Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where did I suggest that?
And no, only disgruntled GB fans and tabloids think his job is on the line. It simply isn't.

Keegan is in trouble for this. His job may not be on the line but he is not secure, he has been very foolish and naive in handling this issue.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Thoie wrote: »

Their statements at the committee were at odds with some of their statements to journalists a week or so earlier, when things like "we knew it was a big ask" (horrible phrase) were being bandied about.

That's not at odds with what they said at the committee. Aiken and Croke Park both said as much at the hearings but added, that they were also given the impression that if their application included the additionality which was requested (which in the main was to adequately address the concerns of the residents) then the DCC had no problems. Keegan has confirmed at the hearings that he gave that impression also, when at the hearing he indicated that had they gone the "full way" with the residents, he doesn't see why they wouldn't have received licences for all five nights.

They made some changes to the event management plan in late June and submitted those, so obviously even at that stage they'd been told things weren't "enough".

Two points: 1) It's par for the course to ask for updated event management plans. Indeed, even when granting the three licenes, they still then asked for further updated plans and so that in no way is suggestive of of them not having done enough to warrant the granting of a five night licence. 2) If, as you imply, it was stated to them that they needed to do more with regards to addressing the concerns of residents, and they did not that, then Aiken, Croke and the GAA would not all be saying that they were given no indications that the DCC wanted them to do more: "not even a hint" to quote Duffy.

And even with changing certain things there were three things they couldn't change, even with the best will in the world:

• The Monday and Tuesday are weekdays, with the additional traffic that always comes of that
• That the majority of people going to work go on Mondays and Tuesdays
• That locals would, by then, already have had 3 days of disruption/disturbed sleep

I agree 100% and so begs two questions: 1) Then why did Keegan offer to put doing a forth night to Keogan, which would have been a Monday (which would have been a weekday) and 2) Why is Keegan claiming that had Croke Park gone the "full way" that they would have been granted licences for the five nights. What is it that Croke Park or Aiken could have done to negate the (genuine) issues you raised above.

As an aside: Questions regarding the above two points were put to Keeegan at the Committee hearing but he cleverly skirted his way around answering them, to any sufficient degree at least. He said he made a mistake offering the fourth night, but that he did this only because he wanted to go as far as he could, what with it being huge for the city and all. A bigger load of waffle you wouldn't hear. Of course, he only said this so could cut his critics off at the pass and flog himself before others got a chance to. Bertie would be proud. Then when asked just what it was that Croke Park could have done to mitigate the issues which he claims meant they had not gone the "full way" with the residents.. he just totally copped out of answering the question and said that that was an issue for Croke Park and the residents not him. As I said before: slippery than a bar of soap.

The faux-shock that the extra licenses weren't granted is more than a little disingenuous.

There was nothing fake about their shock. None of those men appeared remotely disingenuous. In fact, they were resolute and all came across as being genuine in the their expressions of emotion. Whether people agree with the decision made or not, I fail to see how anyone could think they were being fake.

Until the decision has been made, it's not normal to give a yes or no answer in advance (otherwise you're circumventing the proper process). If I apply to build a 200 story building on O'Connell bridge, it would not be reasonable of me to expect the go-ahead, but I wouldn't get a definitive, official answer until the end of the process.

Now you are just doing what Keegan did and strawmanning. Nobody asked for absolutes. Nobody suggested they should have been given and nobody has suggested that they were given. As Dooley said: "..you gave the impression that you would be supportive, in a general way, without the issue of assurances, we all accept that, we know how the process works, you couldn't have, you wouldn't have the authority to do that..".

a) Why would his job have been on the line? Someone getting a contrary injunction is not a judgement on the planning decision/process. If there had been a statutory judicial review (which is a completely different thing) which found that the planning process had not been followed/was not fairly decided, then that might impact his job. The fact that no-one has bothered their arse applying for a review would indicate to me that they know it would lose, otherwise they'd have been in there like flies on s***, to use the vernacular.

My comments were not suggesting that he someone did not follow the planning application process. They were regarding the fact that this man has made embarrassing decisions already, which have had to be reversed and he saw that there was potential for that happening again and so decided, imo, to negate the potential of that somewhat, and refuse two licences to show that he was not completely ignoring agreements that Croke Park had with with the residents and more importantly, the limit of three non-sporting events imposed by An Bord Pleanala. Yes, it wsa perfectly legal for the DCC to grant a licence for as many nights as they wished to, but that in no way means that the courts could not reverse their decision if they saw fit. Even if the potential outcome of a high court or supreme court ruling wasn't worrying him, he wouldn't have wanted to be seen as a city boss sticking two fingers to An Bord Pleanala, which he would have been if he had granted all five licences and the injunction proceedings went ahead.

b) The objections part of the process is not a speed reading test. It's not about how fast or otherwise he (or his team) can read. If there had only been a single objection on May 21st, and it was written in crayon on the back of a postcard, the decision would still have been issued around the beginning of July. It's been pointed out numerous times on this thread that the process takes 10-12 weeks. This is not a surprise to anyone who is used to this kind of thing. If the promoter had wanted an answer earlier, he should have submitted the application back when he sold the tickets, instead of waiting nearly 3 months to submit it.

