Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

Ace2007 · 03-07-2014 09:29PM

sioux1977 wrote: »

The GAA are at fault, it's true; but in my opinion, it's awful mean of the residents to insist that some of the concerts must be cancelled. I KNOW the concerts should never have been booked in the first place, but there are 160,000 innocent people who are going to suffer both emotionally and financially as a result of the cancellations. Since 2 more concerts won't really make that much difference, I think it would have been the gracious thing to just let them go ahead. And by all means, THEN penalise the GAA, and take steps to ensure it won't happen again - but these residents are only thinking of themselves, not the multitudes of other people who will now suffer as a result of their stubborness. I'm not a Garth Brooks fan, and I don't care personally if he plays or not, I just feel so sorry for all those disappointed people. I think the residents could just grin and bear it for a couple of extra nights, but they're just being thick about it. After all, two wrongs don't make a right. This is just my opinion...since the original poster did ask for people's opinions!

The council made the decision, the council also have a rule that no appeal can be made. This rule would have applied had the 5 being granted and the residents only option would be the legal route.

People are saying it's a small group of residents, and that there is no agreement in place. If this is the case, why did the council just ignore them and grant the licence? Maybe they see not granting the licence to 2, that the residents will back down and not take legal action.

Everyone knows that the residents have been talking about legal action since the very beginning - it was the promotor who held off apply for the licence to the last minute. Why not blame them?

miju · 03-07-2014 09:30PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

If you lived near Dublin Airport and they decided that they were going to have arrivals and departures during the night, are you saying then it would be touch **** for anyone living in the flight path, if they kept them awake at night, because one would assume sooner or later that 24 arrival/departures would occur?

Serously? You do realize flights land at Dublin at ALL hours of the night up until about 3 or 4am before they resume at about 6am

03-07-2014 09:30PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

They weren't objecting to the games.
They had an agreement on 3 concerts, which the GAA broke, and the residents objected to which is their right.

I'm not disagreeing that living beside a stadium means you are going to have some disruption. But at what point do they object? Are they meant to wait until Croker sells out 10 nights in a row?
The GAA/Aiken knew this was going to cause hassle, lead to an objection, and unlikely to get a licence for. They gambled and lost the last 2 nights.

We know they weren't objecting to games but honestly out of the 365 days in the year they want the venue to only be used for gigs 3 nights. Would the 5 additional nights have been all that much hassle considering that employment and money generated?

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How much of an increase should they put up with? when most of the residents moved in game would have been rare. Until fairly recently GAA has been a straight knock competition. Then they introducded the backdoor system, more games than before. Recently they'd started holding games during the winter in the evening as well.

They expect distribution and they get it. But there has to be a limit.

They chose to move in beside a large sporting venue, it's expected that it will be used. It may not have been used as much in the past but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used as much as possible, why have such an expensive venue if it sits empty most of the year.

To say that 8 nights a year of concerts is excessive is ridiculous. Maybe if there was a gig there every week then you'd have some sympathy but it's used as a music venue a few nights a year and it's a shame that such small minded people are holding it back. I hate Brookes, his music is awful but at the same time he's brining a lot of tourists to the country and his presence will create some short time work and bring money into the economy. We should be encouraging this and hoping that more international acts can be attracted to the country, not allowing a small group of people to put a stop to it because it inconveniences them an additional 5 night a year.

end of the road · 03-07-2014 09:31PM

Jamsiek wrote: »

Yes they were, and they did a great job too.
They won't get walked on in future.

they weren't being walked on in the first place

miju · 03-07-2014 09:32PM

BoB_BoT wrote: »

If you build a house without planning permission, it still has to knocked down, doesn't matter if it cost you 300k

No actually you don't theres this thing called "retroactive planning permission"

Chucky the tree · 03-07-2014 09:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They chose to move in beside a large sporting venue, it's expected that it will be used. It may not have been used as much in the past but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used as much as possible, why have such an expensive venue if it sits empty most of the year.

To say that 8 nights a year of concerts is excessive is ridiculous. Maybe if there was a gig there every week then you'd have some sympathy but it's used as a music venue a few nights a year and it's a shame that such small minded people are holding it back. I hate Brookes, his music is awful but at the same time he's brining a lot of tourists to the country and his presence will create some short time work and bring money into the economy. We should be encouraging this and hoping that more international acts can be attracted to the country, not allowing a small group of people to put a stop to it because it inconveniences them an additional 5 night a year.

