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

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is up to the professionals to evaluate the legitimacy of objections...doesn't matter where they come from or what motivates them. You can't be asking planners to second guess or run investigations every time an objection comes in.

As standard I'm not asking that. And this is now changed subject yet again but when there are proven forgeries in there and thus we know there is corruption involved, it's not longer standard, and then they simply have to be validated or treated with suspicion.

Happyman42 wrote: »

If it is a valid objection then it is worthy of consideration in the final decision.

I agree totally.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

As standard I'm not asking that. And this is now changed subject yet again but when there are proven forgeries in there and thus we know there is corruption involved, it's not longer standard, and then they simply have to be validated or treated with suspicion.



I agree totally.

The forgeries where discovered.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

The forgeries where discovered.

And only 64% of 200 were validated leaving a good portion still open to dispute.

This is competely off the point I was making though, I'm not going down this road again as everything that can be said on all sides has already been said.

Happyman42

These are the types of establishments you all have to feel sorry for now everybody!

Poor craters, imagine missing the chance of gouging 400,000 people?...it's a disgrace Joe! Only in Ireland Joe!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/would-you-pay-this-much-for-a-pint-637152.html

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

And only 64% of 200 were validated leaving a good portion still open to dispute.

This is competely off the point I was making though, I'm not going down this road again as everything that can be said on all sides has already been said.

Remember the bit where I was saying...'Only valid objections go forward for consideration'?
That is what happened here...leave it to the professionals.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

These are the types of establishments you all have to feel sorry for now everybody!

Poor craters, imagine missing the chance of gouging 400,000 people?...it's a disgrace Joe! Only in Ireland Joe!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/would-you-pay-this-much-for-a-pint-637152.html

Where in the Croke Park area is The Temple Bar pub I wonder?

ALERT: STOP ALL TOURISTS FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY AT ONCE, THERE IS AN EXPENSIVE PUB IN THE COUNTRY!!

I thought this was all Aiken and Garth Brooks fault. How can we blame them for the price of a pint in The Temple Bar, there must be a way.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Remember the bit where I was saying...'Only valid objections go forward for consideration'?
That is what happened here...leave it to the professionals.

Again completely off my original point, maybe on purpose maybe not, but no it's not as they reported themselves to have only che...

Actually I couldn't be bothered, the sun is shining outside and the we'll still be going circular in this thread tomorrow.
Talk then!

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Where in the Croke Park area is The Temple Bar pub I wonder?

ALERT: STOP ALL TOURISTS FROM ENTERING THE COUNTRY AT ONCE, THERE IS AN EXPENSIVE PUB IN THE COUNTRY!!

I thought this was all Aiken and Garth Brooks fault. How can we blame them for the price of a pint in The Temple Bar, there must be a way.

Which bit of 'these types of establishments" did you not get?

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'these types of establishments" did you not get?

Pubs? You think all pubs have those prices, or what? Are you anti-pub? Anti-business? Anti-tourism?

Please clarify

nxbyveromdwjpg

Bell, Calif. city manager gets 12 years prison for $6 million corruption scheme

And it's these types of city managers you want us to have blind faith in? Madness.

And I know this isn't relevant to Garth Brooks concerts. That is my point.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Pubs? You think all pubs have those prices, or what? Are you anti-pub? Anti-business? Anti-tourism?

Please clarify

Anti having to feel sorry for people who are only too willing to stick the arm in.

JRant

nm wrote: »

Bell, Calif. city manager gets 12 years prison for $6 million corruption scheme

And it's these types of city managers you want us to have blind faith in? Madness.

And I know this isn't relevant to Garth Brooks concerts. That is my point.

Only GB fans want that type of city manager. One who is easily bought for a quick buck. Aren't you lucky we have Mr Keegan at the helm here.

currins_02

A few more points to add.

Firstly, I note a poster branding Aiken a "conman" and "confidence trickster". Should we not measure our comments more. What evidence is there of that? What charges or convictions has he ever faced? Did he get carried away in the moment and let greed/his heart (whatever way a particular person may want to spin it), I would say yes. Can be assinate his character and brand him a "conman"? I would say we're on dangerous ground there but I'm not as experienced on here as many of you in terms of what we can/cannot say in a legal/libel sense.

