me. Please forgive me.

You where wittering on about people going to a restaurant...people who know and are intimately involved with each and comparing the choice to the one Brooks had to make.
There is no comparison...Brooks didn't know any of 160,000, he didn't make the decision to disallow them, somebody else did and Brooks had entered a contract(if not legally binding then certainly morally binding) to fulfill legal concerts to the benefit of everybody involved. The fans, Aiken/ Croke Park, businesses, airlines, hotels and even DCC where all let down by the person who cancelled and Brooks (in whose gift it was) made no provision to compensate them in any way.
Grow a pair and call it for what it was.

Brooks management work for what Garth Brooks wants. I have said already on this thread that the guy is a control freak when it comes to business decisions. Hence why he is only now about allow his music to go digital. You don't think there have been people around him for years wanting a piece of that pie? Please. You allowing your obvious dislike off Brooks to cloud almost every thought you have regarding this whole debacle.

Your naivety is almost cute. Those are strategic business decisions made in collaboration with everybody who owns a piece of the pie that is Brooks.
A management company is going to allow an artist make decisions that affect their margins?...you are having a laugh. Yes, he can run away with himself and mouth off. like he did when he was in favour of matinees, but that idea was reigned in very quickly when it was actually on offer.
The gigs were cancelled for strategic hard nosed business reasons. And big music business does not make decisions by communing with dead mothers.

I'll bear my arse in Clery's window if Brooks attempts to get cash from Peter Aiken though the courts.

Make sure your underwear is clean.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

You where wittering on about people going to a restaurant...people who know and are intimately involved with each and comparing the choice to the one Brooks had to make.

Well, Brooks would argue that he has an intimate relationship with his fans

There is ne comparison...Brooks didn't know any of 160,000, he didn't make the decision to disallow them, somebody else did and Brooks had entered a contract(if not legally binding then certainly morally binding) to fulfill legal concerts to the benefit of everybody involved.

For the last time, it's quite a common metaphor to say: 'It's like choosing one child over another' and he wasn't suggesting that he would have to choose the individual concerts to play, that is what other people, such as you good self, are reading into it because it suits your obvious agenda. The choice he was obviously referring to was the choice of whether to play the three licenced concerts and forget about the two cancelled ones or to chose to fight for the two cancelled concerts and use the other three as leverage. Fine, you don't agree with what he did.. but at least get what he was saying right.

The fans, Aiken/ Croke Park, businesses, airlines, hotels and even DCC where all let down by the person who cancelled and Brooks (in whose gift it was) made no provision to compensate them in any way.

Keegan refused to licence the concerts on July 2nd, three weeks before the concerts where to take place and before Brooks even knew there was an issue and so it is absurd to say that he had anything to do with the system buckling the way it did. No matter what Brooks did, 160,000 people were going to have their concerts cancelled. So quit blaming the performer here. It's harebrained.

Grow a pair and call it for what it was.

A pair of testicles? Why, then I'd have four and women would have yet another reason to avoid me. No thanks.

Your naivety is almost cute. Those are strategic business decisions made in collaboration with everybody who owns a piece of the pie that is Brooks.

I suggest you go and read up on what you are talking about, as you are clearly clueless on this. Brooks management and record company have consistently tried to get him on iTunes over the years and well over a decade to go digital. Continue to talk nonsense if you like, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. You seem to just want to post the opposite of what I do, for the sake of it, with little or nothing to back anything you say up and a character assassination of Garth Brooks seems to be all you are capable of resorting to in a bizarre attempt at explaining the debacle that was obviously caused by an inept and seriously flawed event licencing procedure.

A management company is going to allow an artist make decisions that affect their margins...you are having a laugh.

Like I said. Clueless. We're not talking about a new artist here. We are talking about someone that has and has always had, the power to control what format their music is available in. The fact that you are even bothering to argue about this shows who ignorant you are on the matter. I suggest you Google: 'Garth Brooks & Walmart'.

Yes, he can run away with himself and mouth off. like he did when he was in favour of matinees, but that idea was reigned in very quickly when it was actually on offer.

How could he when he hadn't ever agreed to do them. Aiken said that Brooks had mentioned them as he was throwing up suggestions to try and find a solution. That was the long and short of Brooks being in "favour" of matinees. It was quickly and very obviously not a viable option. Aiken seems to have thought it was.. he was wrong. Understandable that he tried to get Brooks to do them mind, not having a go at him. I would to if I was in the can for millions and was trying to find a way to recoup my losses but it was never going to happen.

The gigs were cancelled for strategic hard nosed business reasons. And big music business does not make decisions by communing with dead mothers.

