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

NSAman

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Are you saying that he would have had to sing louder in Croke Park? "Protecting his voice" was used by GB fans as a reason why he didn't do the two a day there.

Really? I thought it was the ridiculous lack of organization and the ability to clean and make the place safe for 160,000 people to come and go, not to mention the parking and transport issues... but then again... you seem to know more about the performer than I do..;)

You had tickets admit it.;)

Donkey Oaty

NSAman wrote: »

Really?

Heyull, yeah! See the last para of this, and then bear in mind that he is doing five in three in Chicago.

He cares about the fans so much that he has prepared to sacrifice his only son - sorry, his voice - for the greater good.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

All these posts do is confirm that the Keegan fans on this thread haven't the first clue (or indeed, interest) in whether or not he was the one telling truth at the Oireachtas or it was Aiken, McKenna Pauric Duffy, as this this is all really just about being seen to be having a pop at an uncool country and western singer and those that paid money to see him perform.. for the vast majority of you at least.

Reformed Character

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

All these posts do is confirm that the Keegan fans on this thread haven't the first clue (or indeed, interest) in whether or not he was the one telling truth at the Oireachtas or it was Aiken, McKenna Pauric Duffy, as this this is all really just about being seen to be having a pop at an uncool country and western singer and those that paid money to see him perform.. for the vast majority of you at least.

Wrong, but sure your posts have a 100% win ratio in the wrong and bitter categories.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

A system which results in 160,000 being told that concerts which they are due to attend in less than three weeks time, and which they have held tickets to for five over five months, are cancelled.. is a system that is wholly inadequate. Defend it as much as you like, but it won't make it any less competent.

At which point after the end of Feb would it have been a good time to deny a licence?...none, it was always going to be hard on those people with tickets for the nights not deemed to suitable for a licence.
Promoters..including Aiken are happy with the 'subject to licence' method.
I have not heard a better way of doing it...do you even have one?
I am not witnessing huge hardship among people who have had to rearrange their plans. **** happens sometimes and perhaps the problem here is un-natural obsession and an unfortunate buying frenzy...it was just a concert. Brooks could do with being aware that his product is not a divine message but trite C/W music.

As for your subject to license argument. It's been done to death and each time your side of the argument falls flat on it's face. Indeed, a condition of event management plans is that the promoter and venue have to have the total expected attendance known so that security and safety measure can be put in place, which is precisely why it's now become common practice to sell tickets for concerts subject to license and in no way should it mean that just because that is is on a ticket, that that person should not be surprised if the concert is cancelled mere weeks before it is take place. It's quite obtuse for you to suggest it tbh.

So what you are really saying is that the ideal situation is that tickets get sold and the planning licences however many nights are sold?
Brilliant! :rolleyes:

Yet more innocence.

Keegan would NOT have been seen as being prejudicial, not even remotely. This was made clear at the Oireachtas. Owen Keegan made that ridiculous strawman argument, please stop parroting him. He said that if he "refused to take phonecalls" (eh, nobody implied he should have") or that if he told Aiken that he was "totally opposed" to the concerts and that they would "never get a license" (again, nobody implied that he should have done this) that he would be accused of being prejudicial.

You are getting funnier and funnier....so there would have been no problem at all if Keegan had said before an application was made that there was NO CHANCE of 5 nights.

Go on...tell us how the system should work, because I don't think you have a clue how it works now.

This makes zero sense, ZERO and makes you look extremely ill informed or at least, that you're pretending to be. It is the JOB of the council during all their meetings to communicate their 'true' position. Otherwise the applicant will be unaware whether or not their mitigation measures are sufficient or not. You are acting as if these people applied for a Driver's License or something ffs. The whole point of statutory meetings and submitting updated event management plans is to mitigate issues and meet conditions which are raised by the council.

I am not sure what you can do if you tell an applicant that 5 is a big ask, if the applicant refuses to take on board strident public objection and insists on applying for 5 anyway.
Also remember that when some flexibility was shown (all be it by mistake and under duress from persons unknown) and 4 nights where offered they still insisted on it being 5 or none.
An idiot would understand what was being attempted...'pass the licences because this it too big to fail'

Please stop saying this is a lie, it's boring and also, please stop asking for Garda statements when you know that they haven't released one to date. This not about the 'Sindo' article. Again, quit suggesting it is. Both Keegan and Keogan have stated that the Gardai have informed them that between 36-40% (depending on which of them we listen to) from a sample of 200 may of yet prove to be dubious. Call it lies all you like, but it won't make it so.

Why are continuing to claim adamantly as fact that 40% are bogus. That is a lie...nobody knows yet.

You are extremely naive now if you believe that Owen Keegan asked for a guarantee from Brooks to do a 4th night, if he didn't know full well that Keogan would sign off on it. Keegan had been working closely with Keogan for months regarding the concerts and there is no chance that he wouldn't know just what Keogan would and would not be open to. Oh and if Keogan is really the "decision maker", then why did Keegan not put the the idea of five nights to him? When he tells Brooks I am willing to put four to Keogan, isn't that making a decision not to put five to him? Hell, even the fact that he won't just put four to Keogan, without tanting Brooks with a 'give me a guarantee and I will is testimony to the fact that Keegan is the one making the ultimately making the decisions.

He couldn't because it would have to go through a process..just like the original application and the matinees proposal.