Okay, firstly: the window for public objections is five weeks and so can you explain why you are saying the process takes 10-12? Secondly: the deadline for applications is 10 weeks. If the process took 10-12 weeks, then decisions would not be possible to be reached (on eleventh hour applications at least) until two weeks AFTER they took place, if it took 12 weeks and the day of the concert, if it took 10.

It's still my opinion that the promoters were trying to pull a fast one and delayed their application until the last possible minute in the hopes that it would be "too big to fail" at that stage, and the proximity of the concerts could be used to bully DCC into passing all 5 concerts without any regard for the impact on the locality.

This is just false.

Firstly, the application and event management plan were submitted a full four weeks before the deadline and so it was not even close to a "last minute" submission and secondly, DCC have never indicated that the didn't have enough time to process the application and so I'm not sure why others keep implying they didn't. They had from April 17th to review the event management plans and the statutory meetings all went swimmingly, according to all concerned, and in any case, to quote Dooley again:

"..seems to me as I said, the issues which you refused the five licences were all blindingly obvious to you in advance of that process even beginning.."

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

(1) The fault for that is on Keegan's side. Nothing made him say it.

(2) misses the point and is extremely dangerous. The question of whether or not 5 concerts goes ahead is the balance between the public interest in the concerts and the the disruption to local interests. The person tasked with making that decision should neither be a local property owner or a chairman of the Garth Brooks fan club. In this case he was the former which makes his decision questionable. If he was the latter and the concerts went ahead, there would be plenty condemning him.

(3) points clearly to an organisation behind the objections rather than genuine objections from local residents. When you see the later emergence of a further splinter group, you see that all is not what it seems.

1) He said he supported it. The actual planning process concluded DCC would not license it. Since there is nothing "wrong" with any of this, there is no "fault" required.
2) It does not miss the point. You are saying that these concerts would be so disruptive that it would be a conflict of interest to have a home owner there making any decision on it. No objection came from the house in question either.
3) "Points clearly" to nothing at all. The support for 5 concerts I could just as easily say is a murky agenda led conspiracy. You're telling us you know more about the validity of the objections now than An Garda Siochana? Did you give them a ring to let them know where they've been going wrong?

Happyman42

Dan_Solo wrote: »

1)
2) It does not miss the point. You are saying that these concerts would be so disruptive that it would be a conflict of interest to have a home owner there making any decision on it. No objection came from the house in question either.

And as of an apology or clarification on Sean O'Rourke this morning 'We (RTE) now understand that Mr. Keoghan ownership of a house was on the public record', this is no longer a stick to beat them with.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Happyman42 wrote: »

And as of an apology or clarification on Sean O'Rourke this morning 'We (RTE) now understand that Mr. Keoghan ownership of a house was on the public record', this is no longer a stick to beat them with.

Eh, we knew that on Thursday (6m 42sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYgbAEdjZw

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone who thinks DCC did their job well.. actually watched any of the hearings at all.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Eh, we knew that on Thursday (6m 42sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYgbAEdjZw

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone who thinks DCC did their job well.. actually watched any of the hearings at all.

We watched them, we are just not all obsessing over every minute sentence and inflection and so are not forensically taking it apart to try and make it fit an agenda.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone who thinks DCC did their job well.. actually watched any of the hearings at all.

I'm wondering if anybody who thinks it wasn't a cack-handed and lame attempt at pressurising DCC into reversing a perfectly legitimate planning decision, conducted by the usual roster of gombeen fatnecks, was watching MTV while the hearings were or something.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

bumper234 wrote: »

We watched them, we are just not all obsessing over every minute sentence and inflection and so are not forensically taking it apart to try and make it fit an agenda.

I watched it. I remembered it.

Anyone else that watched it, would also have remembered it, or at least should have.

If I watched a film and remembered a piece of dialogue, would that mean I was obsessing over every minute sentence and inflection? As for forensically taking it apart: it's called quoting someone. I always included the context and emboldened the parts I felt relevant. Of course, you also get criticized when you embolden text too and so I guess you can't win.

Funny though, how you have no problem taking a few words of Peter Aiken and making a mountain of that, to suit your agenda. Guess what Aiken / Croke Park say on the RTE news is fair game to use, but somehow doing so with what council officials say in testimony of a Dail hearing, isn't.

kippy

So basicilly the conflict wasnt an issue at all, the number of verified ' dodgy' objections ran into a figure of less than 11 percent and the entire process was ran in accordanve with best pracrices and the law as it currently stands.
The issue is simply in relation to some people not liking the decision despite its merits.


