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

Ace2007

Nekarsulm wrote: »

A lot of talk about Promoters having to supply detailed traffic and crowd dispersal plans to DCC. Why would you need a different plan for 80 thousand country music fans than 80 thousand One Direction fans? If you have a template that worked before, you don't need to reinvent the wheel. So much of each concert plan would be identical to every other plan. Nonsense that it would take 5 or 10 weeks to study a submitted plan and decide on the outcome. Also DCC would get their weeks salary paid whether they are examining a concert application, or not.

1. No licence was needed for the 1D concerts - just council approval.
2. MCD were running the event not Aiken

Therefore Aiken would not have a template, and so would need to do their homework.

Happyman42

Dr.MickKiller wrote: »

What time were the concerts supposed to end at?

When Biddy from Mullingar wets herself.

Happyman42

Pwindedd wrote: »

I would imagine it was wading through the objections that took most of the time. 300+ submissions I hear.

The time it is to take is laid down regardless of the paperwork I thought? You can't short circuit it.
Stand to be corrected

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

jack presley wrote: »

And DCC have said they stated on numerous occasions that they had issues with the 5 concerts.

Yes, issues that could be dealt with.. not issues that would mean the non-granting of licences.

How hard would it have been, during those preliminary discussions, to take Aiken aside and say:

"Look, Peter. I'm a little worried here. You've sold 400,000 tickets here and I feel I have to tell you that there is no point in applying for these five licences, as I can tell you straight, they will not be approved, as there has already been three concerts so far this year already. "

People can say Aiken is lying as much as they like, but his story is the only story that makes sense. The DCC's story is illogical and you would have to believe people acted in bizarre and nonsensical ways for it to be in any way true. Why anybody is listening to the DCC and buying that they processed the applications in a timely fashion, when they clearly dragged their feet for months on making a decsion, about concerts which they knew fine well 400,000 tickets had been sold for, and which the media where discussing every day (as the residents were complaining to them) is beyond me. Are you blinded by the desire to back up the council and just blindly believe everything they say, out of some desire to get aware from the old days of brown envelopes or something. Is that what this is about like? I mean, if that is the case, then I find it laughable, as both are equally problematic. This guy Keegan has made a fcuking joke of processing applications for concerts that the dogs on the street had been discussing for months! The sycophancy has to stop.

Blaming Garth Brooks and a promoter who just followed the same bloody process that he has been following for years, for this mess, is bloody ludicrous. See the situation for what it is. I could understand the GAA taking flack, they made an agreement and seem to not be arsed but blaming Brooks and Aiken and calling them greedy is just passing the buck here. This is a mess created by failure to deal with high profile licencing applications in a timely and thorough manner, which the world and their bloody aunt knew should be high priority, and not take 11 bloody weeks to process. I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about how Brooks is greedy. Even if he is (he's not, but even if he was) that shouldn't bloody matter when a council is making planning decisions. Blame the right people for this calamity ffs.

Dr.MickKiller

Happyman42 wrote: »

When Biddy from Mullingar wets herself.

Well if Biddy from Mullingar wets herself after 10 on each of the five nights and three of those are typical work nights (Sun, Mon, Tues), then you might start seeing where the residents might have a problem.

The sound from a concert in Croke park can travel several kilometres, so you can imagine the sound level in the vicinity of the stadium.

jack presley

I've no way of knowing what was said, when it as said or who said it as I wasn't there. So I'm going to reserve judgement on whether Aiken is lying or DCC are lying. Maybe everyone else should do the same and wait until it all plays out as I'm sure it will

Pwindedd

Happyman42 wrote: »

The time it is to take is laid down regardless of the paperwork I thought? You can't short circuit it.
Stand to be corrected

Could well be right there. None of us really knows the ins and outs of what went on here. Can only go on the information fed to us, and a bit of supposition thrown in.

Anyway I can feel my interest waning already on this. When's the next sunny warm weekend due. Lacking in vitamin D lately.

AngryHippie

RandomName2 wrote: »

Slag off fans? Check
Slag off Brooks? Check
Slag off pubs/hoteliers? Che-
Though I agree with you about the fracking and wind-farms (not seeing the connection, mind).

