How many concerts should be allowed in Croke Park every year?

wonderwall900

Skylinehead wrote: »

85 I believe. Anyway, I shall wait for your source, otherwise your point is bollocks.

Why the aggression?

And what do you suggest? That I go around Croke Park residents and individually ask them all when they moved in?

Skylinehead

wonderwall900 wrote: »

Why the aggression?

And what do you suggest? That I go around Croke Park residents and individually ask them all when they moved in?

Hardly aggression, just keep seeing this tired point that doesn't make any sense.

I suggest that you reevaluate your position, the area around there is quite old and large numbers of the residents have probably been there 40+ years.

andekwarhola

Haven forbid that the local authority of the capital city might object to the GAA using an old residential area as their personal car park for unbridled commercial gouging on top of matches - the primary purpose of a sports stadium, unless people have forgotten.

If they don't like it, they should have sold up the site and located to a greenfield site outside the city when they had the chance.

vegetables

Ann_Landers wrote: »

Well, a concert or sporting event isn't a need, it's a want. Peaceful living, on the other hand, is a necessity. So the need comes before the want, always.

Plenty of places to live peacefully.

Pay them a fair price and compulsory purchase the surrounding area.

1900's bungalow shoe boxes. Theres a point when it becomes a national interest.

A little compensation to help move them along.

Skylinehead

vegetables wrote: »

Plenty of places to live peacefully.

Pay them a fair price and compulsory purchase the surrounding area.

1900's bungalow shoe boxes. Theres a point when it becomes a national interest.

A little compensation to help move them along.

I mean, if you're going to do that, given infrastructure problems as well, why not just move Croke Park?

end of the road

vegetables wrote: »

Plenty of places to live peacefully.

Pay them a fair price and compulsory purchase the surrounding area.

1900's bungalow shoe boxes. Theres a point when it becomes a national interest.

A little compensation to help move them along.

1900's bungalow's are necessary as they are part of the character of the city and must stay.

vegetables

Skylinehead wrote: »

I mean, if you're going to do that, given infrastructure problems as well, why not just move Croke Park?

Scale.


Crokers huge. Very expensive building to build.


Look, a time comes when a village is on the banks of a river thats going to serve a hydro-electric dam designed to power a nation.
Or some ''totally indispensable'' local old architectural wonder is blocking a runway.

And its not like the locals couldn't live just as well in another part of the city.
Mrs Doyle no longer being able to chat with Mrs OGrady is a small price to pay.

Skylinehead

vegetables wrote: »

Scale.


Crokers huge. Very expensive building to build.


Look, a time comes when a village is on the banks of a river thats going to serve a hydro-electric dam designed to power a nation.
Or some ''totally indispensable'' local old architectural wonder is blocking a runway.

And its not like the locals couldn't live just as well in another part of the city.
Mrs Doyle no longer being able to chat with Mrs OGrady is a small price to pay.

And how expensive is it to buy out hundreds of people, upgrade rail/tram links to Croke Park, etc etc

Airports are a totally different story, you can't move an airport.

vegetables

end of the road wrote: »

1900's bungalow's are necessary as they are part of the character of the city and must stay.

Why.

Why not just move on.

This 'preserve everything' attitude is just fear dressed up as highfalutin appreciation. Wheres our regrets for the loss of our historically irreplaceable ballymun towers.

Take some footage. Anyone who's interested in 2075 will be able to see.

end of the road

vegetables wrote: »

Why.

Why not just move on.

This 'preserve everything' attitude is just fear dressed up as highfalutin appreciation. Wheres our regrets for the loss of our historically irreplaceable ballymun towers.

Take some footage. Anyone who's interested in 2075 will be able to see.

no . the houses have to stay. footage isn't good enough. the real thing is the only acceptable option.

vegetables

end of the road wrote: »

no . the houses have to stay. footage isn't good enough. the real thing is the only acceptable option.

priceless cultural gem?