Next, my wife (very reluctantly I should say) went to our local ticket agent yesterday to get her refund form (I know you can get it online, but you don't know my wife!). There was 4 different ticket holders (4 including the wife) looking for the forms in the shop at the same time. The guy in the shop has been conducting a bit of a straw pole and asking everyone who looked for a form 2 questions:
1) If you had tickets for the Monday/Tuesday would you have gone to a rescheduled gig (if/when that would happen)?
2) Would you go to see Mr Brooks again following all that had transpired?
I'm paraphrasing but that's the basis of the questions. She queried him on the feedback he was getting. He reckoned that he had issued over 300 refund forms.

The wife asked him what the results were and while the results were rough at this point he reckons he will fully compile and publish them in local press when the dust settles. His indication at present on each question were (roughly, mind) as follows:
Question 1) 50/50, he reckoned he surprised that approx half said absolutely not, they had plans made, holidays taken or whatever
Question 2) Very roughly he reckoned about 20% said (as the guy in the documentary last night said) "not if he was playing out in that street", he reckons another 20% (roughly) were already making plans to travel to see him once dates were confirmed on his tour elsewhere and the other 60% said "ah yeah, probably will".
I found that all very ineresting. I would contend that if those figures (and allow they will vary slightly by the time he finally compiles it, anecdotal at present) then if we roll that out to the 400,000 then 320,000 would go see him again, the 80,000 who may/will go abroad (I believe half that would be alot in reality) will probably see him here again, if that should ever happen. Also, I would believe that the approx 20% saying "no, never" now will soften over time, just as the Eminem fans did when he cancelled Slane, just as the Prince fans did when he cancelled CP and just as the likes of Chris Brown fans worldwide did after his domestic violence issues. Yes, some of them never will, but I'd say at least half of them will come around to Brooks again over time.

Both documentaries added little new or of value or that hasn't been hammered out here. I would ask was the "Anthony Fay; Croke Park Resident", in fact Anthony Fay of Anthony Fay Solicitors who represented both Brian Duff, the CP Streets Committee and the Handball Alley? If so, I think that should have been declared, purely in the interest of fairness. That could have been an editorial issue I accept. I noted that there was no "new" interview or submission from Aiken, GAA, Brooks or DCC on either show.

I was glad to see a few contributors on both alluding to the fallout in terms of "commercial reality" of the industry around introduction of more onerous regulations or doing away with allowing "subject to licence" sales. I think the lady from Philip Lee solicitors covered that well.

I now have the weekend off, the coach operator I was to drive for has refunded over €5,500 in deposits he had taken for various trips over the 5 nights (multiple vehicles on some nights). In total sales (deposit & balance) he is loosing out on nearly €14,000 he reckons. We both agreed that a percentage will be spent elsewhere but that does nothing to account for what he is down on advertising, the fact his vehicles & staff are now parked up (at the short notice almost impossible to replace the work) etc. So that is part of the fallout, he will survive but as he said "it's sore" and a hard hit to take.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

Pubs? You think all pubs have those prices, or what? Are you anti-pub? Anti-business? Anti-tourism?

Please clarify

You think that's not the average price of a pint in Temple bar? You know....where all of the tourists will head?

bumper234

Someone should tell them the bad news

nxbyveromdwjpg

bumper234 wrote: »

You think that's not the average price of a pint in Temple bar? You know....where all of the tourists will head?

You realise that has been the prices in TB for years, and has absolutely zero to do with the Garth Brooks concerts?

Nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

currins_02 wrote: »

I now have the weekend off, the coach operator I was to drive for has refunded over €5,500 in deposits he had taken for various trips over the 5 nights (multiple vehicles on some nights). In total sales (deposit & balance) he is loosing out on nearly €14,000 he reckons. We both agreed that a percentage will be spent elsewhere but that does nothing to account for what he is down on advertising, the fact his vehicles & staff are now parked up (at the short notice almost impossible to replace the work) etc. So that is part of the fallout, he will survive but as he said "it's sore" and a hard hit to take.

Good post full of valuable first hand information and experience. Unfortunately sensible views like this aren't welcome here.

In this thread according to most posters your weekend employment didn't exist or is irrelevant because Ireland has a large debt, and your employer, the coach operator, is a gouger. Sure look at him, making money off people. He must be stopped, power to the people.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

You realise that has been the prices in TB for years, and has absolutely zero to do with the Garth Brooks concerts?

Nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

You do realise the point is not about your hero, the point is, why should I feel sorry for these establishments that regularly gouge customers and tourists?



Yes I feel sorry for genuine business, but 5 nights does not a successful business make, if this puts them under or even puts them in difficulty then they are going under anyway.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

You realise that has been the prices in TB for years, and has absolutely zero to do with the Garth Brooks concerts?

Nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Who said they have raised prices due to Brooksie? It's more about the whingers saying "Oh the poor publicans won't be able to make any money now"

Calina

nm wrote: »

You realise that has been the prices in TB for years, and has absolutely zero to do with the Garth Brooks concerts?

Actually it's not. Last year they were charging 6.80. Which was also considered kind of expensive.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/02/03/the-e6-80-pint/

Not years anyway.

currins_02

I should say, I was to drive 2 overnight trips, one for Saturday night and one for Tuesday night. So those people are not travelling anyway as some would suggest. Those hotels have also lost out, the stop we would use in each direction for food/toilets have lost out and the 3 hours "free time" they had for shopping in Dublin the following morning is gone.

Also he has standing costs when the vehicles are idle in case anyone is in doubt such as finance, insurance, tax etc.

How we address whatever update, change or re-write of the regulations/process will have massive implications for large events in Ireland going forward.

As one contributor said last night these regs even include funfairs!!

I seem to be alone (in a public sense but among colleagues there is much worry about this) in the view that the "event" in full should have been pulled when there was any dissatisfaction as opposed to setting a precendent of partial approval and how that goes forward will be massive.

rubadub

currins_02 wrote: »

Firstly, I note a poster branding Aiken a "conman" and "confidence trickster". Should we not measure our comments more. What evidence is there of that? What charges or convictions has he ever faced?

Read my comments again

rubadub wrote: »

I would be angered at being taken in by a confidence trickster, Aiken. This is giving garth the benefit of the doubt, which I don't think he deserves as the limits on concerts was so well known, it is incredible to believe nobody in his camp was aware.

I do not believe Aiken acted in a way which gave false confidence to Garth (which is what I mean by conman & confidence trick, a conman is not just the stereotype fake ESB man robbing grannies). I firmly believe both of them were fully aware of the 3 gig limitation and believe both would have fully expected a huge amount of complaints.

I am saying if you give Garth the benefit of the doubt then it is like he was duped into this whole thing by Aiken. Unless you were to think Aiken was unaware too -which is beyond the realms of possiblity.

Both both parties seemed to be feigning ignorance about it, acting all surprised. They are liars and treating the public like fools, what is embarassing is having some citizens who lapped up his sentimental crap.

bumper234 wrote: »

It's more about the whingers saying "Oh the poor publicans won't be able to make any money now"

Were any anti-drug people supporting/pleased with this. I heard the vitners saying they were to lose out on €15m, thats €37.50 a head expected to be spent in pubs, and the governement tell us 3 drinks in a row is binge drinking.

Mrs Garth Brooks

The sad part of that currin_02, thats bus companies up and down the country.

bumper234

rubadub wrote: »

Read my comments again



I do not believe Aiken acted in a way which gave false confidence to Garth (which is what I mean by conman & confidence trick, a conman is not just the stereotype fake ESB man robbing grannies). I firmly believe both of them were fully aware of the 3 gig limitation and believe both would have fully expected a huge amount of complaints.

I am saying if you give Garth the benefit of the doubt then it is like he was duped into this whole thing by Aiken. Unless you were to think Aiken was unaware too -which is beyond the realms of possiblity.

Both both parties seemed to be feigning ignorance about it, acting all surprised. They are liars and treating the public like fools, what is embarassing is having some citizens who lapped up his sentimental crap.


Were any anti-drug people supporting/pleased with this. I heard the vitners saying they were to lose out on €15m, thats €37.50 a head expected to be spent in pubs, and the governement tell us 3 drinks in a row is binge drinking.

I think the Temple bar publicans can afford it

nxbyveromdwjpg

Calina wrote: »

Actually it's not. Last year they were charging 6.80. Which was also considered kind of expensive.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/02/03/the-e6-80-pint/

Not years anyway.

