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

Lord Trollington

h2005 wrote: »

Is there legislation with regard taking frivolous injunctions? Mr Duff would want to make sure his taxes are in order after his stunt. There should be no more negotiations. There's 3 concerts fat boy can take them or leave them. It will set quite the precedent if the country is seen to back down to a wannabe cowboy.

A wannabe cowboy? So what is a cowboy then if Brooks isn't one?

Happyman42

Lord Trollington wrote: »

He was also given a suit. Come off it. The moron done enough to inslut himself without any poster on here adding to it.

According to a source!!
Wonderful journalism that has fed your bias...excellent result for the Sindo.

Jester252

I'm beginning to wonder about his mental state or is he just an attention seeker.

eamonnq

Lord Trollington wrote: »

A wannabe cowboy? So what is a cowboy then if Brooks isn't one?

A cowboy is an animal herder who tends cattle on ranches in North America, traditionally on horseback, and often performs a multitude of other ranch-related tasks.

SEPT 23 1989

They talked of the Mexicans in the Dail:pac:

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Jester252 wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder about his mental state or is he just an attention seeker.

Yeah Enda is a bit of a tool.

Jester252

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Yeah Enda is a bit of a tool.

3edgy5me

onlyme!

Lord Trollington wrote: »

He was also given a suit. Come off it. The moron done enough to inslut himself without any poster on here adding to it.

"A source also confirmed that he was provided with a suit to wear in court"

must be true its from a source!

D3sperado

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where does he say that? A court case costs money, that is what the money was for as far as I can see.

But continue with the obvious slurring of residents characters, par for the course here.

Funding someone to take litigation in this way is called maintenance and has been outlawed in Ireland since the Middle Ages! The GAA and whoever else he sought to sue would be perfectly entitled to sue him and his 'backers' for their losses.

Although given the type of characters involved a wiser move might be just to forget it....

Happyman42

D3sperado wrote: »

Funding someone to take litigation in this way is called maintenance and has been outlawed in Ireland since the Middle Ages! The GAA and whoever else he sought to sue would be perfectly entitled to sue him and his 'backers' for their losses.

Although given the type of characters involved a wiser move might be just to forget it....

Contributing to somebody's court costs is not illegal.

curioser

Losing the will to live at this point. Will have to consider unfollowing the thread and resume my life. My final observation is that at this afternoon's meeting Owen Keegan will apologise for the confusion caused by a clerk typist erroneously typing 3 instead of five licences to be issued, the wee girl has been disciplined and the five concerts are good to go.

ThisRegard

Tarzana wrote: »

OK, have to say at this stage, I'm just laughing at how farcical this situation has become.

Only at this stage ?

Lord Trollington

Happyman42 wrote: »

According to a source!!
Wonderful journalism that has fed your bias...excellent result for the Sindo.

Well considering the journalist met the man in question, I doubt very much he plucked the story out of his ar$e.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/resident-was-paid-15000-to-help-his-court-case-30420588.html

Have a look at the video. I think I'd take a journalists word over this mans any day of the week.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Tarzana wrote: »

OK, have to say at this stage, I'm just laughing at how farcical this situation has become.

Same here. It was a great debate but now it's jumped the shark (only it's real)

Grayson

Zaylee Thundering Soda wrote: »

DCC are meeting at 3pm on the issue not 5pm.

Joan Burton says new facts have emerged also which could lead to a resolution. Id imagine its fake resident objections or DCC messing up that this is referring. Things looking a lot lot better now, these concerts might happen yet

Or it's a grubby politician looking for votes.

Tarzana

ThisRegard wrote: »

Only at this stage ?

It was ridiculous before of course, but has just crossed a line...

Happyman42

Lord Trollington wrote: »

Well considering the journalist met the man in question, I doubt very much he plucked the story out of his ar$e.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/resident-was-paid-15000-to-help-his-court-case-30420588.html

Have a look at the video. I think I'd take a journalists word over this mans any day of the week.

Why is the fact that he borrowed a suit important?
It has no relevance whatsoever and is only reported to feed your preconceptions and bias.
If it is relevant please tell us how and why the acquisition of clothing for a court case is not important in every other court case and mentioned in articles?


You got owned, as my 10 year old would say.

D3sperado

Happyman42 wrote: »

Contributing to somebody's court costs is not illegal.

What are you basing that on?

Funding someone to take litigation in respect of something which you have no direct involvement is not permitted and you can be sued for it.

