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

JRant

nm wrote: »

Except for of course The Hotels Federation, Dublin Chamber of Commerce, Vintners’ Association, The Oireachtas, transportion companys up and down the country and numerous other businesses all affected, various politicians that got involved due the the effect of the aforementioned, and of course the residents in favour of the concerts that wanted the business.

But you keep telling yourself it's all about "Garthy" :rolleyes:

LOL.

You've basically named the biggest rip off merchants in the country and you want us to feel sympathy for them.

I'll break it down for you;

Hotel Federation - Gougers

Dublin Chamber of Commerce - Gougers

Irish Vinters Association - they'd sell there own mothers for a quick buck, gougers.

Oireachtas - Biggest gougers in the country by some distance.

I have zero, let me repeat that for you ZERO, sympathy for any of those groups above and using their crocodile tears as a basis for making a decision is bat shît crazy imo.

hynesie08

Faolchu wrote: »

in general (excluding vegas) Garth has a tendancy to keep prices rock bottom. in 08/09 he played a run of shows in Kansas and ticket prices were under $40 it may have been as low as $25. even the tickets for the up coming Chicago show is at about $65

According to aiken Garth was getting 90% of the ticket money. It's easy to charge less when you get a bigger cut.

Happyman42

Faolchu wrote: »

in general (excluding vegas) Garth has a tendancy to keep prices rock bottom. in 08/09 he played a run of shows in Kansas and ticket prices were under $40 it may have been as low as $25. even the tickets for the up coming Chicago show is at about $65

Obviously he has a swings and roundabouts approach to ticket pricing..if prices had been at normal levels for this type of gig, would he have sold 5 or more to the point would he have NEEDED to do 5 to make it pay?
Can't do 5...well it isn't worth my while doing any...cancel gigs.
In cold harsh business terms that is what happened here, in C/W terms it is 'you(the fan) and me (Brooks) against the big bad law-makers'.

One day he will play Ireland and reap the benefit of that...and you(the fan) will lap it up and throw your stetsons in the air. Can you see the best selling video yet?

JRant

nm wrote: »

So we can't discuss the source of the objections to the concerts here, but can spend 2 pages on the price of a pint in the Temple Bar?

Get the boat, this is completely relevant and likely to be the real source of the objections in the first place.

Yeah, I mean Casement Park and Parc Ui Choamh are completely relevant. How silly of me to think they have absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

Just to be super duper clear here, your saying that Mr O'Brien is the source of the objections. Not CP and the fact they tried to hold 8 concerts over 1 summer and definitely not because they tried to have 5 of those in a row.

Honestly, do you even read what you write because it's getting harder to understand your points.

nxbyveromdwjpg

JRant wrote: »

Yeah, I mean Casement Park and Parc Ui Choamh are completely relevant. How silly of me to think they have absolutely nothing to do with this at all.

Just to be super duper clear here, your saying that Mr O'Brien is the source of the objections. Not CP and the fact they tried to hold 8 concerts over 1 summer and definitely not because they tried to have 5 of those in a row.

Honestly, do you even read what you write because it's getting harder to understand your points.

I don't doubt that it's hard for you to keep up, try reading it slowly a few times or have an adult explain it to you or something before replying.

Mr O'Brien's activities, being chair of the Croke Park Streets Committee, is relevant.

Again.. slowly..

nxbyveromdwjpg

JRant wrote: »

LOL.

You've basically named the biggest rip off merchants in the country and you want us to feel sympathy for them.

I'll break it down for you;

Hotel Federation - Gougers

Dublin Chamber of Commerce - Gougers

Irish Vinters Association - they'd sell there own mothers for a quick buck, gougers.

Oireachtas - Biggest gougers in the country by some distance.

I have zero, let me repeat that for you ZERO, sympathy for any of those groups above and using their crocodile tears as a basis for making a decision is bat shît crazy imo.

LOL is right, anti-business, I should have remembered from yesterday.

Can you please give an example of an enterprise in Ireland that you do approve of?

And again as you fail to keep up - I listed the above in response to post claiming that no one cared. That of course, was utterly false and that was my only point.

Reformed Character

nm wrote: »

Dumbfounded as to why you have the word "may" in there.

