Guns N' Roses - Irish Date Announced!

ticketsthere wrote: »

You spent E280 on Guns N' Roses and you're calling me the fanboi? If you're not a fan, why spend nearly 300 quid on one show? I got two shows, a train journey and a hotel for better value that that.

Lucky you. Did you have three other people with you at those gigs because it's obvious from my post that I bought all 4 tickets for myself (??) You really did miss the point on that one.

I wasn't the biggest fan of the band's current incarnation but I liked their older stuff and figured I'd lend my support to the current tour. The other people who came with me had only started listening to G'N"R in the past few years (you know, NEW fans, what bands actaully need to keep buying albums and to stop them becoming some sort of washed up, bloated tribute act that tours trying to re-live past glories....no wait a minute that's exactly what they are, silly me)

smelltheglove

Dublin was not the only one that booed them, Reading fans also booed if you listen to youtube vids.

Calina

Dude, get real.

the fact that he did spend 280E is a perfect reason to be infuriated. I only spend one quarter that and I was pretty unhappy.

You're quite happy to accept being treated like trash by your favourite band. Fine. Just face the fact that some of us aren't happy to be treated like trash by someone we've paid to give a show. It's not like it was much good as shows went when he sulked his way through his second set.

wolfmoon87

ticketsthere wrote: »

Did you see anyone with a camera?

No I didn't see any cameras. Why? Wondering if there's any pics of it?
At one point I thought of getting my camera out for a pic but didn't bother

Oh and he was only out on the street for a minute or two.

BrianD wrote: »

At the end of the day, the audience threw the bottles and the audience continued to throw the bottles after being cautioned by the artist. After this behaviour, the audience has no recourse to a refund.

You are talking about "the audience" like its a singular person, it was a few idiots. If somebody set a fire in the cinema and it had to be evacuated or if somebody took a shit in a swimming pool do you think you deserve no recourse? would you accept it and just go, well its OUR own fault lads, WE shouldn't have took a dump in the pool, we'll know better next time.

It is their job to ensure there is enough security present, they already have no glass bottles or glasses or caps on bottles. This is under the presumption that a plastic one will not cause much harm, like I said some teeny singer got a bottle to the head and kept going, poor auld hard man axl runs for his mammy, -ah ye poor wee fella, did the bold boys hit you, there there.

Crap like this could set a precedent, if I was a singer with a bad throat then rather than cancel a gig I could hire 2 lads to simply throw bottles up after a 10min guitar solo intro and then do a runner without even singing at all. Cheaper than cancelling the whole thing.

BrianD

rubadub wrote: »

You are talking about "the audience" like its a singular person, it was a few idiots. If somebody set a fire in the cinema and it had to be evacuated or if somebody took a shit in a swimming pool do you think you deserve no recourse? would you accept it and just go, well its OUR own fault lads, WE shouldn't have took a dump in the pool, we'll know better next time.

Well it would end up in the pool being closed for everybody. Effectively the actions of a few have ruined the gig for everyone. It certainly isn't the promoters fault that this happened so why should they fork out?

It is their job to ensure there is enough security present,

I don't think there is any issue with the amount of stewards or security on the night.

they already have no glass bottles or glasses or caps on bottles. This is under the presumption that a plastic one will not cause much harm, like I said some teeny singer got a bottle to the head and kept going, poor auld hard man axl runs for his mammy, -ah ye poor wee fella, did the bold boys hit you, there there.

You're dead right. The band were reknown for their alleged substance abuse over the years. I would have thought that a plastic bottle flying up on the stage would have been pretty tame. The problem is that the bottles should not have been thrown and the artist can say I pulled the gig because I was intimidated by the audience behaviour.

Crap like this could set a precedent, if I was a singer with a bad throat then rather than cancel a gig I could hire 2 lads to simply throw bottles up after a 10min guitar solo intro and then do a runner without even singing at all. Cheaper than cancelling the whole thing.

A band could pull this once. Continuous behaviour like this would mean that promoters will stay well away fro them. There's a lot of financial risk assumed by any promoter when they decide to put on a gig. All the risk is with them until sufficient tickets are sold. Nobody wants to book an artist who fails to deliver.

BrianD wrote: »

All the risk is with them until sufficient tickets are sold. Nobody wants to book an artist who fails to deliver.

Isn't that exactly what happened on Wednesday night?

A V A

phil1nj wrote: »

Isn't that exactly what happened on Wednesday night?

what iv been trying to say but most gnr fans think its just rock n roll to have his attitude :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsjZvm7mYoI

BrianD wrote: »

Well it would end up in the pool being closed for everybody. Effectively the actions of a few have ruined the gig for everyone. It certainly isn't the promoters fault that this happened so why should they fork out?

I would expect to get my money back if I was unable to swim or watch the film in the cinema due to some idiots behaviour. It is not the pools fault somebody took a dump in it, nor is it mine, but I would expect a refund, I would not just shrug my shoulders and say I should sue the kid who did it (like someone suggested we should sue the bottle thrower).

