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

AngryHippie

Muahahaha wrote: »

I take what you're saying about the Volvo Ocean Race- I was at it myself and it was amazingly well organised. But it was a family festival aimed at families and while I saw some people got plastered drunk they were in a minority from what I saw. There's a big difference between a family event like that and 80,000 Irish people on the lash at a large scale gig from early afternoon till late that night. They're two completely different crowds and completely different atmospheres.

100,000 people over the course of a day is a completely different scenario to 80,000 people coming and going at the same start and finish times, both in terms of foot and vehicle traffic they have a totally different effect on the neighborhood and transport network. It's a nice comparison for the number of heads involved, but that's where the similarity ends.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Sigh. Like I said: just because the outcome pleases you, does not mean the current verification system is sufficient. You seem to be unable to make that, quite obvious, distinction.

DCC found the forgeries, there are no more that we know of (the Gardai would have to verify them all separately for their own purposes when they where rightly called in) and we know that they where legitimate objections that where not even neccessarily needed to make a decision.
And yes, the outcome partly pleases me, I would have given them no licences until they had a legally binding agreement with residents.

Please pay attention: Bogus complaints were made to the council. Many of these involved forging signatures of locals. The council's verification system only uncovered a very small percentage of those forgeries. It took a Garda investigation being launched to uncover the true extent of them. That investigation is still underway and we still do not know, with any great accuracy,

Here you contradict yourself within the one sentence...'only uncovered a very small percentage of those forgeries' but the 'Gardai have only launched an investigation to uncover the true extent of them'. :eek:

how many of the complaints were genuine and how many were not.

One valid objection can be enough. What is it about that that you find it hard to grasp?

And yet you try and tell us that the system did not fail? A system which allowed bogus complaints to slip through the net, which resulted in a Garda investigation?? Well, if that's the case, I'd hate to see a verification system that you would deemed to have failed.

The system only had a problem when external pressure from sources unknown was applied on the decision makers. But thankfully it held up.
I would be looking for a system change where any canvassing is logged officially. I would really love to know (I can guess) who was applying pressure from outside.

Eh, yes - that solidifies my point. It's doesn't negate it. The fact that they had to call the Guards because forged complaints slipped through,

How DID THEY SLIP THROUGH? if they slipped through they wouldn't know and wouldn't have called the Gardai. Jesus H. The bogus objections where discarded and not considered.

Of course it bloody matters. Nobody should be able to object twice for example and nor should they be able to invent people, or submit a complaint on another's behalf. Are you even thinking before you type?

Says the person who contradicted themselves within a sentence. :rolleyes:

Muahahaha

This thing about the objections is daft. AFAIK I remember hearing two different figures on it so far. One was reported by the Independent who said (I think) up to 40% of them were fake. Then I seem to remember another figure being bandied about, not sure if it was the Gardai or DCC but I think it was 11%.

Weather 11% or 40% it actually doesn't really matter because if there were some 380 objections then we still know 200 were genuine. For the City Manager there is obviously going to be a threshold level of objections in his head before he decides that they have to be listened to, at least to some extent. That extent was offering Brooks four concerts. I don't know what the threshold of objections DCC would have in their head. But one thing is obvious, if you have 10 or 20, even 30 or 40 objections then you can write that off as a bunch of cranks and steamroll ahead with your plans. But if you have 100 suddenly you're taking it more seriously. 150 more so and the 380 odd they got even more so. Even if it turns out that 40% were fake that still means 200 odd were actually genuine and I'd still hazard a guess that 200 was well over the figure that DCC had in their head where they knew they would have to be doing something to listen to residents.

People here also forget that we had local elections only in May and this was a big issue on the doorsteps in the area. No doubt local councillors were canvassing under the banner of supporting the residents and those councillors suddenly found themselves elected shortly thereafter. So undoubtedly Owen Keegan not only came under pressure from the media, GAA, LVA, IHF, Aiken and Brooms himself on one side but also likely a bunch of freshly elected councillors whose political reputation was nailed to this issue only a few weeks previous during the local elections.