What a crass and classless thing to say. Not to mention, pointless.

bobmalooka

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You mean the concerts don't know each other also??

What was a I thinking. My apologies. What was I doing comparing concerts with actually people. Forgive me. Please forgive me.

Brooks management work for what Garth Brooks wants. I have said already on this thread that the guy is a control freak when it comes to business decisions. Hence why he is only now about allow his music to go digital. You don't think there have been people around him for years wanting a piece of that pie? Please. You allowing your obvious dislike off Brooks to cloud almost every thought you have regarding this whole debacle.

I'll bear my arse in Clery's window if Brooks attempts to get cash from Peter Aiken though the courts.

Brooks sues Aiken, Aiken sues Croke Park.

Then you'll understand why McKenna (I think) said he'd swear an affidavit that DCC lied to him before the committee chaired by a high profile GAA member tried to coerce DCC into not defending themselves in the High courts.

rubadub

Deleted User wrote: »

Why did fri, sat, & sun night people deserve to see the concert, but mon & tue people not?

Because they were the unlucky ones. If he had done 3 and I had tickets for cancelled ones I would still have wanted the others to go ahead.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

Poor analogy as said, the event being successful is dependent on them all being there.

A better analogy would be winning 5 tickets for a cinema for different nights. I give these out to 5 different children, the prize giver comes back and says sorry only 3 are valid. I break the bad news to the unlucky 2 kids -I certainly don't go and rip all the tickets up, only a horrible spiteful prick would do that to their children.

The true reason why 3 could not go ahead was given, they were not going to be happy with the profits of just 3.

And even though I think your analogy is poor I have seen similar situations in action several times, where a bunch of people are going to a nightclub in a remote area with no nearby alternative, some of the party were refused for no shoes or being tipsy. The people refused just headed off together home and let the others go on in, they did not want to spoil their fun simply since they were refused.

Cienciano

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You see the three concerts and fail to see the bigger picture as a result. You think that because he doesn't have the Mon and Tues, why not play the Fri, Sat and Sun as he has nothing to lose, right? Well no, that's wrong. That's a logical fallacy, which is why you keep coming back to: so he'd rather disappoint 400,000 than just 160,000.

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

I think you even know yourself that your analogy is shít.
As for the bigger picture which you can't see, brooks has píssed off a lot of fans here. All he's done is damage his reputation and annoy his casual fans, which is the vast majority of people who bought tickets.
If he played the 4 nights, do you honestly think you, madcon, nm, hardluckwoman and whoever else would be on saying it was a bad decision, he should have held out for the 5th, he has no principles?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

rubadub wrote: »

A better analogy would be winning 5 tickets for a cinema for different nights. I give these out to 5 different children, the prize giver comes back and says sorry only 3 are valid. I break the bad news to the unlucky 2 kids -I certainly don't go and rip all the tickets up, only a horrible spiteful prick would do that to their children.

That's an even worse analogy than mine

Firstly, you weren't paying for anything and so there would be no point of principal. Secondly, the shows were part of a special five night event which had been planned, so it's not all about fighting for 160,000 people, I do concede that.

The true reason why 3 could not go ahead was given, they were not going to be happy with the profits of just 3.

That's not true. Yes, that was said but not by Brooks. He is the one calling the shots here and if money was the sole issue, they would have done the matinees.

And even though I think your analogy is poor I have seen similar situations in action several times, where a bunch of people are going to a nightclub in a remote area with no nearby alternative, some of the party were refused for no shoes or being tipsy. The people refused just headed off together home and let the others go on in, they did not want to spoil their fun simply since they were refused.

Fine, I accept is was a poor analogy but one had just being made about drowning children and so it seemed light years better than that one

Mrs Garth Brooks

Happyman42 wrote: »

The gigs were cancelled for strategic hard nosed business reasons.

Were they really though. I was checking out his tour schedule from 96-98. That was mostly an American tour. He came to Croke Park for 3 nights in May 97 and had no issue, maybe because he wasn't letting anyone down.

What's different from 1997 to 2014. He still has three nights, still bringing everything over from the states.

In fact, they knew the licencing issues and asked Aiken about the status of it in April. So there must be something in GB's contract with subject to licence...thats grounds for Aiken to sue.

He was always for the fans. I reccommend a book for you, The Garth Factor. Just read up how much of a genuine guy he is.

rubadub

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Firstly, you weren't paying for anything and so there would be no point of principal.

I don't see the relevance, in my analogy I could just as easily have said I bought the tickets, been told 2 shows have to be cancelled and got the money back. I still would have let the 3 kids go.