Well Im glad thats over.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm wondering if anybody who thinks it wasn't a cack-handed and lame attempt at pressurising DCC into reversing a perfectly legitimate planning decision, conducted by the usual roster of gombeen fatnecks, was watching MTV while the hearings were or something.

You think the hearings were an attempt to pressurize the DCC into reversing their decision?

Oh and it was not the decision that landed them in the Oireachtas. It was the timing of it (three weeks before concerts were due to take place was scandalous) and also of course, the fact that all concerned say they were given no indication that further additionality was required of them.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Oh and it was not the decision that landed them in the Oireachtas. It was the timing of it (three weeks before concerts were due to take place was scandalous)

Makes you wonder why they didn't make the application earlier, doesn't it? You know, in good time to allow for an application that flew in the face of all previously agreed usage levels of Croke Park?

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Eh, we knew that on Thursday (6m 42sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYgbAEdjZw

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone who thinks DCC did their job well.. actually watched any of the hearings at all.

I find it hard to believe you actually watched the hearings yourself . Dooley gave DCC a rough time . Quite the opposite for Aiken and Gaa - he might as well have been having a pint with him it was so cozy and friendly.

Like others here - if you did watch them ,i think you are trying to fit your clips and extracts to support some bizarre agenda

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

I find it hard to believe you actually watched the hearings yourself .

Great: one user accuses me of obsessively and forensically examining them and another finds it hard to believe I actually watched them. Beautiful.

Dooley gave DCC a rough time . Quite the opposite for Aiken and Gaa - he might as well have been having a pint with him it was so cozy and friendly.

Why would he give Aiken / GAA a hard time? They applied for a licence on time and attempted to do all what was asked of them. Keegan got grilled because his ineptitude of refusing licences for concerts, that 160,000 people were due to attend, just three weeks later, caused this country international embarrassment. Plus, all the people involved say he gave no indications of his dissatisfaction with the additionality with which they were requited to provide. It was gross incompetence on not just the part of Keegan, but the DCC as a whole.

Like others here - if you did watch them ,i think you are trying to fit your clips and extracts to support some bizarre agenda

LOL.

Says the guy who plucked just two words from them and then stated these words meant that Dooley, Duffy, McKenna and Aiken all thought that because Keegan had said he supported the concerts going ahead, that this to them meant that he would "circumvent" the licence application procedure.

At least I am backing up my opinions with paragraphs of dialogue and video footage from the hearings and not just plucking two words from what was said and filling in the blanks myself with groundless and nonsensical opinions.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Great: one user accuses me of obsessively and forensically examining them and another finds it hard to believe I actually watched them. Beautiful.



Why would he give Aiken / GAA a hard time? They applied for a licence on time and attempted to do all what was asked of them. Keegan got grilled because his ineptitude of refusing licences for concerts, that 160,000 people were due to attend, just three weeks later, caused this country international embarrassment. Plus, all the people involved say he gave no indications of his dissatisfaction with the additionality with which they were requited to provide. It was gross incompetence on not just the part of Keegan, but the DCC as a whole.



LOL.

Says the guy who plucked just two words from them and then stated these words meant that Dooley, Duffy, McKenna and Aiken all thought that because Keegan had said he supported the concerts going ahead, that this to them meant that he would "circumvent" the licence application procedure.

At least I am backing up my opinions with paragraphs of dialogue and video footage from the hearings and not just plucking two words from what was said and filling in the blanks myself with groundless and nonsensical opinions.

Gonna leave you to it, your obsession with this has gone beyond funny and is now hitting the disturbing territory. Carry on posting walls of text and trying to make people believe your not a Brooksie fan.

Happyman42

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Eh, we knew that on Thursday (6m 42sec):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGYgbAEdjZw

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone who thinks DCC did their job well.. actually watched any of the hearings at all.

I was just quoting an apology I heard this morning's SOR show.
Obviously they where also making a big sensationalist false deal about it and had to clarify.

Anyway, I'm also gonna leave you to it, as well, it is getting a bit weird.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Great: one user accuses me of obsessively and forensically examining them and another finds it hard to believe I actually watched them. Beautiful.



Why would he give Aiken / GAA a hard time? They applied for a licence on time and attempted to do all what was asked of them. Keegan got grilled because his ineptitude of refusing licences for concerts, that 160,000 people were due to attend, just three weeks later, caused this country international embarrassment. Plus, all the people involved say he gave no indications of his dissatisfaction with the additionality with which they were requited to provide. It was gross incompetence on not just the part of Keegan, but the DCC as a whole.



LOL.

Says the guy who plucked just two words from them and then stated these words meant that Dooley, Duffy, McKenna and Aiken all thought that because Keegan had said he supported the concerts going ahead, that this to them meant that he would "circumvent" the licence application procedure.