Who cares? It's not GB related, that's the point.

bumper234 wrote: »

Who said they have raised prices due to Brooksie? It's more about the whingers saying "Oh the poor publicans won't be able to make any money now"

Anti-pub then, nothing to do with Garth Brooks concerts. Clearer now.

I wonder how many of the residents objections were like this?

Mrs Garth Brooks

rubadub wrote: »

I do not believe Aiken acted in a way which gave false confidence to Garth (which is what I mean by conman & confidence trick, a conman is not just the stereotype fake ESB man robbing grannies). I firmly believe both of them were fully aware of the 3 gig limitation and believe both would have fully expected a huge amount of complaints.

What 3 gig limitation ?

Any more than 3 and they were allowed to apply for a public event licence. Aiken wasnt fooling anyone.

bumper234

nm wrote: »

Who cares? It's not GB related, that's the point.



Anti-pub then, nothing to do with Garth Brooks concerts. Clearer now.

I wonder how many of the residents objections were like this?

Lol you really have no clue. You do realise that Temple bar pubs that consistently rip off tourists are all owned by a select few people right?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

At a few points in the thread I have maintained that Keegan trying to get Brooks four concerts, which would mean he was just refusing to licence one of the five concerts, was just really indicative of him partaking in pure and utter 'tokenism' :

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

That would have been worse again. Then you are just cancelling one concert for tokenism sake. What is the point of that?

If concerts are being refused licenses because of planning restrictions / resident agreements , how does allowing four make sense?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No, it was the DCC being needlessly "pigheaded".

Why would they even want to let 80,000 fans down out of 400,000.

Tickets were sold for five concerts and cancelling just one of them screams tokenism and it wouldn't be done for any planning reasons whatsoever.. obviously.

No wonder he said all or nothing. A council refusing one concert from five, after the tickets have been sold and then claiming it's for planning reasons.. is nothing short of a fcuking joke.

Well, here is the proof of that: where we see Keegan admit it, all be it inadvertently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyQu3sXX_cI

currins_02

The prices in TB are scandalous at all times. When driving tourists or groups in the city I advise them to steer clear and direct them to the non-ripoff hostelries.

On the 3 gig limit, has it not been played out here to death and on plenty other forums that while an "agreement" existed between residents and GAA/CP that is not legally enforceable in any sense, so as such there is no limit. There are 3 events allowed without any need for additional licence under the incumbant planning and any over that needed licensed. As such Brooks/Aiken/GAA were perfectly entitled to apply for and allude to having the shows. No one on the DCC, promoter or venue sides dispute that. I'm the first to say 5 was probably too much but the process wasn't fit for such a large event in the sense of I don't believe it should have allowed a partial pass.

If, subject to any independent review or litigation, Aiken/GAA are found to have been truthful regarding the level of "support" they were getting from DCC etc then they are right to feel aggrieved. If it is found that DCC were wholly truthful and professional then f**k Aiken/GAA. I am trying to keep an open mind personally but have been open to admit as time goes on I am doubting how professionally DCC handled the process. No contact, to vague calls to current stand of calls with "support" but no assurance. Shouting about potential conflicts of interest re committee members when the biggest POTENTIAL conflict of interest was sitting at their table, in light of an inevitable s**tstorm I feel Keogan, even at a late stage, should have stepped back to protect DCC and the process from those accusations. No notes or minutes of ANY meeting produced at first hearing. For me the professional standpoint would have been minuted meetings throughout and a completely neutral standpoint. If there is no change in the process I do feel those lessons have probably been learned. On the other hand Keegan was only appointed weeks prior to the kick off of those so maybe there was initial naivety.

I all of that light I can't see any reason why they weren't perfectly entitled to apply for the gigs with associated risk as there, in any legal sense, does not seem to have been any "limit". I don't think, in terms of risk, they would ever have predicted "we'll get some of this", once the train was in motion I reckon they could have/should have dealt with an all or nothing planning decision, but that's an opinion of my own, grounded in nothing but my own analysis of the info to hand.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

currins_02

I agree Fred Swanson but I don't have any issue with businesses making money personally. That's off topic but I do try to stay away from some of the Irish begrudgery of he's a b*****x making all that money, blah blah. If they're selling something and people buy it, fair enough to me.

That's not making any assertions re "subjec to licence" before I get attacked!!