PLANNING REGULATIONS

jack presley

Anyway, penos are over so I'm off to bed. Hopefully when I get up tomorrow, my country won't have disgraced itself by talking of bypassing laws or the current processes.

Ace2007

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes, issues that could be dealt with.. not issues that would mean the non-granting of licences.

How hard would it have been, during those preliminary discussions, to take Aiken aside and say:

"Look, Peter. I'm a little worried here. You've sold 400,000 tickets here and I feel I have to tell you that there is no point in applying for these five licences, as I can tell you straight, they will not be approved, as there has already been three concerts so far this year already. "

How hard would have it been for Aiken to abide by section 230 of the planning application act? Just because they got away with breaking that law for so long doesn't mean they can always get away with it.

Residents made it clear before the 4th/5th concert tickets went on sale that they would take legal action - why didn't peter take this into account.

Let's just say the DCC allowed the concerts and then the courts granted the injunction - who would you blame?

Just to add had the DCC told peter back in feb that he would only get 3 licence - how would that solve any of the problems - GB said he wouldn't let down 160,000 fans.

Conmaicne Mara

AngryHippie wrote: »

PLANNING REGULATIONS

They took different forms of currency.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Yes, issues that could be dealt with.. not issues that would mean the non-granting of licences.

How hard would it have been, during those preliminary discussions, to take Aiken aside and say:

"Look, Peter. I'm a little worried here. You've sold 400,000 tickets here and I feel I have to tell you that there is no point in applying for these five licences, as I can tell you straight, they will not be approved, as there has already been three concerts so far this year already. "

People can say Aiken is lying as much as they like, but his story is the only story that makes sense. The DCC's story is illogical and you would have to believe people acted in bizarre and nonsensical ways for it to be in any way true. Why anybody is listening to the DCC and buying that they processed the applications in a timely fashion, when they clearly dragged their feet for months on making a decsion, about concerts which they knew fine well 400,000 tickets had been sold for, and which the media where discussing every day (as the residents were complaining to them) is beyond me. Are you blinded by the desire to back up the council and just blindly believe everything they say, out of some desire to get aware from the old days of brown envelopes or something. Is that what this is about like? I mean, if that is the case, then I find it laughable, as both are equally problematic. This guy Keegan has made a fcuking joke of processing applications for concerts that the dogs on the street had been discussing for months! The sycophancy has to stop.

Blaming Garth Brooks and a promoter who just followed the same bloody process that he has been following for years, for this mess, is bloody ludicrous. See the situation for what it is. I could understand the GAA taking flack, they made an agreement and seem to not be arsed but blaming Brooks and Aiken and calling them greedy is just passing the buck here. This is a mess created by failure to deal with high profile licencing applications in a timely and thorough manner, which the world and their bloody aunt knew should be high priority, and not take 11 bloody weeks to process. I'm sick to the back teeth of reading about how Brooks is greedy. Even if he is (he's not, but even if he was) that shouldn't bloody matter when a council is making planning decisions. Blame the right people for this calamity ffs.

The DCC not granting 5 licences doesn't make any sense either. They get paid too if the gigs go ahead. Why would they not grant licences if they, as you say, easily could?

AngryHippie

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

They took different forms of currency.

I don't think that's entirely fair.
DCC were sitting on a time-bomb. They had to ensure whatever decision they made could be backed up by the letter of the law, precedent and the processes and procedures they have in place, as either way, it would end up in a ****-storm.
I am guessing that despite the criticism they are copping here, they have made the correct decision based on their mandate, and that if they had gone the other way, it could have been overturned by a court and they may have ended up carrying legal costs by either or both sides somewhere along the line.

Whats laughable is the fact that there was uproar and outrage about DCC and councillors engaging in corrupt behavior in the past (Even a big juicy tribunal), but when DCC abide by their mandate, refuse to bend the rules for the sake of a dollar, they get abused for it.