At least I am backing up my opinions with paragraphs of dialogue and video footage from the hearings and not just plucking two words from what was said and filling in the blanks myself with groundless and nonsensical opinions.

Like others - I think my discussion with you is proving far too difficult.

I would just like to leave this with you:

http://newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/7/11407/18th_July_2014_-_Lunchtime_Part_2

It should take you 3 minutes . Fast Forward to 5 minutes and listen for three minutes - Mick Clifford and Jonathan Healy are laughing about how biased the committee was against Keegan and DCC .

I agree with these two pundits - in my opinion it was an acutely biased committee. Im glad they cant make findings !!

Anyway - carry on

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

bumper234 wrote: »

Gonna leave you to it, your obsession with this has gone beyond funny and is now hitting the disturbing territory.

1) You have posted on this thread more than I have.
2) You have posted 293 times on the GB thread in AH (which is also, more than I have).

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

Like others - I think my discussion with you is proving far too difficult.

All I did was ask you why you claimed that Dooley, McKenna, Aiken and Duffy thought that Keegan saying he supported the five concerts, to them meant that he would circumvent the licence planning process with a nod and a wink. They where your words and you have failed to give any rational or reasonable explanation why you would think that those men would think that. Saying they felt is was an assurance is one thing, but saying that they felt the licence planning process would be circumvented is quite another.

I would just like to leave this with you:

http://newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/7/11407/18th_July_2014_-_Lunchtime_Part_2

It should take you 3 minutes . Fast Forward to 5 minutes and listen for three minutes - Mick Clifford and Jonathan Healy are laughing about how biased the committee was against Keegan and DCC .

I agree with these two pundits - in my opinion it was an acutely biased committee. Im glad they cant make findings !!

Anyway - carry on

I listened and thanks for at least providing something in an attempt to back up your assertions regarding Dooley, Aiken etc and I suppose the radio clip did go some way to giving credence to the notion that the committee members didn't treat both sides equally. However, nothing in it, that I heard at least, in any way justifies the comments that you made, let alone gives them grounds and so, I agree, lets leave it there, as I think if you haven't done so by now, you are highly unlikely to.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

All I did was ask you why you claimed that Dooley, McKenna, Aiken and Duffy thought that Keegan saying he supported the five concerts, to them meant that he would circumvent the licence planning process with a nod and a wink. They where your words and you have failed to give any rational or reasonable explanation why you would think that those men would think that. Saying they felt is was an assuranc
e is one thing, but saying that they felt the licence planning process would be circumvented is quite another.

I listened and thanks for at least providing something in an attempt to back up your assertions regarding Dooley, Aiken etc and I suppose the radio clip did go some way to giving credence to the notion that the committee members didn't treat both sides equally. However, nothing in it, that I heard at least, in any way justifies the comments that you made, let alone gives them grounds and so, I agree, lets leave it there, as I think if you haven't done so by now, you are highly unlikely to.

Sorry I have no response to that.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

All I did was ask you why you claimed that Dooley, McKenna, Aiken and Duffy thought that Keegan saying he supported the five concerts, to them meant that he would circumvent the licence planning process with a nod and a wink.

Well which is it?
Pro-GBers are saying Keegan's "support" was a guarantee of licensing 5 night, as Aiken seems to be insisting it was. But that means Aiken was expecting there to be no consultation process with other interested parties (Gardaí, HSE, residents) or else that process would be ignored. That the "nod and wink", old style planning. Either Aiken is just telling porkies or he thought the planning process is a sham.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well which is it?
Pro-GBers are saying Keegan's "support" was a guarantee of licensing 5 night, as Aiken seems to be insisting it was. But that means Aiken was expecting there to be no consultation process with other interested parties (Gardaí, HSE, residents) or else that process would be ignored. That the "nod and wink", old style planning. Either Aiken is just telling porkies or he thought the planning process is a sham.

What?? I honestly cannot believe what I am reading.

After all that has been written over the past two dozen posts or so, you ask the above??

I haven't read, nor heard, one person, either on Boards or in the media, who you would refer to as being "Pro-GB" say that they felt Keegan saying he "supported" the application was a "guarantee" that the five concerts would get licenced. NOT ONE and that inlcudes Aiken, Duffy and McKenna.

What Aiken / Croke Park have said is that they were given no indication that there were unaddressed issues with the licence application process and that they felt they had met the additionality which was required to them by DCC, with regards to addressing the concerns of the residents.

What I have heard however, is people such as yourself repeating that those people do think that, ad bloody nauseum. Indeed, Keegan himself kept inferring it during the hearings, until that is, Dooley pulled him up on it and said the following:

Timmy Dooley @ The Oireachtas

"Mr.McKenna and Mr.Duffy said here, that there was a belief based on that conversation back in Feb, that DCC would support a licence application for all five concerts.