Also I would get my money back so could have gotten the 2 unfortunate kids something else -so yes, paying could be seen as relevant, and just bolsters my point, cheers for that.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Cienciano wrote: »

If he played the 4 nights, do you honestly think you, madcon, nm, hardluckwoman and whoever else would be on saying it was a bad decision, he should have held out for the 5th, he has no principles?

No. I have already said I think he should have done the three.

If you recall, I also thought he was bluffing.

There is a difference between what my opinion on what he should have done is, and respecting his decision and his reasons for making it. There is also a world of difference between thinking he should have played three concerts and thinking he has some responsibility in what caused the mess. I have conceded on numerous occasions, earlier in the thread, that he can be critiqued for how he handled the situation but.. the cause of this is was not Garth Brooks and so my main issue is why is the focus all on him, when the system is obviously flawed when concerts which 160,000 people are due to attend can get cancelled just three weeks before they are to take place.

I can understand people having a go at Aiken / Croke Park, sort of (I still believe what they have said mind) but I don't get why Garth Brooks is the focus of this mess. He didn't want to do anything less than five, okay, people don't like that but it's not a mess he created and so he shouldn't be expected to just take it that 160,000 of his fans where going to have their tickets refunded and the other 240,000 could come. He's not living here and so to hm, holding out for the five in row seemed like the thing to do. In the states, that would most likely work as the public would be on his side, in that it's better to allow the concerts to go ahead, and fix what caused the mess afterwards, than cancel two concerts weeks before they are to take place and inconvenience so many people. I have no idea why this country seems to think the opposite.

JRant

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

That's an even worse analogy than mine

Firstly, you weren't paying for anything and so there would be no point of principal. Secondly, the shows were part of a special five night event which had been planned, so it's not all about fighting for 160,000 people, I do concede that.

That's not true. Yes, that was said but not by Brooks. He is the one calling the shots here and if money was the sole issue, they would have done the matinees.

Fine, I accept is was a poor analogy but one had just being made about drowning children and so it seemed light years better than that one

The shows were not part of a special 5 night event. They were 5 concerts happening over 5 nights.

Never fear, judging by GB's M.O. He'll be getting paid regardless. As someone's mother once said on their deathbed "show me the money".

currins_02

In the words of Disney...."Let it go.."

Brooks rep may be damaged but will bounce back. Look at Eminem, the biggest villain ever when he cancelled Slane in 2005, Mountcharles swore he'd never have him back, some radio stations boycotted him, fans bayed for blood. Then in 2013, Slane had him back, he sold out and not a word about 2005 at all.

Can't see Brooks playing Slane unless something drastic happens. MCD have that sewn up and Brooks is aligned with Aiken (but be interesting to see how that relationship goes). Whether Brooks includes Ireland on the soon to commence tour (slated in to last up to 3 years) remains to be seen. The only reasonable option would be a number of Irish dates at suitable venues (Thomond, Pairc Ui Caoimh, Semple, Aviva ???). He seems somewhat obsessed with Dublin and Croker but how that goes in future will be interesting too.

I note from the Indo that as the matinee option (as put together by Aiken/GAA/DCC) was put to Brooks via an Indo reporter through Brooks manager "Major" Bob Doyle. That, the reporter is clear in stating, the manager deferred to Brooks on. I'm not endorsing / protecting / beattifying him, but a simple bit of Google searching does seem to indicate that Brooks takes personal control of most of his affairs. For instance after years of trying Doyle, Wynn Casinos got him to come out of retirement by going to meet Brooks himself.

Would we have had half as much coverage if DCC had done what I think they should have, i.e. refused the lot when they weren't happy with a portion of the application? Aiken overshot the runway, GAA got greedy and ignored the neighbours, Brooks wouldn't budge from 5 shows and I have growing doubts not about DCC's application of process but professionalism. Having watched some of the committee hearings back again (following a comment by a colleague) I note that DCC had neither minutes, notes nor records of most of the many meetings initially. Aiken had notes and details of all meetings(but not minutes). There was a fleeting criticism of this raised during the Aiken/GAA hearing but was never put to DCC on the 2nd hearing. For such a large event I would have imagined minutes would have been critical in a professional sense?