At the end of the day Wishawasha is correct- the process of objections was flawed if so many false ones got through the net. DCC should have been more vigilant and they need to put systems in place to spot that kind of carry on in the future because it's not fair and it's not democratic.

But would DCCs overall decision have been affected if there was only 200 objections rather than 380 ? Personally I don't think so, even at a level of 150 objections I would have thought that they would have felt the need to give the residents at least some concession. That concession turned out to be the cancelling of one gig, I'm sure Keegan was thinking to himself that by allowing 4 out of 5 he might be sailing close to the wind with the residents but he could sell it as him still taking their concerns on board whilst balancing it with the economic/tourism arguments. He would have taken a bit of flak from the residents allowing 4/5 but he could have gotten through it and out the other side cleanly enough all up. As it turned out Brooks/Aiken refused to play ball being offered 4/5 and so here we are.

Valkerie33

As an outsider looking in to Ireland from Canada, the whole affair looks like a complete Farce..
Sure its more entertaining that Mrs Browns Boys !!

Muahahaha

Valkerie33 wrote: »

As an outsider looking in to Ireland from Canada, the whole affair looks like a complete Farce..
Sure its more entertaining that Mrs Browns Boys !!

That wouldn't be hard. Paint drying is more entertaining than Mrs Browns Boys.

But you're right, this has been a clusterfcuk of the highest order. Lessons will be learnt, it's just a shame it had to be the hard way because I don't for one minute believ that the residents weren't for turning. GAA/Aiken just didn't go about it in the right way. They will now...:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

DCC found the forgeries,

No. Some residents alerted DCC to the fact that their signatures must have been forged after they received letters from them 'confirming' receipt of their complaint. DCC then contacted the Gardai in return.

And yes, the outcome partly pleases me, I would have given them no licences until they had a legally binding agreement with residents.

This is not just about the decision taken. It's about how the decision was arrived at, what informed it and just precisely how DCC conducted themselves throughout the statutory talks. This is also not about people mistaken support for assurances, which certain parties are attempting to mislead people into thinking it is.

Here you contradict yourself within the one sentence...'only uncovered a very small percentage of those forgeries' but the 'Gardai have only launched an investigation to uncover the true extent of them'. :eek:

One valid objection can be enough. What is it about that that you find it hard to grasp?

What makes you think that I can't grasp the fact that one objection can be enough? Have I said that? No, I haven't. What you have done is failed to grasp my point and so gleefully came to this wrongheaded conclusion. So let me make myself clear:

Yes, one objection can be enough for a local authority to take into consideration and indeed act on. That is in fact the very reason why there is a five week submission window for them during the license application process. However, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE there was not just one objection.. there were in fact 380 of them and that unprecedented volume undoubtedly informed DCC's decision!

On or before May 21st they had over 380 submissions of complaint by residents. This unquestionably would have influenced the statutory meetings which were held with Peter Aiken throughout the following weeks. Keegan says that DCC kept making it very clear that they were not meeting residents concerns and that if they did, they would very likely get the five night licence.. BUT, it was the 380 submissions that were informing him that the residents weren't happy at this stage, very little else. Don't forget, at this point (mid May through to the mid June) DCC had no idea that ANY of the 380 submissions were fraudulent and so the meetings DCC had during that period, without question, had to be tainted with the sheer volume of objections (many of which we now know to have been falsified).

How DID THEY SLIP THROUGH? if they slipped through they wouldn't know and wouldn't have called the Gardai. Jesus H. The bogus objections where discarded and not considered.


Says the person who contradicted themselves within a sentence. :rolleyes:

What's with the waffle?