TCDStudent1

adocholiday wrote: »

Anyone remember the mahon tribunal no? A result of corrupt planning decisions, back handers and dodgy politics. But sure planning law should easily be ignored when it suits us...

The fact that Enda Kenny is getting involved now is more embarrassing than anything else to come out of this shambolic scenario.

Regardless of whether the DCC decision was right or wrong, the decision should be respected and lessons learned from all of this so it doesn't happen again in future

Well, thats a silly logic. Why should a wrong decision be respected?!

Not saying the decision was wrong, I dont know enough about the whole thing as others on here. However, if somebody makes a decision that is wrong and is possible to change it, then it should be changed!

Chucky the tree

I love the whole "taking €50m out of the economy" BS. Do people think that the concert go-ers are now just going to burn all of the money they had planned on spending instead of just spending it elsewhere?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Ace2007 wrote: »

Residents made it clear before the 4th/5th concert tickets went on sale that they would take legal action - why didn't peter take this into account.

He's a promoter. Their issue / agreement is with the GAA.

However, you are correct, the residents did make it clear that the would take legal action. So why did the DCC not step in and make it clear that no concerts would be taking place. Why wait 11 weeks after application. For almost three months Keegan went into work, with all that going on, and yet didn't think 'you know what, we should really make a decision on those licences, people are threatening legal action and 400,000 need us to get our thumb out'.

Let's just say the DCC allowed the concerts and then the courts granted the injunction - who would you blame?

Blame for what? I'm not saying they should have granted the licences.

Of course I have my opinion on the residents and how many concerts should be allowed, but that is a separate issue to the one regarding who created this mess. As for the court granting the injunction, the GAA claim the couldn't do that, so who knows. I would be more understanding of the DCC if they rejected all licences, the week they were applied for. Refusing to grant two, three weeks before the concerts is what I find most infuriating.

Just to add had the DCC told peter back in feb that he would only get 3 licence - how would that solve any of the problems - GB said he wouldn't let down 160,000 fans.

At this late stage. Back in February, had this been announced, no way it would have caused this much of a mess. The timing of this is 99% of why people are reacting the way they are. Four or five months before the concerts and it would give people time to arrange different dates, change hotels etc etc. Three weeks before the concerts is what makes it so much of a fiasco.

muddypaws

TCDStudent1 wrote: »

Well, thats a silly logic. Why should a wrong decision be respected?!

Not saying the decision was wrong, I dont know enough about the whole thing as others on here. However, if somebody makes a decision that is wrong and is possible to change it, then it should be changed!

Under the current law, it is not possible to change it, there is no appeal process. Perhaps the law needs changing, but at the moment that is the law we have, and politicians and others trying to circumvent it definitely shouldn't be respected.

chinguetti

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Blaming Garth Brooks and a promoter who just followed the same bloody process that he has been following for years, for this mess, is bloody ludicrous. See the situation for what it is. I could understand the GAA taking flack, they made an agreement and seem to not be arsed but blaming Brooks and Aiken and calling them greedy is just passing the buck here.

In one way you're right as the GAA broke their agreement and that isn't Brooks' or Aiken's fault but the residents complained about the concerts the day they were announced and pointed out that 3 concerts for 1D were already scheduled and they had an agreement with Croke Park for 3 a year. It was the greatest certainty ever that the residents were going to lodge objections to the council and the Courts.

Where you're wrong IMO is that if I was Aiken and was investing lots of money, time and effort and my reputation into this and could see a big problem down the line - lets be honest its not the first time that the residents nearly stopped concerts going ahead in Croke Park -, I would have gone and had a meeting with the residents in February or March to see if I could discuss their issues and allay their fears in any way to stop them objecting.

By doing this, he would have trumped Croke Park by actually acknowledging the residents live beside a stadium that attracts large crowds and that causes hassle for the residents when events are on. It mightn't have solved any of the problems but Aiken would come out of it blameless and all this sorry mess could have been sorted months ago instead of the nonsense that's now going on.

Piliger

muddypaws wrote: »

Under the current law, it is not possible to change it, there is no appeal process. Perhaps the law needs changing, but at the moment that is the law we have, and politicians and others trying to circumvent it definitely shouldn't be respected.

