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

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 08:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

its only 8 nights, doesn't matter whether the residents give in or not now croke park can apply for events licences ror as many as they want

They can, and the residents can object.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:18PM

freedominacup wrote: »

That quote is usually the greater good of the greater number. How is the decision in favour of the greater good of the greater number? Imo a couple of whack jobs with a serious superiority complex are and have been acting the maggot about this and every other high profile event staged in Croke park.

Croke park in its current manifestation is 30 years in the making. Anyone who moved into the area in the intervening period knew full well what sort of facility was in the area and that disruption was part of living there.

I don't know the details but access for residents seems to be a bugbear constantly. Surely at this stage the gaa, the promoters, dcc and the gardai should have a coherent and workable access plan for the area for periods like this. On this the residents have a point.

Benthamism never had a foothold, why quote it when it has never formed either the basis of legislation or of law in this state!

end of the road · 04-07-2014 08:18PM

vitani wrote: »

I doubt the residents care that much about the five gigs, but more about the fact that it breaks an existing agreement and would then set a precedent that would be tough to break. They had to put their (collective) foot down now, or else next year, it would be 8 concerts, plus a couple more because, sure, it's only 12 nights out of 365 and so on.

but it was a small few residents, ruining it for the majority all because they didn't get a pay out

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

its only 8 nights, doesn't matter whether the residents give in or not now croke park can apply for events licences ror as many as they want

They can apply all they like.

And risk refusal again, given the precedent that's been set this time.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

its only 8 nights, doesn't matter whether the residents give in or not now croke park can apply for events licences ror as many as they want

And the DCC decision makes it abundantly clear that anything over 3 a year will get a resounding NO.
Have you even read the DCC decision?

freedominacup · 04-07-2014 08:20PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Benthamism never had a foothold, why quote it when it has never formed either the basis of legislation or of law in this state!

Benthamism?

I had no intention of quoting Benthamism. I was simply pointing out that the quote is generally the greater good of the greater number.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:20PM

end of the road wrote: »

but it was a small few residents, ruining it for the majority all because they didn't get a pay out

Since you keep talking about money, can you show one - just ONE - example of proof that residents were looking for a pay out?

Oh, and while you're at it, can you address my earlier point about condemning the residents for (allegedly) looking for a pay out, yet calling for a pay out to the illegal turf cutters in Galway?

Please and thanks.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

but it was a small few residents, ruining it for the majority all because they didn't get a pay out

Five words,
Me Hole, quit the lying!

end of the road · 04-07-2014 08:21PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

With opinions that were given plenty of weight, given that their objections led to the non-granting of licences for two concerts.

it was to shut them up, thats all, otherwise they would look for more money rather then take what the GAA offered them and shut up instead of ruining this for the majority

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 08:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

but it was a small few residents, ruining it for the majority all because they didn't get a pay out

Proof? Link? Source?

Can you get tablets for keyboard diarrhea?

Santa Cruz · 04-07-2014 08:21PM

Stop this rubbish. It's distracting everyone from the Ardoyne March by the OO.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:22PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Proof? Link? Source?

Can you get tablets for keyboard diarrhea?

MonsterCookie · 04-07-2014 08:23PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was only a few residents

I think you're being disingenuous.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:23PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Five words,
Me Hole, quit the lying!

See post no. 5641.

In your own time.

ETA - whoops, wrong post quoted, sorry!

end of the road · 04-07-2014 08:24PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

They can apply all they like.

And risk refusal again, given the precedent that's been set this time.

no precedent was set

end of the road · 04-07-2014 08:25PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

And the DCC decision makes it abundantly clear that anything over 3 a year will get a resounding NO.
Have you even read the DCC decision?

it doesn't make anything clear, and anything over 3 could get a resounding yes

fta93 · 04-07-2014 08:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

but it was a small few residents, ruining it for the majority all because they didn't get a pay out

Once again, I'd like you to prove that the residents are looking for a pay out. Simple request. I've asked you twice now.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was to shut them up, thats all, otherwise they would look for more money rather then take what the GAA offered them and shut up instead of ruining this for the majority

This is the one I meant to quote.