"Now in fairness Mr.Keegan, you have not denied that you gave that impression to Mr.McKenna.

"What you have said in a statement that you issued is that you gave no assurance, no certainty, no firm offer.. these are all absolutes.

"Mr.McKenna has never indicated that there was an absolute..

"When you had that conversation with Mr.Kenna where you gave the impression that you would be supportive, in a general way, without the issue of assurances, we all accept that.

"We know how the process works, you couldn't have, you wouldn't have the authority to do that.."

Dan_Solo

OK so, if they had no idea that they were failing to meet requirements for licensing why did Aiken reapply with amended applications multiple times?
And yes, there's been plenty of posts here with people aghast that licensing did not happen after Keegan's "support", as if they thought it was a done deal.

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

1) You have posted on this thread more than I have.
2) You have posted 293 times on the GB thread in AH (which is also, more than I have).

My last 10 posts in both threads = 156 words.

Your last 10 posts in those threads = 1418 words.


As i said......disturbing.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK so, if they had no idea that they were failing to meet requirements for licensing why did Aiken reapply with amended applications multiple times?

Aiken didn't "reapply" for the licence.

What they did was update their event management plan after each statutory meeting.

Par for the course - even after licences are granted.

And yes, there's been plenty of posts here with people aghast that licensing did not happen after Keegan's "support", as if they thought it was a done deal.

Eh, are you positive that those users are 'aghast' just because Keegan said he would support an application for five concerts and no other factors? Or were they 'aghast' because of that plus the facts that Croke Park had accepted the 'Long Term Management of Concerts/Special Events in Croke Park' Mulvery report which the majority of the main resident committee had also, and because they attended numerous statutory meetings, were they provided additonality which had been asked of them and that at no time, had the DCC given any indication that they were not going the "full" way as DCC later suggested?

I would suggest it's a case of the latter and not the former considering you also accused me of having the very same opinion which you now state that others have posted on the thread previously. This despite my never having remotely suggested anything of the sort. Seems I'm in good company though, as you also say Peter Aiken is of this opinion too.. when he has made it quite clear that his bemusement at the decision is based on many factors, not just one. If it was.. they wouldn't bother mentioning the others.

K-9

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Plus, all the people involved say he gave no indications of his dissatisfaction with the additionality with which they were requited to provide.

Tbh that's the way I'd prefer applications for planning to go, professionals giving no nod, nod, wink, wink type answers and just looking for additional information that they require.

K-9

Mod:

Attack the post, not the poster please. If you haven't got a point to make against a post or to add to the thread, just don't bother posting as things are getting a bit personal. Thank you.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Aiken didn't "reapply" for the licence.

What they did was update their event management plan after each statutory meeting.

So you fully agree then that Aiken was made aware of further requirements to be met as he did alter the management plan. OK then.
Opposite of what you said earlier.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Great: one user accuses me of obsessively and forensically examining them and another finds it hard to believe I actually watched them. Beautiful.



Why would he give Aiken / GAA a hard time? They applied for a licence on time and attempted to do all what was asked of them. Keegan got grilled because his ineptitude of refusing licences for concerts, that 160,000 people were due to attend, just three weeks later, caused this country international embarrassment. Plus, all the people involved say he gave no indications of his dissatisfaction with the additionality with which they were requited to provide. It was gross incompetence on not just the part of Keegan, but the DCC as a whole.



LOL.

Says the guy who plucked just two words from them and then stated these words meant that Dooley, Duffy, McKenna and Aiken all thought that because Keegan had said he supported the concerts going ahead, that this to them meant that he would "circumvent" the licence application procedure.

At least I am backing up my opinions with paragraphs of dialogue and video footage from the hearings and not just plucking two words from what was said and filling in the blanks myself with groundless and nonsensical opinions.

I understand now - I have seen the Garth Video you posted on your youtube page that you linked to alongside the videos of the committee.



As I stated before - I feel sorry for all fans that lost out . I hope you get to see him in Belfast or London

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

I understand now - I have seen the Garth Video you posted on your youtube page that you linked to alongside the videos of the committee.

As I stated before - I feel sorry for all fans that lost out . I hope you get to see him in Belfast or London

Eh, you understand what? You think you uncovered me or something?

I snipped a few clips from Brook's '97 show in Croke Park, which was also on YouTube, specifically to refute the suggestion, which was being made over and over again on a thread in AH, that Brooks was being disingenuous when he said that he had genuine affection for the Irish fans because of how much he enjoyed his time there back in '97. I found the suggestion absurd as most people would be aware that he had always claimed it was the best concert he had ever performed, so much so that it's the only live performance of his that he has ever released on DVD. The man even crowd surfs at one point. However, if you're still not convinced and for some odd reason feel that I am hiding my Garth Brooks fan status for eh, credibility reasons, perhaps, well then take a look at the date and time that I made the clip and you'll see that I actually posted it on the thread almost immediately after making it. So, you didn't uncover my Garth Brooks video stash. Columbo you ain't

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

bumper234 wrote: »

Your last 10 posts in those threads = 1418 words.