Eactly, sporting venue. Not concert and everything else venue.

03-07-2014 09:33PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

If you lived near Dublin Airport and they decided that they were going to have arrivals and departures during the night, are you saying then it would be touch **** for anyone living in the flight path, if they kept them awake at night, because one would assume sooner or later that 24 arrival/departures would occur?

Matches don't occur on weekdays in Croke park, they don't happen at 9pm at night neither.

Hang on, I've flown into Dublin in the early hours of the morning on a number of occasions. Are you telling me that those 3 and 4 am touch downs never happened?

And yes, if flights didn't already use the airport in the wee hours but demand was there for them I would expect the airport to go ahead with them and not let some residents put a stop to it. If you chose to live in the flight path of an international airport then you have to expect that at some stage flights are going to be landing and taking off at all hours

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-07-2014 09:34PM

sioux1977 wrote: »

there are 160,000 innocent people who are going to suffer both emotionally and financially as a result of the cancellations.

And 240,000 will benefit at the expense of the residents.

sioux1977 wrote: »

Since 2 more concerts won't really make that much difference

I think that the residents would have perfectly good fears that it would then lead to further concerts.
The GAA already broke their three gig agreement by adding the GB concerts.

It's already 3 more concerts even with the two gigs not been given a licence.

I also have sympathy with those who will miss out, but the residents also have a right here.

CrookedJack · 03-07-2014 09:34PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

If you lived near Dublin Airport and they decided that they were going to have arrivals and departures during the night, are you saying then it would be touch **** for anyone living in the flight path, if they kept them awake at night, because one would assume sooner or later that 24 arrival/departures would occur?

Matches don't occur on weekdays in Croke park, they don't happen at 9pm at night neither.

I know it was probably autocorrect, but i love the idea that the saying could be touch sh!t rather than tough sh!t. As if the situation is so bad it's like being made to touch poo!

Had me chuckling anyway.

Ok everyone, back to the rabbling

italodisco · 03-07-2014 09:34PM

Ffs the decision has been made.

Why are you all arguing over it.

It's done, deal with it and move on or seriously re evaluate your lives

03-07-2014 09:35PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

For sport...

It's generally accepted that large sporting venues will be used for other activities. It's not unheard of and all around the world sporting venues are used to stage gigs attracting tens of thousands of people

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-07-2014 09:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't, nothing was broken

Yes it was, read a paper. And stop lying.

end of the road wrote: »

they didn't book any agreed nights, they had the 3 1 d gigs and applied for an events licence to have 5 more which they are entitled to and required to do, they got 3 more.

They are perfectly entitled to apply for the licence.
And the residents are perfectly entitled to object.

end of the road wrote: »

they tried, the residents wouldn't listen.

No, the resident won't be trampled upon.

end of the road wrote: »

it could have just as easily been given

Well it wasn't.

end of the road wrote: »

they broke no agreement

Yes they did. Consult with the GAA.

end of the road wrote: »

they wouldn't have known, as its as likely as unlikely it would have been passed, a 50 50

Yes they would, if they'd done some proper groundwork.

BoB_BoT · 03-07-2014 09:37PM

miju wrote: »

No actually you don't theres this thing called "retroactive planning permission"

Well there's been several stories of perfectly good houses being knocked because of incorrect/no planning permission.

They must have applied that rule while I wasn't looking :P
Although completely off topic, I thought the council could still force you to knock it if was less than 5 or 6 years old.

Chucky the tree · 03-07-2014 09:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's generally accepted that large sporting venues will be used for other activities. It's not unheard of and all around the world sporting venues are used to stage gigs attracting tens of thousands of people

That's probably why the residents agreed to allow 3 to happen per year.

mr kr0nik · 03-07-2014 09:38PM

On primetime now

kenmc · 03-07-2014 09:38PM

nobody should be subjected to even 2 minutes of garth brooks, never mind 5 nights, but that aside, if it was "all about the fans" he'd do a matinee on 2 of the 3 granted days, and have tickets from the other 2 valid for that.
Won't though.

Ranchu · 03-07-2014 09:40PM

I love all the people here saying things like "8 nights isn't excessive" etc. You're opinion on what's excessive or not means absolutely nothing unless you live beside a stadium and actually know what goes on. 8 nights of concerts over the course of the summer is most definitely excessive. The council obviously thought so too. Now it's a case of whingers on the internet calling the residents whingers. The residents went out and got a result. Your wringing will get you nowhere.