Do we really have to keep repeating the ad-nauseam lines over and over again? No one is saying Garth Brooks didn't cancel three gigs so let's just try and get it straight now -

5 concerts in a row - Cancelled due to DCC on foot of complaints from "CP residents" groups.FALSE , permission granted for three,5 cancelled because of the ego of the artist.
2 concerts - Cancelled due to DCC on foot of complaints from "CP residents" groups.FALSE, residents complaints were one factor.
3 concerts - Cancelled by Garth Brooks in a tantrum.TRUE

If we can agree on this much, going forward can we agree to stop pointing out the obvious when someone says the 5 were cancelled due to xyx, "NO NO it was due to abc".
We all surely know this much already.

Amended your post so that it reflects the truth and reality of the situation.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Reformed Character wrote: »

Amended your post so that it reflects the truth and reality of the situation.

You really do have a hard time understanding 5 in a row.

The 3 was already referenced in the third line.

Nothing about resident complaints exclusively either. All 3 points TRUE.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

I don't doubt that it's hard for you to keep up, try reading it slowly a few times or have an adult explain it to you or something before replying.

Mr O'Brien's activities, being chair of the Croke Park Streets Committee, is relevant.

Again.. slowly..

What you don't seem to get is that the 'right to object is sacrosanct', it does not for one minute matter what the motivation for objecting is, you are legally empowered to object.
What we vest in the professionals in the planning office is the unfettered power to consider the validity of those objections...that is their job...not yours or mine or politicians or business interests. We ask them to do that job without prejudice and to reach a decision that is fair and balanced.

NOBODY, (including a biased Oireachtas committee) has demonstrated to me and to most non-in the heat of disappointment- hysterical people that the DCC operated outside their remit in any way.
They did their jobs in a balanced and fair way despite intense pressure from sources (at this stage) unknown. But I think we can all guess who was pressurising based on the recent history of this state.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you don't seem to get is that the 'right to object is sacrosanct', it does not for one minute matter what the motivation for objecting is, you are legally empowered to object.
What we vest in the professionals in the planning office is the unfettered power to consider the validity of those objections...that is their job...not yours or mine or politicians or business interests. We ask them to do that job without prejudice and to reach a decision that is fair and balanced.

NOBODY, (including a biased Oireachtas committee) has demonstrated to me and to most non-in the heat of disappointment- hysterical people that the DCC operated outside their remit in any way.
They did their jobs in a balanced and fair way despite intense pressure from sources (at this stage) unknown. But I think we can all guess who was pressurising based on the recent history of this state.

Jumping from topic to topic like wildfire here and not sure if that's even directed at me, but to be clear I've said nothing about people's right to object or people's right to object for any reason at all.
As we know people from anywhere in the country, affected or not affected at all and having an ulterior motive, can object.

A few pages back I simply said that in my opinion the process should be re-designed to allow for an appeals stage of the process that gives the same rights to people in favour, if a licence is not going to be granted, before a final and irreversible decision is come to.

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

LOL.

The other way around more like it.

'Fat Girth is just selfish and washed up so he is and he does be taking money from the sicks and the dying'

I don't speak for anyone else and have never referred to him as anything like that, so stop implying that I did

nm wrote: »

Unsubstantiated? Someone better tell this lot - http://www1.evoke.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AssetAccess-41.jpg?8d96c2

Or is that not enough for many? They aren't hiding in the shadows either like the mystery objectors/injunction funders (Why?), and are definitely in the Croke Park area.



Eamon O'Brien is not a Croke Park resident and has a massive chip on his shoulder against the GAA, I put it forward that in my opinion given his history and the fact that over half of the objections were delivered in bulk (source independent.ie), including forgeries in that bulk delivery, it is it quite likely an orchestrated campaign by this mans organisation to strike out at the GAA, having nothing in fact to do with the CP residents at all. Some probably are resident, maybe the majority, and some likely aren't especially given the forgeries and the cloak and dagger nature of the campaign including mystery funding of Brian Duff.

Quite rightly many residents (pictured above and covered in mass media) have come out publicly and taken to the streets to proclaim that they are NOT represented by this organisation. This part is fact and did not have to resort to cloak and dagger funding sources, forgeries, etc.
No question of organisations with ulterior motive amongst them.