As i said......disturbing.

Just when you thought it was over: TV in overdrive tonight on the whole debacle as two 'docus' will air.

Rumours abound that RTE have some new details which they will apparently include in theirs later tonight on RTE1 at 9:35pm.

Garth Brooks: Tomorrow Never Came

On again, off again. This week Garth Brooks was meant to be riding into Dublin for a block of hyped concerts generating millions. But the showdown is now over. It's been the High Noon story of the summer involving the GAA, local Dublin residents, international Country music fans, planning laws, Oireachtas enquiries, the Taoiseach, and even US President Obama.

Garth Brooks: Tomorrow Never Came follows the trail of events from the announcement of Brooks' comeback tour through to the final announcement of ticket refunds - along with the battling saga in between. It's a journey to the heart of Ireland today: from our country's cultural and music hinterland (meeting concert support act, Nathan Carter, and Garth tribute singer, Trevor Smith) to politics done Irish-style.

TV3's is on at 9:00pm.

Garth Brooks: What Went Wrong

bumper234

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Just when you thought it was over: TV in overdrive tonight on the whole debacle as two 'docus' will air.

Rumours abound that RTE have some new details which they will apparently include in theirs later tonight on RTE1 at 9:35pm.



TV3's is on at 9:00pm.

Garth Brooks: What Went Wrong

Yeah.



Counted the words


:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I snipped a few clips from Brook's '97 show in Croke Park, which was also on YouTube, specifically to refute the suggestion, which was being made over and over again on a thread in AH, that Brooks was being disingenuous when he said that he had genuine affection for the Irish fans

How do you know it's genuine? Do you think he doesn't spin the same yarn about a special bond and best audience in the world if he was in Latvia or Paraguay?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

How do you know it's genuine? Do you think he doesn't spin the same yarn about a special bond and best audience in the world if he was in Latvia or Paraguay?

Do you ever read the posts you reply to:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I found the suggestion absurd as most people would be aware that he had always claimed it was the best concert he had ever performed, so much so that it's the only live performance of his that he has ever released on DVD.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266572/

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Do you ever read the posts you reply to:

I found the suggestion absurd as most people would be aware that he had always claimed it was the best concert he had ever performed, so much so that it's the only live performance of his that he has ever released on DVD.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266572/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entertainer_(DVD)
He'd better get on to his lawyers then as there's three other live concerts in that box set.
Do I get a commission from Amazon for this?

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

The man even crowd surfs at one point.

Yes he does !

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entertainer_(DVD)
He'd better get on to his lawyers then as there's three other live concerts in that box set.
Do I get a commission from Amazon for this?

Someone else that thinks they're Colombo but isn't.

The Entertainer contains 2 Concert DVDs one of which was the free Central park concert which I have also mentioned in AH but is not a concert from one his tours. The free Central Park shows are an honour bestowed by the city of New York and released independently. Like the Prince's Trust gigs are in the UK. He included that in that box-set as it is a collection. He also includes the Croke Park DVD in that boxset, which is the only full live concert tour DVD in that box-set. The rest are video DVDs, TV appearances etc. Yet again, that too I spoke of on the AH thread:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

He has said the atmosphere he experienced at Croke Park in '97 was the greatest he had ever experienced and indeed, so much so that he dedicated one of the four DVDs in his box-set, The Entertainer, to those concerts which he played at Croke Park and to Ireland, in general, to a large degree in fact.

But yeah, ' greedy Garth just wants to milk as much money out of us as he could, cause nobody else wants him' is I guess the real truth, silly me for missing it.

I have no idea why people are so adamant to try and show this guy to be a fake and a washed up fake at that.

For those who thinks he was only coming here to make money as nowhere else in the world wants to see him. Perhaps a read of this is in order:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jesselawrence/2014/07/16/garth-brooks-tickets-already-skyrocketing-for-first-show-on-secondary-market/

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Someone else that thinks they're Colombo but isn't.

The Entertainer contains 2 Concert DVDs one of which was the free Central park concert which I have also mentioned in AH but is not a concert from one his tours. The free Central Park shows are an honour bestowed by the city of New York and released independently. Like the Prince's Trust gigs are in the UK. He included that in that box-set as it is a collection. He also includes the Croke Park DVD in that boxset, which is the only full live concert tour DVD in that box-set. The rest are video DVDs, TV appearances etc. Yet again, that too I spoke of on the AH thread:

What you said was, and I quote:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I found the suggestion absurd as most people would be aware that he had always claimed it was the best concert he had ever performed, so much so that it's the only live performance of his that he has ever released on DVD.