It's time, we all get away from the blame game on this one, I think all parties involved can be rightly criticised in some form. The next point of interest for me will be the consequence for large live gigs and the entertainment Industry in Ireland as a whole. I fear a typical political over egg the pudding reaction which will rule us out of many major acts and potentially deccimate the amount/quality of events for over 5,000 people. As Stuart Clarke of Hotpress has been trumpeting since this broke, the large live event industry is worth 100's of millions annually to the economy as a whole but no one is fully sure what minister is responsible, as long as that continues a sense of direction will never exist. Is it Arts? Is it Tourism? Should it be the Taoiseach's office? As long as the blame game runs no one is going to try to align it as no one wants to pick up the residual blame.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Well, Brooks would argue that he has an intimate relationship with his fans

And a good percentage of his fanbase will fall for that tosh.

For the last time, it's quite a common metaphor to say: 'It's like choosing one child over another' and he wasn't suggesting that he would have to choose the individual concerts to play, that is what other people, such as you good self, are reading into it because it suits your obvious agenda. The choice he was obviously referring to was the choice of whether to play the three licenced concerts and forget about the two cancelled ones or to chose to fight for the two cancelled concerts and use the other three as leverage. Fine, you don't agree with what he did.. but at least get what he was saying right.

I know exactly what he and his management where doing and it all comes down to the money. The money was in five...(because there was no profit margin, you know the 'thing' management companies take a cut off?)if he couldn't do five then the profit is in the writ.
There is no way they where going to accept any solution that wasn't five consecutive concerts. And they didn't...QED.

Keegan refused to licence the concerts on July 2nd, three weeks before the concerts where to take place and before Brooks even knew there was an issue and so it is absurd to say that he had anything to do with the system buckling the way it did. No matter what Brooks did, 160,000 people were going to have their concerts cancelled. So quit blaming the performer here. It's harebrained.

Keegan could have refused licences up to the day of the gigs. It isn't DCC's fault that Aiken wasn't informing Brooks or that Brooks management (which I don't for one second believe) wasn't aware of the possibilities.

I suggest you go and read up on what you are talking about, as you are clearly clueless on this. Brooks management and record company have consistently tried to get him on iTunes over the years and well over a decade to go digital. Continue to talk nonsense if you like, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. You seem to just want to post the opposite of what I do, for the sake of it, with little or nothing to back anything you say up and a character assassination of Garth Brooks seems to be all you are capable of resorting to in a bizarre attempt at explaining the debacle that was obviously caused by an inept and seriously flawed event licencing procedure.

I know enough about the business to know that what gets released in marketing and PR is almost 100% of the time entirely different to what is actually happening.
Remind me again what you are posting that backs up what you say? The only thing I see here is somebody with a childlike naive obsession with the purity of your idol and what he says.

Like I said. Clueless. We're not talking about a new artist here. We are talking about someone that has and has always had, the power to control what format their music is available in. The fact that you are even bothering to argue about this shows who ignorant you are on the matter. I suggest you Google: 'Garth Brooks & Walmart'.

At the end of a day we are talking about business decisions, for which there may be a hundred different reasons, not necessarily in favour of the fan.

How could he when he hadn't ever agreed to do them. Aiken said that Brooks had mentioned them as he was throwing up suggestions to try and find a solution. That was the long and short of Brooks being in "favour" of matinees. It was quickly and very obviously not a viable option. Aiken seems to have thought it was.. he was wrong. Understandable that he tried to get Brooks to do them mind, not having a go at him. I would to if I was in the can for millions and was trying to find a way to recoup my losses but it was never going to happen.

What a crass and classless thing to say. Not to mention, pointless.

Why would he mention it if he wasn't prepared to do it? Aiken obviously made the suggestion based on what Brooks told him...then management obviously intervened and they concocted the bull**** communications with his mother.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

rubadub wrote: »

I don't see the relevance, in my analogy I could just as easily have said I bought the tickets, been told 2 shows have to be cancelled and got the money back. I still would have let the 3 kids go.

Also I would get my money back so could have gotten the 2 unfortunate kids something else -so yes, paying could be seen as relevant, and just bolsters my point, cheers for that.

It's a bad analogy overall, for many reasons.

Brooks felt it was a poor way to treat people and thought his actions would result in getting all five, but I'm sure knew the risk of losing the three offered. Would you not try and get all five? Would you not be angered? I would. I would tell them to stick the tickets up their arse and go and buy five myself and that is what how Brooks felt also. 'You're will to stick it to 160,000' well then I won't perform at all. Stubbornness but people are acting like he just decided to cancel all shows for personal gain and that's not true. Christ, Liam Gallagher got less crap for leaving thousands disappointed over the years cause he wanted to powder his fcuking nose.

It BeeMee

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

If you're going to a restaurant with four members of you family and the manager says two of your party can't come in and insists this is because a member of staff made an error with the booking. Would you just let the two family members go home and not bother about it? Course not, you would try and get the reservation amended and if you couldn't, you'd walk away and come back another time when the five of you are let in .. or go some place else and that's what Brooks will do. He'll come back to Croke Park another time or we'll see him play Slane or something.