Jaggo

The Economic arguement is rubbish.
For garth brooks it was 5 days, by 80,000 tickets at 100 euro a pop = 40 million.
But the money is paid to garth and he leaves the country with his pockets full of irish money. Mean while the 400,000 people who bought the tickets go home and spend 100 euro less each in their local shops/pubs....

The 40 million is not newly created wealth, it is money diverted from the local economy to some foreign millionaires bank account.

On a side note, stadiums tend to be in poor residential areas: based on Anfield, Goodison park, celtic park and a couple of American stadiums; does the presence of the stadium keep the area poor?

AnneFrank

As many as they want, nothing can be worse than letting England play there, the shame of it still hurts

Shurimgreat

Has anyone mentioned Gareth Brooks yet?

andekwarhola

Jaggo wrote: »

The Economic arguement is rubbish.
For garth brooks it was 5 days, by 80,000 tickets at 100 euro a pop = 40 million.
But the money is paid to garth and he leaves the country with his pockets full of irish money. Mean while the 400,000 people who bought the tickets go home and spend 100 euro less each in their local shops/pubs....

The 40 million is not newly created wealth, it is money diverted from the local economy to some foreign millionaires bank account.

On a side note, stadiums tend to be in poor residential areas: based on Anfield, Goodison park, celtic park and a couple of American stadiums; does the presence of the stadium keep the area poor?

The loss to the economy argument is always a bit of an agenda back of a cigarette packet calculation.

It's like saying all the culchies that couldn't go to see garth brooks just took 400 quid out of the bank and burned it instead of, you know, putting it back into other sectors of the economy.

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

no . the houses have to stay. footage isn't good enough. the real thing is the only acceptable option.

Your reasoning is they have to stay cus they have to stay. Times change progress marches forward and there really is no reason to keep all of those houses as they are, they arent anything special architecturally or culturally.

Curious though since your argument hinges on that the stadium was there first, if the houses and residents were there first would you be on the residents side?

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Your reasoning is they have to stay cus they have to stay. Times change progress marches forward and there really is no reason to keep all of those houses as they are, they arent anything special architecturally or culturally.

Curious though since your argument hinges on that the stadium was there first, if the houses and residents were there first would you be on the residents side?

time changes progress marches forward isn't a reason for anything or a legitimate argument for anything.
the houses have to stay as they insure the area has character.

gramar

Jaggo wrote: »

The Economic arguement is rubbish.
For garth brooks it was 5 days, by 80,000 tickets at 100 euro a pop = 40 million.
But the money is paid to garth and he leaves the country with his pockets full of irish money. Mean while the 400,000 people who bought the tickets go home and spend 100 euro less each in their local shops/pubs....

The 40 million is not newly created wealth, it is money diverted from the local economy to some foreign millionaires bank account.

On a side note, stadiums tend to be in poor residential areas: based on Anfield, Goodison park, celtic park and a couple of American stadiums; does the presence of the stadium keep the area poor?

If you think Garth or any act will take home every cent of ticket sales you are very much mistaken. There are a lot of people getting paid for the organisation of an event of that scale and it's divided a lot of diferent ways between the artist, tax, the promoter, security, stage set up and everything that involves, insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses.

You also have to consider people travelling to Ireland to watch and stay in Ireland due to the concerts so bringing money to our shores.

Wealth is not just about generation it's about circulation of money. People spending, money changing hands. 400,000 people attending Croke Park is a huge influx and means travel, food/drink and accommodation that people put their hands in their pockets to pay for.

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

time changes progress marches forward isn't a reason for anything or a legitimate argument for anything.
the houses have to stay as they insure the area has character.

Actually that is a reason and an argument for a lot of things, its a reason and argument for why older cars are taken of the road as their safety standards arent up to modern standards, its a reason and argument for why we all use smart phones for pretty much everything now as its a hell of a lot more conveninent, its a reason and argument for why our mortality rate is nothing like what it used to be 100 years ago.

Is character more important than progress?