It could be on the moon and Eamon O'Brien and his supporters would mobilise against the GAA, as we can see clearly now given his meddling in the developments for Belfast and Cork.

Yet again no facts to back up your assertion that many objectors live outside CPand most are anti-GAA. A picture of a dozen people holding placards has nothing to do with objections received by DCC.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Jumping from topic to topic like wildfire here and not sure if that's even directed at me, but to be clear I've said nothing about people's right to object or people's right to object for any reason at all.
As we know people from anywhere in the country, affected or not affected at all and having an ulterior motive, can object.

A few pages back I simply said that in my opinion the process should be re-designed to allow for an appeals stage of the process that gives the same rights to people in favour, if a licence is not going to be granted, before a final and irreversible decision is come to.

or...simply learn the lesson. If you are in favour then join the process legally, like everybody else.

Appeals for event planning are fraught with allowing once again political and agenda driven interests to corrupt a system that needs to be fair and balanced. That is why they are not allowed presently.

Listen to what Keegan said...he is 'supportive' of events that will bring prosperity to his jurisdiction...but also listen to the caveats.
Listen-adapt and comply and we will (like for most of the last 30 or so years)not have any problems. An artists relationship with his fans can never be allowed to influence a planning decision just like a politicians interest in the prosperity of one of his constituents cant.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Yet again no facts to back up your assertion that many objectors live outside CPand most are anti-GAA.

I have very clearly outlined my opinion, and very clearly presented it as my opinion when it is that. I have also backed-up in the same post why I have this opinion.

Peppa Pig wrote: »

A picture of a dozen people holding placards has nothing to do with objections received by DCC.

The photo I posted was in response to your statement:

Peppa Pig wrote: »

another unsubstantiated "fact" that many residents were pro-concerts.

Is the photo not 'fact' enough?
What more can be done to prove those people were there that day? What about the quotes in the media? Why do you refuse to acknowledge these Croke Park residents? Are their rights less important? If so why? We know it's not a numbers game anyway.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

or...simply learn the lesson. If you are in favour then join the process legally, like everybody else.

Appeals for event planning are fraught with allowing once again political and agenda driven interests to corrupt a system that needs to be fair and balanced. That is why they are not allowed presently.

Listen to what Keegan said...he is 'supportive' of events that will bring prosperity to his jurisdiction...but also listen to the caveats.
Listen-adapt and comply and we will (like for most of the last 30 or so years)not have any problems. An artists relationship with his fans can never be allowed to influence a planning decision just like a politicians interest in the prosperity of one of his constituents cant.

I not going to argue with any of that and I certainly don't give a monkeys about GB's relationship with his fans.

There was agenda driven interests on ALL sides of this and if the system was as perfect as you say it is then we would not have seen the outcry that we did (not from fans, from local business and everyone else). It needs revision to a two stage system to have these matters heard in advance of a irreversible decision, that is all I'm saying.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

I not going to argue with any of that and I certainly don't give a monkeys about GB's relationship with his fans.

There was agenda driven interests on ALL sides of this and if the system was as perfect as you say it is then we would not have seen the outcry that we did (not from fans, from local business and everyone else). It needs revision to a two stage system to have these matters heard in advance of a irreversible decision, that is all I'm saying.

The 'public consultation' phase is perfectly adequate for that.
What people need to do is swallow hard and learn the lessons.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'public consultation' phase is perfectly adequate for that.

Well I don't agree and that's why we're debating I guess.

Close thread?

catallus

How the hell could they cancel these concerts? I've just heard about this and I am livid! :mad:

Who is to blame!?

Uriel.

catallus wrote: »

How the hell could they cancel these concerts? I've just heard about this and I am livid! :mad:

Who is to blame!?

lol

Reformed Character

catallus wrote: »

How the hell could they cancel these concerts? I've just heard about this and I am livid! :mad:

Who is to blame!?

There is no "they".
Garth Brooks, he was granted a licence for 3 concerts but decided to play none at all.

beakerjoe

Im still baffled at how just under 400,000 people enjoy GBs music. Its crazy.

Happyman42

nm wrote: »

Well I don't agree and that's why we're debating I guess.

Close thread?