There is no contradiction in what I am said. None at all. I have called for a system where someone can only submit one objection and that when they do it, they have to identify themselves. To me, ANY forged objection which has been taken seriously for any significant length of time, has "slipped through" and that is precisely what happened in this instance, when those forged objections lay in that file. Owen Keegan himself has said that what has happened raises legitimate questions about the fact that anyone can submit a complaint about a licence application without having to show ID. I am shocked that anyone wouldn't tbh. Well, maybe not on this thread I'm not

At the end of the day, two concerts were cancelled, just three weeks before they were due to take place and which 160,000 were due to attend. That in itself screams that there is a problem with the system, but yet we will have people claim on here that the system is fine and the man in the stetson is the real problem. We have a promoter, a venue, a performer and the many people around them, all claiming that DCC in no way made it clear that they were not meeting the demands of the residents. Yet, the residents in the Mulvey report say different (apart of course, from a hardcore element which Mulvey felt would never be made happy.. no guesses who they are).

So, almost everything points to the fact that DCC made their decision to grant a license for just four three nights based on the volume of submissions. Submissions of which, the majority were carried under a man's arm (a man which the Gardai are attempting to identify from security footage) and handed into the council offices. Submissions which anyone can make by just scribbling down their email address as a means of contact (8 emails bounced back when DCC tried to verify submissions). Gardai also found that during their investigations that many of the people they approached when attempting to verify objections stated that they were "pressured" at meetings to sign letters of objection (I guess these would have been the ones carried in bulk underarm by the mystery man?) Who would want to go to this much trouble? Is country and western music hated that much? Or is it that people just really love playing handball.

So, we have all these objections and then splashed across the paper on July 1st are threats of court injunctions from even more "residents" were the five concerts to go ahead (was the man in the Louis Copeland suit hired at this stage - who knows) and all of this just a mere 24 hours before Keegan decides to phone Aiken / Brooks. Now, I think you'd want to be some gombeen to think that all none of this was influencing how he was conducting himself. Quite obviously, it was. Keegan states now that he offered to put four to Keogan rather than grant five because "at least" if you refused one night, then you could defend that as it wouldn't look as if you had totally ignored the residents and that you had listened to their concerns to some extent. Seems his main concerns were not to like a "complete sell out" and tokenism was his attempt to do just that.

I guess we will soon know who was behind the forgeries and the true number of submissions that were signed under pressure also but no matter what that number is and who these people are, that used the NIMBY brigade as a tool in their war with the GAA, I don't think any rationale person could think that the volume of complaints (both genuine and fraudulent) or the threats of injunctions in the media, did not inform how the DCC conducted themselves throughout the license application process, and in particular, the statutory meetings with Aiken.

ardle1

ardle1 wrote: »

Nahhhhhhh, I've read a few more posts here today, and I still can't figure out how Ireland let the biggest entertainment event involving the best entertainer in the World! just slip through it's hands.......
I don't blame any individual anymore, the event was bigger than any individual.
I just blame the Irish Government.



And just to make it clear, I certainly don't blame the man himself Garth Brooks, or even the other two stalwarts Aiken and Ticket Master...

Cienciano wrote: »

Again, Garth Brooks cancelled 4 concerts himself. He could have had 6 if he split them up. Whether you agree with his principles or not, it doesn't matter, but he's 100% to blame for the concerts not taking place

How many times are we gonna get at this, we all know what happened after 400,000 tickets where already sold.
The government decided not to let the arranged dates go ahead, in doing that they created a nightmare for Garth Brooks, a nightmare for Aiken, a nightmare for Ticket Master, a nightmare for numerous small business's and merchandisers not to mention the poor unfortunate 400,000 ticket holders.
Now if your on here trying to justify that, well then your on a different wave length than me, and I didn't even have a ticket!
There is not one good 'excuse' that I've heard on here in the last few weeks ever going to justify it.

muddypaws

ardle1 wrote: »

How many times are we gonna get at this, we all know what happened after 400,000 tickets where already sold.
The government decided not to let the arranged dates go ahead, in doing that they created a nightmare for Garth Brooks, a nightmare for Aiken, a nightmare for Ticket Master, a nightmare for numerous small business's and merchandisers not to mention the poor unfortunate 400,000 ticket holders.
Now if your on here trying to justify that, well then your on a different wave length than me, and I didn't even have a ticket!
There is not one good 'excuse' that I've heard on here in the last few weeks ever going to justify it.