Any reason you skipped my other question?

suicide_circus

Having been at Springsteen in Croker I honestly thought it was a pretty awful venue. Sound was poor at the atmosphere in the stands was some weak sauce.

Jaggo

gramar wrote: »

If you think Garth or any act will take home every cent of ticket sales you are very much mistaken. There are a lot of people getting paid for the organisation of an event of that scale and it's divided a lot of diferent ways between the artist, tax, the promoter, security, stage set up and everything that involves, insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses.

I am not arguing against all concerts etc. I am arguing that the economic arguments put forward in this case are exaggerated. Of the elements that you have mentioned:
1. artist, foreign money leaves the country and so can't be circulated in the economy. If that money was spent in the local pub, that cash would be spend a second time in the local economy - recirculating as you said. It cannot recirculate if it leaves the economy.
2. tax, As the money would have been spent anyway the taxes would still be paid. If the 40 million was all spent on beer in the concert goers local pub, the tax paid in income tax, excise, VAT would have been higher.
3. the promoter/agent is nearly always foreign, the money spent on them will leave the economy.
4. security, often a foreign company manages this too, undoubtedly with domestic workers though.
5. stage set up - This is imported too.
6. insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses - most of this are imported too.

I am not arguing that no one should go to concerts or anything like that, I am arguing that pretending these are highly beneficial to the economy is wrong.

gramar

Jaggo wrote: »

I am not arguing against all concerts etc. I am arguing that the economic arguments put forward in this case are exaggerated. Of the elements that you have mentioned:
1. artist, foreign money leaves the country and so can't be circulated in the economy. If that money was spent in the local pub, that cash would be spend a second time in the local economy - recirculating as you said. It cannot recirculate if it leaves the economy.
2. tax, As the money would have been spent anyway the taxes would still be paid. If the 40 million was all spent on beer in the concert goers local pub, the tax paid in income tax, excise, VAT would have been higher.
3. the promoter/agent is nearly always foreign, the money spent on them will leave the economy.
4. security, often a foreign company manages this too, undoubtedly with domestic workers though.
5. stage set up - This is imported too.
6. insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses - most of this are imported too.

I am not arguing that no one should go to concerts or anything like that, I am arguing that pretending these are highly beneficial to the economy is wrong.

If someone goes to a concert they might spend 300/400€....of that 100€ is the ticket not all of which goes out of the country. The rest is money in circulation. It's better off in circulation than in peoples pockets or bank accounts where it is of no benefit. It is in effect economic activity and an economy only functions where there is activity.
A concert is an incentive for people to spend that might not have been otherwise spent. The same goes for any event that moves people.

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Actually that is a reason and an argument for a lot of things, its a reason and argument for why older cars are taken of the road as their safety standards arent up to modern standards, its a reason and argument for why we all use smart phones for pretty much everything now as its a hell of a lot more conveninent, its a reason and argument for why our mortality rate is nothing like what it used to be 100 years ago.

Is character more important than progress?

Any reason you skipped my other question?

good old red brick houses are more important then modern high rise junk. we don't all use smart phones, i certainly don't and i know many who don't either.

wonderwall900

Jaggo wrote: »

The Economic arguement is rubbish.
For garth brooks it was 5 days, by 80,000 tickets at 100 euro a pop = 40 million.
But the money is paid to garth and he leaves the country with his pockets full of irish money. Mean while the 400,000 people who bought the tickets go home and spend 100 euro less each in their local shops/pubs....

The 40 million is not newly created wealth, it is money diverted from the local economy to some foreign millionaires bank account.

I'm not sure you understand Economics.

corner of hells

Jaggo wrote: »

gramar wrote: »

If you think Garth or any act will take home every cent of ticket sales you are very much mistaken. There are a lot of people getting paid for the organisation of an event of that scale and it's divided a lot of diferent ways between the artist, tax, the promoter, security, stage set up and everything that involves, insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses.