But if the restaurant has a policy of only serving 3 people at a time, then the mistake wasn't by a member of staff but rather by the person making the booking, who assumed the restaurant won't mind, and will bend over to accommodate the 5 people "just this once"

conorh91

JRant wrote: »

The shows were not part of a special 5 night event. They were 5 concerts happening over 5 nights.

Not according to planning law.

Semantics maybe, but it was a five-concert single event.

Happyman42

conorh91 wrote: »

Not according to planning law.

Semantics maybe, but it was a five-concert single event.

Surely it was licensed for 3 separate 'events' hence the requirement to submit 2 updated event management plans for the days with matinees?

currins_02

JRant wrote: »

The shows were not part of a special 5 night event. They were 5 concerts happening over 5 nights.

I have to agree with Conorh91, if you check out the application (I linked it in an earlier post). A 5 night event is just what was applied for. I suppose some would say it was a 5 night series of concerts trying to get around that, but is that not exactly what a 5 night music festical would be, a series of concerts?

Not trying to be awkward on this, but in print that is what I read was applied for.

It the consequence of the reduction in that which I beleive will be the legacy not the throwing of toys out of prams, greed or unprofessionalism, all of which where displayed by the various parties involved.

Even Aiken referenced the final meeting pre the announcement he had in the Croke Park Hotel with DCC's John Downey in which the main concern of DCC was could Aiken return the stadium to sporting configuration in time for the GAA matches the following weekend. I noted throughout that it is referred to, with few exceptions, by Aiken's side as "an event", "the event". The plan was global, and is published, covering all 5 evenings, all 5 concerts, the event as a whole however one may care to spin it. There was not at any time separate event plans for each night/concert. Even for the matinee plan, to be fair to Aiken/GAA/Brooks, DCC said theyw ould consider it in lieu of an "updated event management plan", i.e. the plan would be updated from that for an event encapsulating 5 concerts over 5 nights to an event encapsulating 5 concerts over 3 days/nights.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Surely it was licensed for 3 separate 'events' hence the requirement to submit 2 updated event management plans for the days with matinees?

No, just one.

Note that a further updated event management plan is requested also, thereby making a joke of the suggestions that Aiken updating plans during June was somehow indicitive of him not doing things on time, but that's not the case as updated plans can be requested (as can be seen here) even after licences have been granted.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No, just one.

Note that a further updated event management plan is requested also, thereby making a joke of the suggestions that Aiken updating plans during June was somehow indicitive of him not doing things on time but that's not the case, as updated plans are requested, as can be seen here, even after licences have been granted.

Subheading refers to

Events: Garth Brooks Concerts, Croke Park Stadium, July 2014

I would take that to mean each was treated as a separate event with two being denied.

Well I never said that it indicated that he hadn't been timely, just that it showed that they where in constant communication about the submission.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

currins_02 wrote: »

IEven Aiken referenced the final meeting pre the announcement he had in the Croke Park Hotel with DCC's John Downey in which the main concern of DCC was could Aiken return the stadium to sporting configuration in time for the GAA matches the following weekend. I noted throughout that it is referred to, with few exceptions, by Aiken's side as "an event", "the event";. The plan was global, and is published, covering all 5 evenings, all 5 concerts, the event as a whole however one may care to spin it. There was not at any time separate event plans for each night/concert. Even for the matinee plan, to be fair to Aiken/GAA/Brooks, DCC said theyw ould consider it in lieu of an "updated event management plan", i.e. the plan would be updated from that for an "event encapsulating 5 concerts over 5 nights to an event encapsulating 5 concerts over 3 days/nights.

Aye, Aiken says the same in the following interview:

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20610196%3A172%3A05%2D07%2D2014%3A

Also, from the following link you'll see that, unlike the Brooks concerts, the One Direction concerts were seen as three separate concerts from the perspective of DCC,:

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content//Planning/Documents/crokeparkOneDirection.pdf

conorh91

Happyman42 wrote: »

Surely it was licensed for 3 separate 'events' hence the requirement to submit 2 updated event management plans for the days with matinees?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Subheading refers to

I would take that to mean each was treated as a separate event with two being denied.

Article 182(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations refers to "an event to be held on more than one day", and so a multi-day series of performances qualifies as "an event" under the umbrella of "prescribed events" as per s.241 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The promoters could certainly apply for 5 individual "events" if they wanted to, but that would be pointlessly cumbersome.