No they didn't. The council allowed 3 dates to go ahead, they didn't cancel anything, not sure how they could really, as they weren't putting the gigs on. I really don't get why that is so difficult to understand. I'm not justifying anything, just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

Reformed Character

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Gardai also found that during their investigations that many of the people they approached when attempting to verify objections stated that they were "pressured" at meetings to sign letters of objection .

Conjecture.
once again you are caught using conjecture as fact, unless you have a verifiable link to a Garda statement that backs these delusional claims up.

Barely There

ardle1 wrote: »

The government decided not to let the arranged dates go ahead, in doing that they created a nightmare for Garth Brooks, a nightmare for Aiken, a nightmare for Ticket Master, a nightmare for numerous small business's and merchandisers not to mention the poor unfortunate 400,000 ticket holders.

Oh, it's all the Gobberments fault?

bumper234

What time does the candlelit vigil start this evening?

Plazaman

On the plus side imagine you could be stuck on a train or in a car right now heading for the concert and it 9 million degrees outside.

bumper234

Plazaman wrote: »

On the plus side imagine you could be stuck on a train or in a car right now heading for the concert and it 9 million degrees outside.

Could be worse, 5 O'Clock this evening trying to drive through that area and it swamped with stetson wearing gob****es standing in the middle of the road.

rubberdiddies

Whatever way you look at this, the simple fact if the matter is that 400,000 tickets should not have been sold subject to license.

Yes I know this is they way it's always been done but that doesn't make it right. Aiken was gambling with Brooks, the GAA, the punters and the residents. Everyone should have known that there was a chance the concerts may not be going ahead.

The licensing laws are totally flawed, however as it stands these are the current laws and unfortunately must be adhered to. Aiken knew this when they sold 400,000 tickets. It was their duty to inform Brooks and the customers. People then were buying tickets with the knowledge that the gigs might not happen.

Pure greed spoiled it for everyone. If the promoters were doing their jobs correctly they would have made the contract watertight enough to force the artist to play a minimum of 3 concerts whatever the licensing outcome.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Barely There wrote: »

Oh, it's all the Gobberments fault?

No it's the greedy Garthy Brooks. He wanted all the moneys from the consorts so he did.. There's all dem people dying in Gaza on the RTE and the whole country talking about Garthy Brooks. I'm mortified for me life. It's not wright. I know Ive posted a lot on da thred but its only ta say how I think its mad that de others are doing it. I wish dey would shut up about it. Can mods not lock de thread?

F5.F5.F5.F5.F5.

Cienciano

ardle1 wrote: »

How many times are we gonna get at this, we all know what happened after 400,000 tickets where already sold.
The government decided not to let the arranged dates go ahead, in doing that they created a nightmare for Garth Brooks, a nightmare for Aiken, a nightmare for Ticket Master, a nightmare for numerous small business's and merchandisers not to mention the poor unfortunate 400,000 ticket holders.
Now if your on here trying to justify that, well then your on a different wave length than me, and I didn't even have a ticket!
There is not one good 'excuse' that I've heard on here in the last few weeks ever going to justify it.

But you're justfying why brooks decided he was going to cancel the 4 gigs he was allowed do? Beggars belief, and the fact that you called it a "nightmare situation" makes me think you're actually taking the píss.
He could have done 6 gigs, 3 now and 3 next year. What a nightmare for brooks :rolleyes:

As for "the biggest entertainment event involving the best entertainer in the World", it's far from the biggest entertainment event, and the best entertainer? That's fairly subjective, that's like saying "the coolest man in the world".

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

No. Some residents alerted DCC to the fact that their signatures must have been forged after they received letters from them 'confirming' receipt of their complaint. DCC then contacted the Gardai in return.

The answer back system discovered the only confirmed bogus objections. There where enough confirmed objected to 'help' in making a decision, because objections only partly informed the decision,,,on the record and undeniable. Look at the reasons given in the licence.