It also comes down to goodwill & reputation, that is why they should fork out, they could counter sue GNR. It would not be the promoters fault if a flight was cancelled and they did not turn up, it is not their fault if the O2 burnt to the ground -I would still expect a refund, people paid for something that was not provided to their expectation.

BrianD wrote: »

I don't think there is any issue with the amount of stewards or security on the night.

They allowed people in with plastic bottles, or sold them inside, if they were such a threat they should not be allowed.

Here is the young lad I was talking about
http://newsroom.mtv.com/2010/08/10/justin-bieber-water-bottle/

Justin Bieber got clocked in the head by a water bottle thrown from the crowd.

Luckily, Bieber wasn't injured (his hair also remained intact), and we've got to admit that he handled the whole thing pretty well, joking "Ow, that didn't feel good," before continuing on with his show. And while bottles getting tossed on stage isn't exactly a laughing matter, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out that we've watched footage of the incident like 50 times already, and it's sort of perversely hilarious.

muckwarrior

Plastic bottles of Carlsberg were being sold at the bar. I think it was only after all the draught ran out fairly early on. They should probably review that. Even though they wouldn't cause much damage, they look like normal glass bottles and they'd be easier to throw than a plastic pint glass.

So for all the gigs since then and the few before Dublin, Axl came on stage at 10.30. I wonder was this a case the band setting 10.30 as their start time and MCD not bothering to inform anyone. Would help explain some of the events of the night, Axl walking on stage to boos when he wasnt actually late.

A V A

but mcd didnt assure the crowd of a start time?? every single concert that goes on in the o2 starts around the half 9 mark. i have never heard of a band having a start time at half 10 ???

A V A wrote: »

but mcd didnt assure the crowd of a start time?? every single concert that goes on in the o2 starts around the half 9 mark. i have never heard of a band having a start time at half 10 ???

Just because most bands start at 10.30 does not mean that every band does, it's up to MCD to inform ticket purchasers of start times.

Ash.J.Williams

And by the way one support band for a band that is commencing at 10.30 to come on at 8pm, must be a first in this country, that is not normal, and I certainly have never witnessed that...MCD cannot say that is acceptable, it is a definite sign that something is wrong.

A V A

Deleted User wrote: »

Just because most bands start at 10.30 does not mean that every band does, it's up to MCD to inform ticket purchasers of start times.

so just because "a tribute band" decides that it suites them to come on late , that they shouldnt deserve to be boo'ed? they are the only band that have done this, it would be different if a few bands did it to but 80% of that gnr crowd have been to a gig where the gig starts around half 9 after the support!
the 6 o clock news on rte is expected to be on at 6 o clock not half 7 or 8 , and if its on later due to circumstances,explanation is broadcasted and statement is issued that it will return at a later time. with axl,there was no circumstances or explanation , he was just being late and a "diva" that he is.mcd didt explain the situation or give a explanation for the lack of time keeping of the event or band !!

A V A wrote: »

so just because "a tribute band" decides that it suites them to come on late , that they shouldnt deserve to be boo'ed? they are the only band that have done this, it would be different if a few bands did it to but 80% of that gnr crowd have been to a gig where the gig starts around half 9 after the support!
the 6 o clock news on rte is expected to be on at 6 o clock not half 7 or 8 , and if its on later due to circumstances,explanation is broadcasted and statement is issued that it will return at a later time. with axl,there was no circumstances or explanation , he was just being late and a "diva" that he is.mcd didt explain the situation or give a explanation for the lack of time keeping of the event or band !!

But the thing is that no one stated that the start time was 9 or 9.30, had there been an official announcement from MCD that Guns N Roses would be on stage at 9.30 then certainly people were entitled to be angry. But considering the 10.30 start time for most of their gigs then perhaps 10.30 was the time Axl stated nad MCD just didn't bother to inform anyone.

I'm not defending Axl, he could easily have won back the audience if he had wanted to but MCD are as much to blame in this situation as he is. How come it's only after the fact that MCD can issue the offical start time and not before hand like they have with nearly every other gig.

Diapason

I'm inclined to think that there *is* a curfew in the O2 (let's face it, years of concert-going experience among people on boards would suggest there is) and I think that MCD can't be seen to encourage/accept any band breaking curfew, at least publicly. If MCD had published a stage time of 10:30, that would be basically admitting that curfew would be broken by GnR. It would be pretty much impossible to impose a curfew on "normal" bands after that, and may even be against the terms of the license in the first place.

I certainly don't believe the 9:45 expected start time that's now doing the rounds. It's very easy to publicise that after the fact as damage limitation.

Deleted User wrote: »

But the thing is that no one stated that the start time was 9 or 9.30, had there been an official announcement from MCD that Guns N Roses would be on stage at 9.30 then certainly people were entitled to be angry. But considering the 10.30 start time for most of their gigs then perhaps 10.30 was the time Axl stated nad MCD just didn't bother to inform anyone.