Based on the media reports (which may or may not be accurate), this guy was given money/assistance to seek this injunction because his backers wanted to "take down" the GAA or something to that effect. They certainly weren't interested in upholding planning law.

dandyo

Is there a chance the track will bend?

doncarlos

dandyo wrote: »

Is there a chance the track will bend?

Not on your life my Hindu friend

beakerjoe

Garth Brook sold gigs to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. And, by gum, it put them on the map!

dandyo

doncarlos wrote: »

Not on your life my Hindu friend

But main street's still all cracked and broken!

Lord Trollington

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why is the fact that he borrowed a suit important?
It has no relevance whatsoever and is only reported to feed your preconceptions and bias.
If it is relevant please tell us how and why the acquisition of clothing for a court case is not important in every other court case and mentioned in articles?


You got owned, as my 10 year old would say.

I would imagine the man himself told the journalist along with the €15,000 he was either offered or given a suit for court also.

I believe the journalist was only reporting on what he had been told rather than trying to skew public opinion, but you can wear a tinfoil hat if you wish and tell us all about the illuminati being behind this whole saga if you wish.

You don't need a suit for court. And the journalist would have been more than aware of this. It's probably the journalist's way of giving us an insight to how big an imbecile of a man this chap actually is and how he has been taken serious thus far is pretty laughable.

Kimbot

D3sperado wrote: »

What are you basing that on?

Funding someone to take litigation in respect of something which you have no direct involvement is not permitted and you can be sued for it.

Based on the media reports (which may or may not be accurate), this guy was given money/assistance to seek this injunction because his backers wanted to "take down" the GAA or something to that effect. They certainly weren't interested in upholding planning law.

Mr Duff said he sought the money on Sunday while he was at a hurling match in Dublin. He refused to say who paid him but claimed it was people north and south of the border.

"I said 'I'm bringing the GAA to court.' Garth Brooks was a just stepping stone. This money came from people in GAA circles. It's GAA clubs who are sympathetic to the cause," he said.


Highlighted the relevant bit of info here.

He took money to take an injunction out against GB playing his 3 licensed gigs. Then he says GB is only a stepping stone and the real reason he was going to court was to go up against the GAA. Thats a pretty underhanded way of handling it if you ask me, if you want to take the GAA to court then take them to court and not use something else as your excuse to bring them to court.

SteM

Daith wrote: »

It's not ambiguous. They offered three. Promoters refused and said all or nothing. They then said they could discuss the possibility of a fourth



Four might have been suggested but it doesn't mean it was a certainty.

Exactly and people use this 4th night possibility as a stick to beat DCC with, but they were just trying to be as accommodating as they possible could. Unlike a certain country artist....

hynesie08

dandyo wrote: »

But main street's still all cracked and broken!

Sorry dandyo, the mob has spoken.

Tea 1000

dandyo wrote: »

But main street's still all cracked and broken!

Pipe down - the mob has spoken!

*edit: Bah - beaten to it!

D3sperado

jonny24ie wrote: »

Mr Duff said he sought the money on Sunday while he was at a hurling match in Dublin. He refused to say who paid him but claimed it was people north and south of the border.

"I said 'I'm bringing the GAA to court.' Garth Brooks was a just stepping stone. This money came from people in GAA circles. It's GAA clubs who are sympathetic to the cause," he said.


Highlighted the relevant bit of info here.

He took money to take an injunction out against GB playing his 3 licensed gigs. Then he says GB is only a stepping stone and the real reason he was going to court was to go up against the GAA. Thats a pretty underhanded way of handling it if you ask me, if you want to take the GAA to court then take them to court and not use something else as your excuse to bring them to court.

Fair enough! Still a fairly shady way of going about things.

beakerjoe

beakerjoe wrote: »

Garth Brook sold gigs to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook. And, by gum, it put them on the map!

that's a simpsons quote

Happyman42

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I would imagine the man himself told the journalist along with the €15,000 he was either offered or given a suit for court also.

I believe the journalist was only reporting on what he had been told rather than trying to skew public opinion, but you can wear a tinfoil hat if you wish and tell us all about the illuminati being behind this whole saga if you wish.

You don't need a suit for court. And the journalist would have been more than aware of this. It's probably the journalist's way of giving us an insight to how big an imbecile of a man this chap actually is and how he has been taken serious thus far is pretty laughable.

I despair...I really do.

You borrow a suit and you are an imbecile?

As I say...owned!