This is not just about the decision taken. It's about how the decision was arrived at, what informed it and just precisely how DCC conducted themselves throughout the statutory talks. This is also not about people mistaken support for assurances, which certain parties are attempting to mislead people into thinking it is.

The decision taken was a professional one and arrived at a fair and balanced solution to a complex problem. That one man couldn't live with that is not DCC's problem and never can be.
His ultimatum (before and after the final decision was made)is what threw the 'system' into chaos.
Hard for a fan to swallow but nonetheless true, he would be playing in Croke park tonight had he been able to compromise.

What makes you think that I can't grasp the fact that one objection can be enough? Have I said that? No, I haven't. What you have done is failed to grasp my point and so gleefully came to this wrongheaded conclusion. So let me make myself clear:

Yes, one objection can be enough for a local authority to take into consideration and indeed act on. That is in fact the very reason why there is a five week submission window for them during the license application process. However, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE there was not just one objection.. there were in fact 380 of them and that unprecedented volume undoubtedly informed DCC's decision!

As did the history of the CP/Residents situation, as did the threat of injunctions, as did a whole raft of other considerations.

On or before May 21st they had over 380 submissions of complaint by residents.

Not strictly true...some of them where from businesses which would be disrupted from trading during a long period before and after the stetson waving.

This unquestionably would have influenced the statutory meetings which were held with Peter Aiken throughout the following weeks. Keegan says that DCC kept making it very clear that they were not meeting residents concerns and that if they did, they would very likely get the five night licence..BUT, it was the 380 submissions that were informing him that the residents weren't happy at this stage, very little else.

Apart from the history of the relationship...a relationship he wanted fixed and still needs to be fixed.

Don't forget, at this point (mid May through to the mid June) DCC had no idea that ANY of the 380 submissions were fraudulent and so the meetings DCC had during that period, without question, had to be tainted with the sheer volume of objections (many of which we now know to have been falsified).

An alien from Mars would know and I would expect a City Manager to be fully aware of a very very public long running dispute and to take it into account whether there was an objection registered or not. And he has, rightly, every power to do just that.

What's with the waffle?

There is no contradiction in what I am said. None at all.

There is a blatant contradiction when you say in one that

The council's verification system only uncovered a very small percentage of those forgeries

and in the very next phrase you say

It took a Garda investigation being launched to uncover the true extent of them That investigation is still underway and we still do not know, with any great accuracy, how many of the complaints were genuine and how many were not.

How do you know that they only uncovered 'a very small percentage if the Gardai have not completed investigations? Bloody stupid tying yourself in knots.

I have called for a system where someone can only submit one objection and that when they do it, they have to identify themselves. To me, ANY forged objection which has been taken seriously for any significant length of time, has "slipped through" and that is precisely what happened in this instance, when those forged objections lay in that file.

I expect professionals to be able to make a decision in a calm, rational and unbiased way. That is what we pay them for, that is why we expect them to be qualified in these matters. And from what I can see in a very transparent and in depth process that is precisely what happened here.

At the end of the day, two concerts were cancelled, just three weeks before they were due to take place and which 160,000 were due to attend. That in itself screams that there is a problem with the system, but yet we will have people claim on here that the system is fine and the man in the stetson is the real problem. We have a promoter, a venue, a performer and the many people around them, all claiming that DCC in no way made it clear that they were not meeting the demands of the residents. Yet, the residents in the Mulvey report say different (apart of course, from a hardcore element which Mulvey felt would never be made happy.. no guesses who they are).

The Mulvey report that Croke Park had kicked to touch?:rolleyes:
It was clear to the entire country that was interested (ample evidence on here and elsewhere) that Croke Park where pushing their luck and the envelope from the get go.
Nothing that happened at committee convinces me that they stopped for one minute, (in the face of those concerns) and took on board what they where being told. Right to the last moment the evidence showed that they and Brooks where engaged in a strategy of brinkmanship (the ultimatum when offered 4)
They lost...the bluff was called and we will probably never see it attempted again...not by these parties anyway.
The tragic irony for the fans is (and yet another radio caller this morning indicating that he had 5 tickets for himself and his wife, indicates this) is that had he compromised and played the three licenced concerts then the majority of fans would have gotten to see him.