Well you aren't 'reasonably' disagreeing, that is for sure.
It is wrong headed to change legislation on the basis of one decision. A calm and reasonable review is certainly required and would be timely, but my opinion is that the system is not broken if it is used properly.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

JRant wrote: »

Epic fail, so much wrong with one single post.

So fraudulent submissions informed the councils decision now.

Wonderful wishiwasa.

Are you seriously asking this? And you call my post a fail. The irony.

Firstly, the fact that even one fraudulent complaint can be made means that there is a possibility of 100% of complaints for future events being falsified. What has happened has shown, quite clearly, that there is a gigantic loophole in the system in which scurrilous chancers could take advantage and it needs to be closed, by whichever means are deemed necessary.

Secondly: we don't know the total percentage of complaints which were fraudulent yet, as the Garda Investigation is still under way. Complaints which not only informed the decision which DCC took when they refused to licence the 4th and 5th night, but in fact, was the cornerstone of it . Bizarre that this appears to be news to you.

Peist2007

People are still arguing about this :pac:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes I am. Simple system.

Yes, so "simple"; it failed and is wide open to being abused again, by those with an agenda but lets leave it in place anyway because the result of what happened is something you are happy with.

NO THEY DIDN'T, we know there are genuine complaints and it was they, that informed the decision. Jaysus H. Keegan told McKenna that he was supportive of the idea if the 'residents concerns where addressed'. Everyone on here knew there where problems...even Aiken knew.

NEWSFLASH: the Garda Investigation is not yet complete. Some of the people were not contactable and even some of the emails bounced back on a number of submissions.

Because DCC passed objections they found to suspicious or false onto the Gardai. Not having an in-house SWAT team themselves it was a wise and professional decision.

Which is why I have said they need to be given new powers to help them verify that complaints are genuine. You don't need a SWAT team for that.

Cienciano

Faolchu wrote: »

in general (excluding vegas) Garth has a tendancy to keep prices rock bottom. in 08/09 he played a run of shows in Kansas and ticket prices were under $40 it may have been as low as $25. even the tickets for the up coming Chicago show is at about $65

Why was he charging €60 a ticket? I saw U2 play in Croke Park for €30 and they had a much bigger stage and lightshow that Brooks does. They even paid to relay the pitch afterwards.
I don't begrudge him charging for tickets, but no need to make him out as a some sort of saint.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

nm wrote: »

So we can't discuss the source of the objections to the concerts here, but can spend 2 pages on the price of a pint in the Temple Bar?

Get the boat, this is completely relevant and likely to be the real source of the objections in the first place.

How dare you discuss what's relevant to why these concerts were cancelled.

Don't you know that Brooks wants songwriters to get a bigger percentage of sales from iTunes and only gave his ex-wife $125m. Stay on topic, dude!

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes, so "simple"; it failed and is wide open to being abused again, by those with an agenda but lets leave it in place anyway because the result of what happened is something you are happy with.

How did it 'fail'...the decision was to grant a licence for 3 gigs.
DCC instigated the Gardai involvement here...nobody else.
Those wanting 5 gigs also had agendas...One of which was to undermine legitimate objections, which NOBODY can say don't exist.

NEWSFLASH: the Garda Investigation is not yet complete. Some of the people were not contactable and even some of the emails bounced back on a number of submissions.

As long as the criteria is, 'Is this a valid objection' it doesn't really matter who sent it in anyway.
DCC are legally entitled to have their own criteria for making a decision. They don't necessarily need 'objections' from the general public anyway, they can rely on their professional judgement as planners.

Which is why I have said they need to be given new powers to help them verify that complaints are genuine. You don't need a SWAT team for that.

They discovered dubious objections and called in the Gardai...perfectly responsible and adequate.

bumper234

beakerjoe wrote: »

Im still baffled at how just under 400,000 people enjoy GBs music. Its crazy.

400,000 tickets does not = 400,000 people.

beakerjoe

bumper234 wrote: »

400,000 tickets does not = 400,000 people.

Thats why I wrote "under" 400,00 :rolleyes:

Cienciano

bumper234 wrote: »

400,000 tickets does not = 400,000 people.

The irony is, if everyone got one ticket each, it could mean only 4 shows that he could have got a licence for. A good few posters in this thread said they got tickets for 3, 4 or 5 gigs.