They took part as a means of informing and meeting mitigation (clearly that was ignored / had to be ignored) and so of course it was partly done to make the way clear for further concerts and that naturally would include the imminent ones, that's nothing profound there. However, Croke Park held many meetings with the residents by way of mitigating their concerns before the Mulvey report. They also in fact, held a meeting with the handball alley, which apparently went on until after midnight and all came to an agreement but one person who hadn't attended the meeting refused to agree and so it all fell apart at the 11th hour. I have to say, I really fail to see what else Aiken and Croke Park could have done to address the concerts of residents. Do you know how many resident groups there are? The GAA did what they could do and indeed, they do a great deal for the area. They fund projects, tickets to games and concerts for "locals" and hold events for local kids, and also host an annual event whcch honours the OAPs of the surrounding area. This is not a venue which treats the local residents with disdain. Far from it.

This is contrary to what many residents have said. There is no legally binding agreement with residents, that is the fact. And there will have to be grom now on if Croke Park and promoters don't want a repeat.

Sure, they are applying for more concerts this year than ever before, but they are entitled to according to ABP. No concerts were held there last year and so it's not as if they exhaust their privilege each year or could be accused of taking the piss in any way. The only people doing that, is the resident splinter groups which constantly are stirring up trouble for the geuine residents, which is why close to the concerts taking place residents themselves were getting petitions in place to show support for all five concerts. Many houses had banners up on their homes in fact, making it clear that they had no issues with the five going ahead.



The independent review hasn't taken place yet. We have already closed the barn door after the horse has escaped, let's not go sticking the cart in front of him also.

Doesn't matter how many where in favour as long as there where valid objections that planning agreed with and could use in their deliberations...which did not just take them into account.

You see: this makes you look like you have no interest it the truth and are here to bang a drum. To suggest that Grath Brooks would make a decision not to play three gigs because he would make more money if he sued, is absurd. You really think a guy embarking on his comeback wants to tour the world with a court case hanging over his head. It's thoughtless, agenda saturated, tripe.

That all remains to be seen doesn't it.

Cantremember

This thread is like a months mind at this stage.

Menas

This thread is like doing an extra decade of the rosary...just for the craic like.

Dont know why i opened it!

Muahahaha

Trigger Happy wrote: »

This thread is like doing an extra decade of the rosary...just for the craic like.

Dont know why i opened it!

Oh, so it's you who is to blame

Happyman42

Trigger Happy wrote: »

This thread is like doing an extra decade of the rosary...just for the craic like.

Dont know why i opened it!

Well it's no longer about Garth Brooks (remember him? ) it's just another thread with those who think their whims should supersede the law (and how it is enacted) just because they have money to spend arguing with those who think that we have to finally have a system that is free from political and vested interests interference.
The latter lost that debate during the Celtic Tiger.

Phoebas

Trigger Happy wrote: »

This thread is like doing an extra decade of the rosary...just for the craic like.

Dont know why i opened it!

Ah, leave the thread alone. It provides fulltime employment for at least two people.

roadsmart

This still going? It's a beautiful quiet peaceful morning here in garth-free Drumcondra. Just thought I'd share:D.

LynnGrace

Happyman42 wrote: »

I am not witnessing huge hardship among people who have had to rearrange their plans. **** happens sometimes and perhaps the problem here is un-natural obsession and an unfortunate buying frenzy...it was just a concert. Brooks could do with being aware that his product is not a divine message but trite C/W music.

What?!
And he all prepared to swim, crawl etc , in order to deliver the 'divine message'.

Happyman42

LynnGrace wrote: »

What?!
And he all prepared to swim, crawl etc , in order to deliver the 'divine message'.

He didn't even wet his feet!

Curious arrogant parallels in this lawsuit to how he behaved here, http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/garth-brooks-sued-country-star/2013/04/16/id/499752/

Country music superstar Garth Brooks' former business partner is suing the singer for more than $850,000 for being a fake.

Lisa Sanderson, who had worked with Brooks for nearly 20 years, alleges in a lawsuit filed Monday in Los Angeles that Brooks public persona is fake and that he is “a paranoid, angry, deceitful and vindictive man that will turn against those closest to him on a dime.”

Attorney Marty Singer filed the court papers on behalf of Sanderson, who alleged Brooks is anything but a humble and trustworthy “everyman.” She is seeking damages for fraud, breach of contract and unspecified punitive damages and attorney fees.



A spokesman for Brooks at Red Strokes Entertainment Inc. responded.

“Mr. Brooks, of course, denies everything in the lawsuit filed [Monday] by Lisa Sanderson. Mr. Brooks and Red Stokes Entertainment Inc. will continue to take the necessary steps toward resolving this matter through the legal system,” said the spokesman.

Sanderson claims Brooks lured her away from a fulfilling television career and offered her producer’s fees and bonuses from film and television deals he hoped to secure through his production company, Red Stokes. But his ego got in the way, she claimed. Film roles he turned down because they were not big enough were in such movies as “Twister” (1996) and “Saving Private Ryan” (1998), the suit alleges.

“After realizing that he would never conquer Hollywood, Brooks decided to shut down Red Strokes, pack up his toys and go home,” the lawsuit alleges.



Sanderson started working at Red Strokes in 1994 to help develop film and television projects for the country music singer. Apparently, Brooks' "unreasonable demands torpedoed nearly all of the potential deals that came their way," according to Sanderson's claims.

bumper234

LynnGrace wrote: »

What?!
And he all prepared to swim, crawl etc , in order to deliver the 'divine message'.

Pffffff if he was any use he would'a parted the sea like that Moses fella.

demanufactured

So are the gigs going ahead then or what?

Can't believe this thread is still going...

LizT

demanufactured wrote: »

So are the gigs going ahead then or what?

No
/thread