Gardai also found that during their investigations that many of the people they approached when attempting to verify objections stated that they were "pressured" at meetings to sign letters of objection (I guess these would have been the ones carried in bulk underarm by the mystery man?) Who would want to go to this much trouble? Is country and western music hated that much? Or is it that people just really love playing handball.

This kinda Sindo nonsense should be banned from this forum. The 'Gardai' said NO such thing.

So, we have all these objections and then splashed across the paper on July 1st are threats of court injunctions from even more "residents" were the five concerts to go ahead (was the man in the Louis Copeland suit hired at this stage - who knows) and all of this just a mere 24 hours before Keegan decides to phone Aiken / Brooks. Now, I think you'd want to be some gombeen to think that all none of this was influencing how he was conducting himself. Quite obviously, it was. Keegan states now that he offered to put four to Keogan rather than grant five because "at least" if you refused one night, then you could defend that as it wouldn't look as if you had totally ignored the residents and that you had listened to their concerns to some extent. Seems his main concerns were not to like a "complete sell out" and tokenism was his attempt to do just that.

I guess we will soon know who was behind the forgeries and the true number of submissions that were signed under pressure also but no matter what that number is and who these people are, that used the NIMBY brigade as a tool in their war with the GAA, I don't think any rationale person could think that the volume of complaints (both genuine and fraudulent) or the threats of injunctions in the media, did not inform how the DCC conducted themselves throughout the license application process, and in particular, the statutory meetings with Aiken.

As I have said, what I want to know is who pressurised Keegan to make that call. Never mind your precious gigs...the answer to that question is much much more important in making sure we have a tamper proof system.
But no....that doesn't interest the great Disappointed multitudes. Quelle suprise.

currins_02

Cienciano wrote: »

it's far from the biggest entertainment event, QUOTE]

I wholeheartedly agree re Brooks being the "biggest" or "best" or "coolest" entertainer - that is completely subjective. But there is little doubt this was one of (and I am sure probably was) the biggest event planned in Ireland certainly for 2014. How many other events or what other events purported to host 400,000 folk over 5 nights (the fact some were repeat attenders is irrelevant - Oxigen/Electric Picnic etc all quote attendance based on the total daily attendance not the number of individuals), or even for that matter 240,000 over 3 nights or 320,000 over 4 nights.

It has been posted a few times that tickets were still on sale and I asked someone who would know last night and they said on 2nd May extra tickets went on sale. Which is the norm for such events to try and counteract touts to a degree. I wasn't even aware these had gone on sale and apparently that launch had been fairly subdued. I don't know how many tickets were involved but apparently all the second allocation for Friday were gone but second wave tickets were on sale for the other nights right up to the fun starting.

I was curious about if U2 wanted to do the same on a few fronts. First, it was irrelevant what else happened in my hypothetical year, i.e. was there other events, as we (or certainly I do) know now there is no legally enforceable limit, there are 3 events allowed by default and an event licence needed for any or all above that. There may be an unlimited amount of non Gaelic sporting events held there in a year provided all over the first 3 hold an event licence. So by suggesting U2 may (and I believe probably never will) ask/look/book/intend to do 5 nights they would be over the notional 3 gig licence requirement whether other events existed in that year or not. I was curious to see was it a deep rooted distaste for Brooks (regardless of his current stance), an entrenched opposition to the GAA (an organisation I have little or no love for in a general sense) or Croke Park or are we against big events in general. If it's some or all of the latter options above there is little need to review or change the laws I reckon as the opposition is always going to be that strong. If it's subjective "I don't like Garth" then change would be positive I think.

Croke Park is the best venue we have (I mean in technical and spectator terms not surrounding infrastructure) for events over 49,000 bodies. It should never have gotten the go ahead with such a lack of surrounding infrastructure (no rail link, no coach park, little or no car parking, no LUAS link even, most gates accessed by narrow residential streets etc). The irony in all this it ws political influence in such planning decisions that resulted in the tightening of regs to the point we are where we are today.

