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

drkpower

Gergiev wrote: »

Hardly surprising seeing as Mulvey was approached and appointed by the GAA, so he's effectively their plenipotentiary in this affair.

Keegan is effectively the independent referee in this situation as he's unattached to all parties.

Hence his ruling of 3 concerts where the residents wanted 0 and GAA/Aiken/Brooks want 5.

Finding common ground between two different opinions doesn't necessarily mean splitting the difference. Particularly where there an additional 400000 parties with an interest in the dispute.

ninebeanrows

I think it's game over now unless the fecker budges. Good riddence.

CapricornOne

drkpower wrote: »

Funnily enough, I can't find it on croke park website or elsewhere. All I see is croke parks acceptance of his recommendations.

Is it this you're looking for?


(1) 2015 and 2016

A new Concert “Framework Agreement” is necessary. In Appendix 1 I have outlined the chronology
of the holding of concerts and special events in Croke Park.

In Appendix Two (The Mediation Process) I have outlined the position of the parties regarding
current and future arrangements. On the residents’ representatives part they would prefer no
concerts in 2015 and 2016 or some mitigation in the 3 ‘planning permission’ concerts.
Croke Park’s position is that they would adhere to the 3 concerts maximum per year for these two
years.

There is stalemate around the position on the number of Concerts for 2015 and 2016.

I would encourage both Croke Park Management and event promoters, who may have existing
contractual options, to agree to reduce the number of concerts over these two years.

(2) 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Croke Park Stadium Management have stated that they require some flexibility regarding the option
of providing additional concerts above the 3 currently provided for in their original planning
permission.

The Residents Representatives have opposed this proposition. This is a difficult position to reconcile
between the parties involved. My proposed solution to resolve this difference is for both sides to
consider the following;

For the years 2017 / 2018 / 2019 – there should be a maximum of 9 concerts with an average or 3
per annum. There may, within this total, be a maximum of 4 concerts in any one year but in this
situation there cannot be more than 3 nights in succession and the overall total of 9 cannot be
exceeded.

Happyman42

drkpower wrote: »

Finding common ground between two different opinions doesn't necessarily mean splitting the difference. Particularly where there an additional 400000 parties with an interest in the dispute.

The 400,000 need to accept that the DCC have done everything they can within the law. Their issue should now be with Brooks who iss hiding behind the nonsense that he has to make a decision to ignore the 160,000.
He doesn't have to 'decide' or 'choose' anything, it has been done for him.
He needs to fulfill his obligations legally.

drkpower

CapricornOne wrote: »

Is it this you're looking for?


(1) 2015 and 2016

A new Concert “Framework Agreement” is necessary. In Appendix 1 I have outlined the chronology
of the holding of concerts and special events in Croke Park.

In Appendix Two (The Mediation Process) I have outlined the position of the parties regarding
current and future arrangements. On the residents’ representatives part they would prefer no
concerts in 2015 and 2016 or some mitigation in the 3 ‘planning permission’ concerts.
Croke Park’s position is that they would adhere to the 3 concerts maximum per year for these two
years.

There is stalemate around the position on the number of Concerts for 2015 and 2016.

I would encourage both Croke Park Management and event promoters, who may have existing
contractual options, to agree to reduce the number of concerts over these two years.

(2) 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Croke Park Stadium Management have stated that they require some flexibility regarding the option
of providing additional concerts above the 3 currently provided for in their original planning
permission.

The Residents Representatives have opposed this proposition. This is a difficult position to reconcile
between the parties involved. My proposed solution to resolve this difference is for both sides to
consider the following;

For the years 2017 / 2018 / 2019 – there should be a maximum of 9 concerts with an average or 3
per annum. There may, within this total, be a maximum of 4 concerts in any one year but in this
situation there cannot be more than 3 nights in succession and the overall total of 9 cannot be
exceeded.

Cheers. And as i said, croke park agreed to mulveys proposal re an average of 3 concerts between 2017 and 2019.

Btw, do u have the link to the mulvey report, I'd be interested in having a read, cheers.

drkpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 400,000 need to accept that the DCC have done everything they can within the law. Their issue should now be with Brooks who iss hiding behind the nonsense that he has to make a decision to ignore the 160,000.
He doesn't have to 'decide' or 'choose' anything, it has been done for him.
He needs to fulfill his obligations legally.

DCC could have granted a licence for all 5. That would have been within the law.

CapricornOne

drkpower wrote: »

Cheers. And as i said, croke park agreed to mulveys proposal re an average of 3 concerts between 2017 and 2019.