Something no one has even suggested. Straw argument.

Happyman42

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I love the whole "taking €50m out of the economy" BS. Do people think that the concert go-ers are now just going to burn all of the money they had planned on spending instead of just spending it elsewhere?

They are going to sit in dark rooms listening to his greatest hits.

And any money they don't get refunded has been released into the economy anyway. Where is the loss?

slimjimmc

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

However, you are correct, the residents did make it clear that the would take legal action. So why did the DCC not step in and make it clear that no concerts would be taking place. Why wait 11 weeks after application.

Can't you see they can't. To do so would be circumventing the planning process by pre-empting a decision. They have to follow the formal process. Imagine their position if they done what you suggest and Aiken submitted permission for 3 gigs based on that advice only to find that all impediments were overcome and DCC could have given their blessing to all 5 after all.
All they could do is flag there could be a problem and leave it up to the promoters to find possible solutions, e.g. he might have got all 5 concerts over 2 weekends.

ThisRegard

Piliger wrote: »

Something no one has even suggested. Straw argument.

Lots have suggested it, even in the dail.

Fair feckin play to Enda, I said a few days ago he should step in and people told me it would never happen... Well you were wrong.

I hope he piles the pressure on the clown in DCC and some way is found to quash the original decision (or just tear it up and launch it into the bin) and away we go with 5 concerts!!!!! I for one couldn't give two fecks how long the list of rules that have to be broken, in fact the more the better to send the Garth Brooks haters overboard completely.

PTH2009

The statement that will be in made in the morning will be to say that nothing can be done and the concerts will stay cancelled or they will offer garth 3 gigs and he will refuse them as he will be letting fans down.

Muahahaha

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

Fair feckin play to Enda, I said a few days ago he should step in and people told me it would never happen... Well you were wrong.

I hope he piles the pressure on the clown in DCC and some way is found to quash the original decision (or just tear it up and launch it into the bin) and away we go with 5 concerts!!!!! I for one couldn't give two fecks how long the list of rules that have to be broken, in fact the more the better to send the Garth Brooks haters overboard completely.

I wouldn't go thinking Enda is the saviour of your day so quickly. A backtrack by the city manager now would bring about a legal challenge. Enda has zero to gain by interfering and risks having egg all over his face in the event of such a challenge.

Muahahaha

Muahahaha wrote: »

I wouldn't go thinking Enda is the saviour of your day so quickly. A backtrack by the city manager now would bring about a legal challenge. Enda has zero to gain by interfering and risks having egg all over his face in the event of such a challenge.

I'm sure a judge could be 'encouraged' to throw out any challenge fairly sharpish!

Muahahaha

PTH2009 wrote: »

The statement that will be in made in the morning will be to say that nothing can be done and the concerts will stay cancelled or they will offer garth 3 gigs and he will refuse them as he will be letting fans down.

Yeah that's what I think is going to happen. All avenues have now been exhausted. Brooks won't compromise, DCC can't legally review or overturn the decision and for them to break the law now will bring about a certain legal challenge and defeat in the courts. There are no more option except to play the three gigs. His heart is broken at the thought of that and seeing as DCCs hands are now firmly tied the game is up.

Larbre34

City Manager can't even legally backtrack on his own decision, a third party would have to take him to court.

Its 3 on offer, either he does the 3 or does none.

My guess is a new threat of injunction will quickly emerge if he decides to play the 3 dates.

Muahahaha

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

I'm sure a judge could be 'encouraged' to throw out any challenge fairly sharpish!

Eh no. That would be unconstitutional and would likely collapse the government. Enda might be stupid but he's not that stupid.

B.A._Baracus

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I love the whole "taking €50m out of the economy" BS. Do people think that the concert go-ers are now just going to burn all of the money they had planned on spending instead of just spending it elsewhere?

- People who were planning on travelling up from the country will no longer need a hotel. So thats wasted.
- Restaurants lose out.
- Bars too.
- Also public transport.

It is not just the gig. Businesses lose out too. So there is a loss to the economy.