The change options will suit few to some degree or other:
1) Add an appeals mechanism - not ideal for objectors or promoters, could elongate the process and lead to endless appeals against appeals depending how it is done
2) Enforce a ban on "subject to licence" - No good to acts or promoters, can't plan, can't work within current limits and act's simply can't wait for 10 weeks plus for a decision when trying to plan tours etc. It has been widely published that competing arenas in Europe can secure approval or not in days (that's if they need to seek it at all).
3) Two Tier System - Where does the 5 week consultation go? If at the outline initial stage we are back at the same problem as 2) above, bookers for acts won't wait for that. If an event gets outline permission and consultation at stage 2 what protection to residents/objectors then have?
4) Overhaul the whole system - historically speaking we won't make it easier that's for sure and would make the business commercially unviable
5) What other options?

I do despair at the leftist views starting to come through though and as such I'm going to unfollow the board, it's going in circles to be honest. How we have gotten from the cancellation of a concert and the social/legislative implications to pretty much everyone in the tourist industry being branded a Gouger escapes me. We live in a free market, it's supply and demand, would I but a pint at €7.45, NO, do I get annoyed about it, NO, the places are jammed every weekend, with 100's of folks happy to pay. Everyone of those "Gougers" provided employment, in the main pay VAT & all associated taxes (no doubt some muppet will dig up how some publican one time made a settlement with revenue - so have undertakers & florists but sure their Gougers too). I have no interest in working in a communist state where we're all in state jobs, in fact much of the private sector taxation supports state jobs & pensions. I have nothing at all against state employees but I welcome entrepreneurs, basic economics will decide the fate of their business. If demand is there and you supply at a price people are willing to pay on which you can make a profit you will survive. It's the typical Irish aversion to anyone doing well. I feel sorry for the lad with the shotgun who was forcing people to buy dear pints and books expenisve hotel rooms.

Did Aiken/GAA chance their arm and get greedy - my opinion definitely
Did Aiken/GAA follow the established procedure - my opinion definitely
Was Brooks uncompromising and ultimately childish - my opinion yes, that his "principles" for you, hardly unexpected if you research his history
Did DCC apply process correctly - my opinion technically yes to the point a hybrid 3 out of 5 solution was invented, a clear tokenist PR move, should have pulled all if they were justifiably unhappy with any aspect, or if they were justifiably happy all should have proceeded. Has created a bad precedent in my opinion.
Did DCC act professionally - my opinion, NO, Keegan should have stayed Neutral from day dot (I can't accept it was not permissable for him to alude to possible refusal but quite acceptable in his eyes to give ongoing "support" regardless of what conditions he tied, whether given or implied to that "support"), Keogan should have declared his property interest even at a late stage and stepped back to protect the integrity of DCC and it's planning department, DCC were one of the main ones throughout the media frenzy issuing statements and added to the whole nonsense by doing so (regardless of who came up with the crazy matinee idea in what form it was highly unprofessional for them to release a statement about that before Brooks camp had agreed/declined - a clear move to win PR points by being seen to be flexible), If (and a strong if) Aiken is proven right at some point that he was told on evening before that a statement would be issued at 2pm on decision day and that statement was then issued at 10:30am that too is just plain unprofessional. I believe they have learned some hard lessons in the above regards whether anything happens is another matter.

That's my stool set out, it hasn't changed,nor do I think will it. Good luck, enjoy the circle however much longer it spins.

italodisco

Is there any sane reason why this thread is still going ?

It's over , do your health a favour folks and get on with things .

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Titzon Toast

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Tonight should be interesting as the stetson wearers come crawling out of the woodwork.

Will the car mirrors around Croker be safe I wonder?