Btw, do u have the link to the mulvey report, I'd be interested in having a read, cheers.

w w w. crokepark.ie/getmedia/ac8c5816-1b26-4b63-a814-609c21709448/Mulvey-FINAL-260614 . pdf

*Apologies for the formatting, I can't post links yet.

jack presley

jack presley wrote: »

And that is probably the most disappointing thing of all this.

The rules/laws need to be changed, they're a joke as they stand.

miss tickle

CapricornOne wrote: »

w w w. crokepark.ie/getmedia/ac8c5816-1b26-4b63-a814-609c21709448/Mulvey-FINAL-260614 . pdf

*Apologies for the formatting, I can't post links yet.

w w w. crokepark.ie/getmedia/ac8c5816-1b26-4b63-a814-609c21709448/Mulvey-FINAL-260614 . pdf
here you go

miss tickle

miss tickle wrote: »

w w w. crokepark.ie/getmedia/ac8c5816-1b26-4b63-a814-609c21709448/Mulvey-FINAL-260614 . pdf
here you go

sorry didn't work

marco_polo

I couldn't really care less either way if they go ahead or not, but just when I thought the whole situation couldn't possibly get any more farcical along come a 5 concerts in 3 days proposal.

I can't even begin to imagine how tommorrows events are going to top that, but pretty sure somebody will manage it

drkpower

Www.crokepark.ie/getmedia/ac8c5816-1b26-4b63-a814-609c21709448/Mulvey-FINAL-260614.pdf

Strazdas

drkpower wrote: »

Finding common ground between two different opinions doesn't necessarily mean splitting the difference. Particularly where there an additional 400000 parties with an interest in the dispute.

And there should have been an appeals process in place. It's extraordinary that DCC could rule on something affecting hundreds of thousands, including many thousands of people flying in from abroad who have already booked flights and accommodation and yet there is no avenue open whatsoever for anyone to appeal the decision.

Happyman42

drkpower wrote: »

DCC could have granted a licence for all 5. That would have been within the law.

They could have, but they didn't because as they pointed out to Aiken during the consultation process they had problems. They even tried to reach an accommodation before Aiken insisted on applying for 5, so late in the day that it has been suggested that he was applying pressure. The event was too big to be refused. If that is the case, Aiken has cost the 400,000 their night's fun.

Gergiev

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

If he said yes to the three concerts, the other two would be cancelled.

Then it would be:

"If Garth really cared about his fans, he would have held out for all the concerts"

No matter what he did, he would have been vilified. It was and is a no win situation.

He stuck to his guns though and what he is doing the ONLY way that there is a chance the 400,000 will all get their concerts.

That's not the feedback that I'm getting.

Was in my local pub last night for the game and chatting to the boss about it.

He says that among his customers, most of those with tickets for the Monday and/or Tuesday also have tickets for one or more of the other nights and are therefore sorted.

Of the others, he said he hasn't met one that begrudged the show to the others on the Fri/Sat/Sun night and that none were in favour of all the nights being cancelled, despite their missing out.

Same with my niece's friends who were for the Monday but can see no logic in other concert-goers missing out.

When you think about it, what kind of person wants something denied to someone else because they are unlucky in that regard.

That's real lowest common denominator stuff and shouldn't be encouraged, placated or facilitated...

Gergiev

drkpower wrote: »

Finding common ground between two different opinions doesn't necessarily mean splitting the difference. Particularly where there an additional 400000 parties with an interest in the dispute.

Yes, I take that point.

I was just using it to illustrate that he is independent, whatever the merits of his decision...

Smidge

I'm making a cuppa. Who wants one?

Gergiev

Happyman42 wrote: »

What about the ship...did anyone think of the ship!!!:eek:

Yes, it's just arrived on the Liffey.

Turns out to be an Israeli gunship hired by all the vested interests to shell the contrarian residents of Drumcondra and Ballybough.

Codename - Operation Protect the Wedge!

Gergiev

Smidge wrote: »

I'm making a cuppa. Who wants one?

Count me in, Smidge.

Loads of sugar for a change, please.

Looks like I'll need the energy boost if it's going to be another long night...

miss tickle

Seriously, do we really have to worry about someone for whom some ticket sales prior to this controversy could not achieve market value in online auctions. As far as I'm concerned a number of 400,000 represents the amount of tickets sold but not the amount of attendees. Touts hedge their bets, so the actual loss is not as reported, just media hype. I think if it went ahead as they wished, great, but GB's response to the situation (although predictable as it appeals to the victim-hood related to the whole genre of country music), should be ignored and viewed as pure showmanship and opportunism. If as a profiteer, he did not make himself aware of the legislation in relation to the sale of his product, despite it being printed on every ticket, that's an issue between himself and his promoter. Are we seriously that naive.