I am not arguing against all concerts etc. I am arguing that the economic arguments put forward in this case are exaggerated. Of the elements that you have mentioned:
1. artist, foreign money leaves the country and so can't be circulated in the economy. If that money was spent in the local pub, that cash would be spend a second time in the local economy - recirculating as you said. It cannot recirculate if it leaves the economy.
2. tax, As the money would have been spent anyway the taxes would still be paid. If the 40 million was all spent on beer in the concert goers local pub, the tax paid in income tax, excise, VAT would have been higher.
3. the promoter/agent is nearly always foreign, the money spent on them will leave the economy.
4. security, often a foreign company manages this too, undoubtedly with domestic workers though.
5. stage set up - This is imported too.
6. insurance, transport and a myriad of other expenses - most of this are imported too.

I am not arguing that no one should go to concerts or anything like that, I am arguing that pretending these are highly beneficial to the economy is wrong.

I posted before that I worked before as a contractor prepping concerts ..

I'm Irish , the company I worked us Irish.Stage set up employed a significant number of Irish.The various promoters I worked for were Irish.The security companies ,there were a few. .Irish.
Caterers Irish.
Any materials I bought were bought in Ireland

A concert or big match generates a significant amount of money , so much so the GAA built a purpose built strong room.

I can't remember the exact figures but I do now a significant amount of money remains in Ireland in some shape or form.

jebus28

Yes, I will move out of my family home that I love because people want to listen to rubbish country music for 5 nights in a row. It's a nightmare getting home from work and the place is left looking like a bomb has hit it, I have to move my car out to my cousins on concert night since some drunk prick jumped on the roof and dented it. I've no doubt in my mind that if anyone had to endure it regularly they'd oppose it. I was also born in 1990 so unfortunately I had no choice in "simply purchasing a house elsewhere."

The Red m

jebus28 wrote: »

Yes, I will move out of my family home that I love because people want to listen to rubbish country music for 5 nights in a row. It's a nightmare getting home from work and the place is left looking like a bomb has hit it, I have to move my car out to my cousins on concert night since some drunk prick jumped on the roof and dented it. I've no doubt in my mind that if anyone had to endure it regularly they'd oppose it. I was also born in 1990 so unfortunately I had no choice in "simply purchasing a house elsewhere."

Who's playing country music 5 nights in a row? It's not 2014 anymore. Find something else to complain about.

JupiterKid

I'm feeling rather nostalgic for the 90s. I want to see a Feile Reunion gig in Crokers. We can camp in our designer yurts in the nearby Archbishops Palace grounds. Only those aged 38 to 46 are eligible for tickets. :D

The Red m

jebus28 wrote: »

Yes, I will move out of my family home that I love because people want to listen to rubbish country music for 5 nights in a row. It's a nightmare getting home from work and the place is left looking like a bomb has hit it, I have to move my car out to my cousins on concert night since some drunk prick jumped on the roof and dented it. I've no doubt in my mind that if anyone had to endure it regularly they'd oppose it. I was also born in 1990 so unfortunately I had no choice in "simply purchasing a house elsewhere."

Here's a tip, if you want people to believe your concerns, move out of 2014 and into 2017 because those 5 nights of country music never happened. It's 2017, the thread is about how many concerts should Croke Park have not about Garth Brooks for 5 nights. That topic is pretty old by now. Maybe try not to be such a snob as well, country music isn't OK but I presume other music is OK to be played there?

jebus28

The Red m wrote: »

Here's a tip, if you want people to believe your concerns, move out of 2014 and into 2017 because those 5 nights of country music never happened. It's 2017, the thread is about how many concerts should Croke Park have not about Garth Brooks for 5 nights. That topic is pretty old by now. Maybe try not to be such a snob as well, country music isn't OK but I presume other music is OK to be played there?

They never happened because residence took a stand and faced backlash for it. I think it's you that's a snob if you think locals need shut up shop more than 20 times a year just because you want to go to a concert. Entitlement or what.


And I'm sorry you're upset that you didn't get to see Garth, but my job is more important.