Are you contesting that concerts that are not part of a tour do not constitute live performances there Sherlock? Or do you just think you can just change your claim from "live performance" to "full live concert tour DVD" and think nobody will notice?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What you said was, and I quote:

Are you contesting that concerts that are not part of a tour do not constitute live performances there Sherlock? Or do you just think you can just change your claim from "live performance" to "full live concert tour DVD" and think nobody will notice?

A video was posted from my youtube account. It was there as I made it so I could retort a suggestion which was made that Garth Brooks was bullshitting the Irish when he said that the best atmosphere he ever experienced was when her performed in Croke Park in '97 and that overall he he felt an affinity with the place as overall. That clip was taken from 'Ireland and Back' and that is the only tour concert of his that he has ever released on DVD. A free concert in Central Park being included in a box-set doesn't in anyway negate the point which you are attempting to negate. You mentioned "Latvia" and "Paraguay".. well come back to me when you find a box-set called 'Latvia and Back' or 'Paraguay and Back'.. maybe then the following remark won't be just pure blather..

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Do you think he doesn't spin the same yarn about a special bond and best audience in the world if he was in Latvia or Paraguay?

...but until such time as you do, then that is precisely what it is.

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

A video was posted from my youtube account. It was there as I made it so I could retort a suggestion which was made that Garth Brooks was bullshitting the Irish when he said that the best atmosphere he ever experienced was when her performed in Croke Park in '97 and that overall he he felt an affinity with the place as overall. That clip was taken from 'Ireland and Back' and that is the only tour concert of his that he has ever released on DVD. A free concert in Central Park being included in a box-set doesn't in anyway negate the point which you are attempting to negate. You mentioned "Latvia" and "Paraguay".. well come back to me when you find a box-set called 'Latvia and Back' or 'Paraguay and Back'.. maybe then the following remark won't be just pure blather..

...but until such time as you do, then that is precisely what it is.

You could just admit you were wrong when you said an Irish show was his only live performance out on DVD. Ya know, the thing I've just proven is totally incorrect.

syklops

Still no sign of a title change I see.

Why is what is largely a conversation on Gareth Brukes DVDs still in Politics?

efb

I see Arsenal Stadium can only hold 3 concerts a year- Garth should try playing 5 there...

Happyman42

syklops wrote: »

Still no sign of a title change I see.

Why is what is largely a conversation on Gareth Brukes DVDs still in Politics?

Thank your lucky stars Wishiwasha is neither an expert or a fan of Mr Brooks! :cool:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You could just admit you were wrong when you said an Irish show was his only live performance out on DVD. Ya know, the thing I've just proven is totally incorrect.

Oh quit trying to point score.

You know damn well what my point was: that Brooks is being genuine about what he was saying about Ireland. We are the only country he has ever honoured with a DVD dedicated to not just a country with a great audience, but as a great county in general. To try and nit pick that point with the Central Park performance is just scraping the barrel and makes little or no sense as he is from the states. Had it been another country, as I said, you might of had a point worth nit picking but it wasn't and so you don't.

I agree with the user that says the thread is reading like it no longer belongs here but when you ask questions of a user based on the topic (why it is precisely that they claimed Timmy Dooley thought that Owen Keegan saying he supported the license application meant that the license application process would be circumvented.. and instead of answering it, they rifled through your YouTube account in some bizarre attempt at trying to prove your really a GB fan.. what can you do exactly. I wouldn't mind if being successful at that endevour would mean anything, but it wouldn't as what difference would it make even if I was a bloody GB fan exactly. Perhaps I should just lie and say I am, just to shut people up and hopefully get them back on topic.

In an effort to get this things back on track, I will say that in no way did Enda Kenny intervene in this debacle and nor do I think he should. The little he did do, I feel was more than appropriate for him to have done. Hopefully an independent review will take place on this in due course and per-license-application talks will become mandatory, along also perhaps with some form of a two tier event licensing system, with the first stage need to be granted before promoters can sell tickets and the second stage being what the full event license currently is. Legally binding agreements for an official residents group would also be of help, as too would be a more sufficient means of the verifying resident complaints and if that means giving councils more power to make that a reality, so be it.

Our system buckled, hopefully Alan Kelly will see fit that it doesn't happen again.

BeerSteakBirds

I am glad that the Teashop was busy doing important stuff like opening a Penneys.

kippy

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Oh quit trying to point score.

You know damn well what my point was: that Brooks is being genuine about what he was saying about Ireland. We are the only country he has ever honoured with a DVD dedicated to not just a country with a great audience, but as a great county in general. To try and nit pick that point with the Central Park performance is just scraping the barrel and makes little or no sense as he is from the states. Had it been another country, as I said, you might of had a point worth nit picking but it wasn't and so you don't.