Tail Docker · 03-07-2014 09:40PM

Only in Ireland.

Firstly, building a massive stadium in a gridlocked part of town, and secondly, whinging, fecking it up, making stupid rules and licences and bolloxing up somthing as simple as a music concert. Fcuk me, we do love complicating simple things.

end of the road · 03-07-2014 09:42PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Residents don't get:

Free GAA Tickets
Free Concert Tickets
Money towards community projects.
So what would they lose?

Better suggestion is that 3 concerts a year are allowed with 10% of the gross tickets sales being given to community projects.

or, 3 concerts with money for the community projects removed, the GAA shouldn't have to give any money to community projects in the area, the residents have probably destroyed all good will between the GAA and the community for nothing, such a shame

davywalsh7 · 03-07-2014 09:42PM

Ranchu wrote: »

I love all the people here saying things like "8 nights isn't excessive" etc. You're opinion on what's excessive or not means absolutely nothing unless you live beside a stadium and actually know what goes on. 8 nights of concerts over the course of the summer is most definitely excessive. The council obviously thought so too. Now it's a case of whingers on the internet calling the residents whingers. The residents went out and got a result. Your wringing will get you nowhere.

And how come 8gigs in marlay park isnt excessive for residents there?

Kalyke · 03-07-2014 09:43PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Only in Ireland.

Firstly, building a massive stadium in a gridlocked part of town, and secondly, whinging, fecking it up, making stupid rules and licences and bolloxing up somthing as simple as a music concert. Fcuk me, we do love complicating simple things.

Hardly gridlocked when built

end of the road · 03-07-2014 09:43PM

sparkynash wrote: »

They did everything but have a license before promoting the event and there was the problem,they broke the law from the start.

they broke no law

j8wk2feszrnpao · 03-07-2014 09:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We know they weren't objecting to games but honestly out of the 365 days in the year they want the venue to only be used for gigs 3 nights. Would the 5 additional nights have been all that much hassle considering that employment and money generated?

I don't know, but it appears that it is too much hassle.

Deleted User wrote: »

To say that 8 nights a year of concerts is excessive is ridiculous.

To you and me maybe it is.
To those who have to put up with the disruption, maybe not.

Calling people small minded because they don't wish to put up with the hassle of the extra concerts is unfair.

Jamsiek · 03-07-2014 09:44PM

Stinicker wrote: »

I hope the GAA ends all deals with them and take an anti-residents stance.

You are hoping for more failure for the promoters then, they won't get everything their own way from now on

Stinicker wrote: »

These guys get tickets for everything and the majority of scalpers we see on big event days are fed tickets by these "wonderful people" you see living around Croker.

They don't all get tickets, in fact very few do

Stinicker wrote: »

these people already get compensated yet they want more.

They don't want money

Stinicker wrote: »

What is needed here is to give the residents the same treatment as was dished out to the crusties above in Mayo who tried blocking the Gas Pipeline.

So you're advocating violence to get your way

Fred Swanson · 03-07-2014 09:44PM

This post has been deleted.

Valetta · 03-07-2014 09:44PM

end of the road wrote: »

they broke no law

Yes they did.

They promoted the concerts without having a license.

That is breaking the law.

fta93 · 03-07-2014 09:45PM

davywalsh7 wrote: »

And how come 8gigs in marlay park isnt excessive for residents there?

Less of a residential area. More space to disperse properly. Less noise issues as Croke Park measures 16 acres, Marlay Park measures 298 acres.

end of the road · 03-07-2014 09:45PM

Deacon Ashy Penguin wrote: »

It's like people moving out to the country and then complaining that a farmer is working in the field late at night keeping them awake.

i know such a person

Ranchu · 03-07-2014 09:45PM

davywalsh7 wrote: »

And how come 8gigs in marlay park isnt excessive for residents there?

Marlay Park is out in the suburbs and while the gigs cause a bit of traffic on the night there isn't entire streets closed off where residents can't get in and out for hours on end. There also hasn't been 5 nights in a row as far as I know.

03-07-2014 09:45PM

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's probably why the residents agreed to allow 3 to happen per year.

Weren't they generous. That the residents are allowed to veto gigs is ridiculous. I could understand if the venue was used for concerts all the time but gigs there are few and far between. An additional 5 nights a year isn't much to ask and the positives of it far outweighs the negatives.

Croke Park residents to seek concert injuctions.....your opinions?

Comments