Cienciano

currins_02 wrote: »

Cienciano wrote: »

it's far from the biggest entertainment event,

I wholeheartedly agree re Brooks being the "biggest" or "best" or "coolest" entertainer - that is completely subjective. But there is little doubt this was one of (and I am sure probably was) the biggest event planned in Ireland certainly for 2014. How many other events or what other events purported to host 400,000 folk over 5 nights

He said "biggest". St Patricks day is bigger, Volvo Ocean race is bigger, plenty of worldwide events are bigger like the world cup. It's simply not the "biggest event". And that's just going by amount of people at it, some events would be watched around the world, these concerts are just another gig on a tour, the only people who care about them are the people going.

On wheather U2 would play or not, I'd like to see them given the go ahead, same with Brooks, but ultimately what I want to see is DCC taking everything into account and making a decision and people respecting the decision.

italodisco

Yeah whats the craic, are fans still coming up to raise hell ?
Plenty of them threatened it , just curious to see if they have the brawny to go with all the big talk lol

Can't imagine them getting away with wrecking anything down there, some proper heads live about that place

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Reformed Character wrote: »

Conjecture.
once again you are caught using conjecture as fact, unless you have a verifiable link to a Garda statement that backs these delusional claims up.

Well, that was quite a long post and so I am quite happy that you could only manage to find one aspect of it to crib about. Oh and thanks for not replying with non-quotable, multicoloured text this time. Much appreciated.

Now, to address your gripe which you feel is indicative of "delusion" on my part:

It was said in a RTE 1 radio interview that the Gardai had a sample of 200 complaints, many of which had come from the batch which had been submitted in bulk by the yet to be identified male and that many of these people had now claimed that they signed their objections to the license "under pressure". Owen Keegan has also mentioned at the hearings that he was aware that many residents have now claimed this, although he did not claim his source. Are you trying to suggest that this is not the case at all and that it is untrue that such people have made these claims?

Reformed Character

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Well, that was quite a long post and so I am quite happy that you could only manage to find one aspect of it to crib about. Oh and thanks for not replying with non-quotable, multicoloured text this time. Much appreciated.

Now, to address your gripe which you feel is indicative of "delusion" on my part:

It was said in a RTE 1 radio interview that the Gardai had a sample of 200 complaints, many of which had come from the batch which had been submitted in bulk by the yet to be identified male and that many of these people had now claimed that they signed their objections to the license "under pressure". Owen Keegan has also mentioned at the hearings that he was aware that many residents have now claimed this, although he did not claim his source. Are you trying to suggest that this is not the case at all and that it is untrue that such people have made these claims?

I'm saying you are lying, making things up, and spouting rubbish claims that you cannot back up. I am also saying that said description covers the overwhelming majority of your posts in this thread.
As for your admitted literacy problems I feel it would be unkind of me to comment on them.

McCrack

**** Garth Brooks t-shirts here -

http://www.ebay.ie/itm/181474025645

dodzy

dodzy wrote: »

Can't get my head around how this thread is still so active. It's all been said.......god only knows how many times.

The wheels on the bus go round and round,
Round and round, round and round.
The wheels on the bus go round and round,
All day long.

Arrrrrrgggggghhhhhh !

Peppa Pig

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

they signed their objections to the license "under pressure".Owen Keegan has also mentioned at the hearings that he was aware that many residents have now claimed this, although he did not claim his source.

Mr Keegan admitted that the council made no efforts to verify whether the objections were real. Mr Keegan also claimed that he was told by unnamed individuals that people were put under pressure to sign objections at public meetings.

Link

Perhaps you could post your link to where Owen Keegan used the word "many" in the context of pressuring to sign objections.
If you cannot then you are guilty of embellishing your argument with fiction. If you can I will happily admit that I was wrong and you are right.

rubadub

italodisco wrote: »

Yeah whats the craic, are fans still coming up to raise hell ?
Plenty of them threatened it , just curious to see if they have the brawny to go with all the big talk lol

I wouldn't want to be facing these fearsome looking mobs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZVbXeN6A-Q

Johnny_Fontane

Garth would have been playing in 4 hours, what a great day it would have been........:p