Somebody must know, I often ring venues in advance of gigs when I do not like the support, every single time I can remember I was told 8.30 - 9, certainly never 9.30 or later or it would have stuck out in my mind, now some might not have come on till 9.30 but there was not a recognised 11pm curfew.

I did not go to GNR, but probably would have rang in advance seeing as he was late to others, surely somebody here did?

The box office nearly always will know as they have to employ staff. My mate does lighting at shows and is paid by the hour, so always knows when they are expected on, if they are late he is usually happy at the extra pay.

If the start time was definitely 10.30 I imagine the security guards would have known, so why would they tell people to leave and not let them back in?

rubadub wrote: »

Somebody must know, I often ring venues in advance of gigs when I do not like the support, every single time I can remember I was told 8.30 - 9, certainly never 9.30 or later or it would have stuck out in my mind, now some might not have come on till 9.30 but there was not a recognised 11pm curfew.

I did not go to GNR, but probably would have rang in advance seeing as he was late to others, surely somebody here did?

The box office nearly always will know as they have to employ staff. My mate does lighting at shows and is paid by the hour, so always knows when they are expected on, if they are late he is usually happy at the extra pay.

If the start time was definitely 10.30 I imagine the security guards would have known, so why would they tell people to leave and not let them back in?

MCD generally post the start times for bands, hence how I was able to miss the dreadful support act for Blink the night before and get to the venue after they had finished. With Guns there was no mention of a start time, till the day afterward in their poorly written press release.

All in all the night was a cluster-fuck of epic proportions with each party laying the blame at the other.

nevaeh-2die-4

ok lads its a about time you got over it .

all the letters and complaints in the world wont get you a refund...:D:D:D:D:D

OutlawPete

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

ok lads its a about time you got over it

You know that you can 'unfollow' the thread, right?

JimsAlterEgo

nevaeh-2die-4 wrote: »

ok lads its a about time you got over it .

all the letters and complaints in the world wont get you a refund...:D:D:D:D:D

thanks for that nugget of intelligence

Has anybody just asked for a chargeback on their CC, thats the first thing I would do.

Mental Mickey

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

thanks for that nugget of intelligence

You wont get one as they -eventually - played a full set. MCD already stated this.

Mental Mickey wrote: »

You wont get one as they -eventually - played a full set. MCD already stated this.

MCD said a lot of things after the fact, still dosen't make it right and absolve them of the myriad of f*ck-ups that plagued this gig .
I'm sure they're are some people out there who will do their damnedest to try and get some sort of recompense from the promoter, may take a while, may not be successful but I personally think it would be foolish for people to just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well, sh*t happens".

Mental Mickey

phil1nj wrote: »

MCD said a lot of things after the fact, still dosen't make it right and absolve them of the myriad of f*ck-ups that plagued this gig .
I'm sure they're are some people out there who will do their damnedest to try and get some sort of recompense from the promoter, may take a while, may not be successful but I personally think it would be foolish for people to just shrug their shoulders and say "ah well, sh*t happens".

Why are people surprised with Axl's behaviour? Why are people still bothering with this? Axl's a ****, he's well known for doing this kind of thing for years now.

I don't like MCD as much as the next guy, but it's hardly their fault that Axl Rose is a selfish, money-grabbing, egomaniac, who doesn't give a **** about anybody.

People know what he's like. This is one of the reasons why I decided to keep my money in my pocket and not go to the gig in the first place.

Mental Mickey wrote: »

I don't like MCD as much as the next guy, but it's hardly their fault that Axl Rose is a selfish, money-grabbing, egomaniac, who doesn't give a **** about anybody.

People know what he's like. This is one of the reasons why I decided to keep my money in my pocket and not go to the gig in the first place.

Fair enough. But take it from me, there are a lot of people who went to that concert who did f*ck all wrong and are now out a mutilple of 70 euro because of the way things happened on the night (prima donna frontman, pi*s poor organisation, late running times, no crowd announcemets etc etc.)
It's definitely an Irish trait that no-one is ever responsible for any of the sh*t that goes wrong in life- "Ah sure, you know these things happen and its the guys who were throwing stuff up at the stage you should really blame". Boll*x pure and simple.

IMHO MCD should have let Mr. Rose storm off and not come back on (after being that late, what was the point anyway - a midweek gig, in a venue that was known to host gigs that only ever ran within the constraints of public transport times and with a suppossed curfew in place also), a lawsuit should have been slapped on his tempremental skinny-arse instead for breach of contract, the easy road was taken, the frontman put on a half hearted show almost an hour later and those who left (who had to leave) got bent over a chair. Lovely.

I suggested before in this thread that people who bought tickets to this gig and felt hard done by should take MCD to small claims court. I could understand if some people think what's the use but small claims is the only way forward and even if you don't win, it'll give MCD a headache. The more people who give them a headache, the more they'll realise that they can't push Irish consumers around and charge any price they like (and not refund) for a badly organised gig.