Smidge

Gergiev wrote: »

Count me in, Smidge.

Loads of sugar for a change, please.

Looks like I'll need the energy boost if it's going to be another long night...

Biccie?

AngryHippie

Smidge wrote: »

Biccie?

Choccy 'jestives for me ?

Smidge

AngryHippie wrote: »

Choccy 'jestives for me ?

It'll be custard creams or nothing for the likes of you. Far from chocolate digestives you were raised :mad::P

Smidge

miss tickle wrote: »

Seriously, do we really have to worry about someone for whom some ticket sales prior to this controversy could not achieve market value in online auctions. As far as I'm concerned a number of 400,000 represents the amount of tickets sold but not the amount of attendees. Touts hedge their bets, so the actual loss is not as reported, just media hype. I think if it went ahead as they wished, great, but GB's response to the situation (although predictable as it appeals to the victim-hood related to the whole genre of country music), should be ignored and viewed as pure showmanship and opportunism. If as a profiteer, he did not make himself aware of the legislation in relation to the sale of his product, despite it being printed on every ticket, that's an issue between himself and his promoter. Are we seriously that naive.

No tea for you and your sense talk Miss :rolleyes::mad::D

Gergiev

Captain Scarlet wrote: »

Does anyone else here remember the Boomtown Rats "return to Ireland" gig in 1979, when they were due to play the RDS, except the residents objected, and then everywhere they tried in Dublin the residents did the same (we´ll have none of that foreign new wave nonsense here), and all of us who had bought tickets had to listen to Radio Dublin 253 to find out if the concert was going ahead, and at the last minute the guy who owned Leixlip Castle offered it as a venue, and CIE put on buses from the quays so we could all actually find out where Leixlip was, and it was a brilliant concert? Just wondering.

Yes, and funny enough it has a bearing on what we're going though (sic) at the moment.

It was one of the first 'open-air festivals' (even if not really) of its kind in Ireland, after Macroom and a few more in the 70s.

Then the late Derek Nally ran an event at Punchestown in 1982 that was effectively squashed by the Rolling Stones being subsequently booked for Slane the following week.

But my point is that while these events were common place all over Europe in the 60s and 70s, conservative Ireland did its level best to resist the obvious evils that would flow from allowing young people to congregate in large crowds until the 80s.

(It never used to amaze me to see the same politicos that strove to protect the morals and good reputation of the country at the time, staggering around the hotels of Galway during race week, full to the gills in the early hours, basking in the hospitality of some developer hanger-on or other, while trying to grope some 'young filly' (racing parlance, doncha know) or get off with the wife of one of their colleagues who had already passed-out from drink, but that's another story).

As a consequence, the establishment of the time had more interest in discouraging 'this kind of thing', and any law that was passed was just an addendum to the ultra-complex and opaque planning system.

Which situation still exists, the last addition being that bit that Bertie produced to allow U2 play their second show at Slane in 2001, if you recall.

AlekSmart

Happyman42 wrote: »

I despair...I really do.

You borrow a suit and you are an imbecile?

As I say...owned!

Not quite owned outright,perhaps on the drip,but definitely not owned until the last cent is paid off.

Not every imbicile who borrows a suit gets to visit Dublin's LORD Mayor for an audience and have their photo taken....of course that may have been engineered by the meejia too,for all we know ?

Not for nothing was Independent House known to Phoenix Readers as Chateau Despair

Gergiev

Smidge wrote: »

Biccie?

Yes, please.

Those custard creams will do nicely, thank you...

Inspector Coptoor

I know one lad who has tickets for all 5 shows and would go to 10 nights in a row if there were 10.

My OH has a ticket for the Monday, I wouldn't go myself but sure let them at it.

Smidge

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

I know one lad wfo has tickets for all 5 shows and would go to 10 nights in a row if there were 10.

My OH has a ticket for the Monday, I wouldn't go myself but sure let them at it.

Its amazing how many people have tickets for more than one night, I know a few myself.

Gergiev

Captain Scarlet wrote: »

Sorry. It was 1980, and the original venue was supposed to be Leopardstown Racecourse. The RDS was blocked later. The residents of Foxrock and Leopardstown simply couldn´t abide having their peaceful leafy suburb disturbed just one f...ing night by loud music about a mile away.

And they still wouldn't tolerate 5 nights at the RDS or Aviva, either.

But they won't ever have that problem because the powers-that-be know their constituency can't be messed about.

Unlike the working classes of Drumcondra and Ballybough who are easier to inconvenience and ignore...