I agree with the user that says the thread is reading like it no longer belongs here but when you ask questions of a user based on the topic (why it is precisely that they claimed Timmy Dooley thought that Owen Keegan saying he supported the license application meant that the license application process would be circumvented.. and instead of answering it, they rifled through your YouTube account in some bizarre attempt at trying to prove your really a GB fan.. what can you do exactly. I wouldn't mind if being successful at that endevour would mean anything, but it wouldn't as what difference would it make even if I was a bloody GB fan exactly. Perhaps I should just lie and say I am, just to shut people up and hopefully get them back on topic.

In an effort to get this things back on track, I will say that in no way did Enda Kenny intervene in this debacle and nor do I think he should. The little he did do, I feel was more than appropriate for him to have done. Hopefully an independent review will take place on this in due course and per-license-application talks will become mandatory, along also perhaps with some form of a two tier event licensing system, with the first stage need to be granted before promoters can sell tickets and the second stage being what the full event license currently is. Legally binding agreements for an official residents group would also be of help, as too would be a more sufficient means of the verifying resident complaints and if that means giving councils more power to make that a reality, so be it.

Our system buckled, hopefully Alan Kelly will see fit that it doesn't happen again.

I think this has shown that there is room for improvement in "the system". It appears however that the promoters don't want to move to a system of having to have a license before tickets go on sale so that significantly narrows the actual changes that can be made to avert this situation in future. As such at best it appears an "outline" application or pre planning application may be the way forward before the tickets can go on sale but this again may not be acceptable to the promoters.
The other option is to attach strict guidelines to each of the major venues. The thing is there are already guidelines in place for Croker and a whole heap of precedent however these could be tightened up so at least a promoter knew exactly the status.

Ultimately a lot of people seem to think that if the planning process were changed overnight, there'd be no issues with having 400K people descend on an area over five consecutive nights and all that goes with that. Unfortunately for those people I cant see that changing at all and rightfully so.
As such it appears the strengthening up of the guidelines attached to each venue is probable the least fussy option with the finer details being worked out by all parties concerned.

Politically the most embarrassing part of this debacle has been the amount of time dedicated to what was ultimately a planning decision made within the confines of the law as it currently stands and best practices as they currently stand.

raymon

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

they rifled through your YouTube account in some bizarre attempt at trying to prove your really a GB fan.

You provided a link to your youtube page. I didnt rifle through anything.

Look , if you want to debate whether Garth crowd surfed at a specific perfmance or what DVD box set contains a specific performance or that he danced with more dedicated dance moves or sang his heart out more than usual then I have nothing new to add to this "thread".

The posts are getting too strange

nxbyveromdwjpg

syklops wrote: »

Still no sign of a title change I see.

Why is what is largely a conversation on Gareth Brukes DVDs still in Politics?

But I mean, is it "live performance" or "full live concert DVD", this absolutely vitally important point just HAS to clarified. :pac:

Dan_Solo

nm wrote: »

But I mean, is it "live performance" or "full live concert DVD", this absolutely vitally important point just HAS to clarified. :pac:

Well it was a central point to his theory that Brooks has a special relationship with Ireland and it turned out to be codswallop. Why don't you take it up with Wishiwasa if you are now convinced that it wasn't important at all in the first place?

Dan_Solo

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Oh quit trying to point score.

You mean on verifiable facts: Dan 1 Wishiwasa 0.
That kind of point scoring?
Turns out I know more about Gareth than you do!

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You know damn well what my point was: that Brooks is being genuine about what he was saying about Ireland.

Well that is your opinion only, as the evidence you have presented turned out to be false.
You do know that you can't have evidence proven false and still claim it bolsters your case?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller

raymon wrote: »

Look , if you want to debate whether Garth crowd surfed at a specific perfmance or what DVD box set contains a specific performance or that he danced with more dedicated dance moves or sang his heart out more than usual then I have nothing new to add to this thread.

The posts are getting too strange

Iif people claim Garth Brooks is being fake when he speaks of Ireland, there really is no other suitable reply than to point out that he made the 'Ireland and Back' to show that his words are far from hollow.. I mean he has never made a video about another country before or since and so that in it's self speaks volumes. Oh and you posted the Garth Brooks clip on this thread, not me.

When you're ready though, Raymon:

I would still really like to hear a sufficient explanation as to why it is that you feel it okay to claim that the TD Timmy Dooley felt that Keegan saying he supported the licence application was a nod and a wink that it would be "irrelevant" and "circumvented". That infers that he would be okay with such action, no matter how much you deny it and it''s scurrilous indictment to make. You also claimed that Dooley "accused" Keogan of "bias" which is untrue. He 'asked' him whether or not he felt that the fact he owns property in the Croke Park area influenced his decision or if he felt that it qualified as a conflict of interest. He at no stage accused him of bias. Questions are not accusations and seeing as you have no reasonable grounds for making either of these claims (your audio clip of two idiots laughing on the radio hardly suffices) could you please apologise for making them.