Please see post no. 5641 above.

In your own time.

Tarzana · 04-07-2014 08:28PM

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Have to admit I'm finding this hilarious.

It is.

HeidiHeidi · 04-07-2014 08:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

no precedent was set

I'll think you find that a decision such as was made yesterday exactly fits the definition of precedent

precedent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/
1.
an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

fta93 wrote: »

Once again, I'd like you to prove that the residents are looking for a pay out. Simple request. I've asked you twice now.

I'm blue in the face asking, but hasn't done me any good.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

it was to shut them up, thats all, otherwise they would look for more money rather then take what the GAA offered them and shut up instead of ruining this for the majority

Boo fúcking hoo, hope the GAA aint paying you because you're doing a shíte PR job for them!

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

no precedent was set

Six words,
Me Hole, learn to read boy!

bobster453 · 04-07-2014 08:34PM

What I cant fathom in all this is how the promoters and Croke Park sold tickets for 5 concerts and yet had only applied for 3, seems they knew what they were doing alright, bit like building your house first and applying for planning permission later.I wonder if all the posters objecting to the residents objecting would be prepared to have these concerts in their locality if it meant that for at least a week if not more you were effectively a prisoner in your own home.
What is the greater good??..thousands of people put out by not being able to enjoy themselves for a night, or people being effectively told what they can and cant do in their own neighbourhood by big business for that is what croke park is.
This issue has been going on for years and it is no good saying people knew what they were letting themselves in for when they bought houses there, we dont know each individual circumstance and the reason they live there, nor does it matter. what matters is that there was already an agreement in place for a certain number of concerts per year and Croke Park Inc and the promoters were testing the water to see how far they could trample on that agreement before someone said stop..well now they know, and I for one applaud the decision of DCC, it is good to know that in this little much maligned banana republic of ours that sometimes someone is prepared to stand up and say enough is enough.
As for the concerts themselves being cancelled, thats a load of bull, there are contractual agreements in place that would be very hard to get out of, this is only sabre rattling by Brooks and Co.

strangel00p · 04-07-2014 08:36PM

mikeym wrote: »

Imo why dont Garth do the 3 gigs. He can come back next year and have 6 gigs in Punchestown or Slane.

In fairness mikeym, after this experience I can't see Garth going anywhere near Ireland ever again. Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all five concerts are pulled. We'll all get to see him in another country when he does the world tour!

super_furry · 04-07-2014 08:37PM

This whole 'we can't scale down the production' line is either absolute nonsense or points to the fact that Aiken's original plan and deal with Brooks was to play five dates from the start.

hynesie08 · 04-07-2014 08:39PM

strangel00p wrote: »

In fairness mikeym, after this experience I can't see Garth going anywhere near Ireland ever again. Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be at all surprised if all five concerts are pulled. We'll all get to see him in another country when he does the world tour!

Garth will go where the money is, he's not gonna lose out on 10 million.

Reformed Character · 04-07-2014 08:40PM

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0704/628423-garth-brooks/
Dublin City Council has said its decision on the Garth Brooks concerts cannot be amended or appealed.
In a statement this evening, the council said it had been consistent in informing the promoter that its main concern was the impact that five consecutive concerts would have on the local area.

super_furry · 04-07-2014 08:41PM

So Books will cut off his nose to spite his face and it's zero concerts then with the only winners being Ticketmaster.

bobster453 · 04-07-2014 08:45PM

super_furry wrote: »

So Books will cut off his nose to spite his face and it's zero concerts then with the only winners being Ticketmaster.

I dont think so, alimony costs a lot

gandalf · 04-07-2014 08:45PM

end of the road wrote: »

10 weeks is enough

Obviously it is not, especially if the law is changed as I have proposed that no tickets can be sold without a license in place.

Lets say the council have 4 weeks to make a decision then the promoter has 5 months to market the licensed event and the consumers know that when they book the ticket there is no risk of the event being cancelled because a license won't be granted.

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

Comments