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

Nekarsulm · 06-07-2014 06:36PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Would Manchester City Council grant permission?

Would they turn up their nose at 400,000 visitors?
Just a thought as every other scenario here is going round in circles.

Peppa Pig · 06-07-2014 06:40PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

The council are only not granting licences based on what has already been determined to be an appropriate level of disruption for the residents. The bar was set at three concerts per year and that rule was breached, hence why the council mentions the three concerts having already taking place. Had it been set at a dozen by Bord Pleanala following discussions with the residents, then yes, this would only have occurred had Aiten tried to put on 13, as then he would have breached the RULES.

Had he only put on 3 he would have got all his licenses, still above the 3 set out by BP. They would not have been refused because 1D played 3 concerts.

You continually tell us he breached the rules.
So did he breach the rules for concert 1,2 and 3 or just 4 and 5.

jack presley · 06-07-2014 06:41PM

From the Journal:

The Labour Party have said that, “The ball is now firmly in the court of the promoter, Aitken Promotions and the artist, Garth Brooks.
The party has proposed that Brooks must agree to stage the three concerts this month and play the final two next year – at the end of a Garth Brooks World Tour.

That's not a bad compromise don't you think?

Nekarsulm · 06-07-2014 06:41PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Garth Brooks is only interested in playing in Croke Park, full stop.

He chose to make his comeback here and is not short of options of where to play. There might be a slim chance of playing the last two elsewhere, but there is not a snow's chance in hell he will make his comeback in another stadium in Europe. No way. He will just get on with the rest of his upcoming comeback tour, which was due to start here.

In fact, tomorrow is the day it's rumoured that the details of which will be announced.

In that case, knock the Dublin concerts on the head, and play the rest of the European tour. No way a stage set costing millions would be created for Croke park especially, as other wise it would have to be left behind, and new stage set up created for each location, so I don't believe that line of excuses. Announce a series of UK concerts and you can be sure there will be a similar uptake on tickets from this island. Apart from some infirm or particularly cash strapped fans, will make little difference.

Scores of bus companies countrywide are very familiar with the Manchester run, so would be a welcome boost to their coffers, as well as the ferry and air travel companies.

JRant · 06-07-2014 06:44PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Garth Brooks is only interested in playing in Croke Park, full stop.

He chose to make his comeback here and is not short of options of where to play. There might be a slim chance of playing the last two elsewhere, but there is not a snow's chance in hell he will make his comeback in another stadium in Europe. No way. He will just get on with the rest of his upcoming comeback tour, which was due to start here.

In fact, tomorrow is the day it's rumoured that the details of which will be announced.

Well tough. GB has no say in the granting of licenses.

Now he can either do the decent thing and play the 3 permitted concerts or not. That decision is all on him.

JRant · 06-07-2014 06:46PM

jack presley wrote: »

From the Journal:

The Labour Party have said that, “The ball is now firmly in the court of the promoter, Aitken Promotions and the artist, Garth Brooks.
The party has proposed that Brooks must agree to stage the three concerts this month and play the final two next year – at the end of a Garth Brooks World Tour.

That's not a bad compromise don't you think?

It would certainly seem to make the most sense. Providing of course CP don't go and book another 8 concerts between then and now.

Red Nissan · 06-07-2014 06:50PM

Reposting this link:

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/f...arthBrooks.pdf

Grayson · 06-07-2014 06:51PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Had he only put on 3 he would have got all his licenses, still above the 3 set out by BP. They would not have been refused because 1D played 3 concerts.

You continually tell us he breached the rules.
So did he breach the rules for concert 1,2 and 3 or just 4 and 5.

Why not 15 concerts.

Did you read the article in the independent about what it's like for the residents. For hours before and after they aren't allowed to bring vehicles in or out. they are only allowed in certain areas. They have to get permission from private security contractors if they want to leave or enter. And that's before you include the actual disruption caused by the fans coming and going. On match days apparently it's all over by early evening and they at least know it's going to be a Sunday.
This is 5 days disruption from early afternoon to late at night. That includes three working days/nights.

People keep saying "why did they move next to a stadium then?" A point to make is that if you include GB then more concerts have been held there in the 12 months than in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010. No-one who lives there ever signed up for that level of disruption. That's why they complained, that's why DCC stopped the last two. They said that 3 was a disruption but they couldn't allow the extra two. I think that was their way to try and find a middle ground and not just ban all 5.

ThisRegard · 06-07-2014 07:00PM

jack presley wrote: »

From the Journal:

The Labour Party have said that, “The ball is now firmly in the court of the promoter, Aitken Promotions and the artist, Garth Brooks.
The party has proposed that Brooks must agree to stage the three concerts this month and play the final two next year – at the end of a Garth Brooks World Tour.

That's not a bad compromise don't you think?

It's not a compromise, just a suggestion from the labour party.

I don't think this story even got a mention on the 6.1 News this evening. Unfortunately I missed the start of the main CNN News to see their take on it.

JRant · 06-07-2014 07:01PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

Reposting this link:

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/f...arthBrooks.pdf

Why?

It's not going to change the decision.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 06-07-2014 07:05PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Had he only put on 3 he would have got all his licenses, still above the 3 set out by BP. They would not have been refused because 1D played 3 concerts.

You continually tell us he breached the rules.
So did he breach the rules for concert 1,2 and 3 or just 4 and 5.

Putting on any concerts above the three was breaching the rules set out in the 2009 agreement and giving the residents legitimate reasons to object to the DCC.

Oh and by the way, concerns were made by the residents when only two Brook's concerts were announced.

Red Nissan · 06-07-2014 07:06PM

JRant wrote: »

Why?

It's not going to change the decision.

It should be made a sticky, casual posters dropping in don't understand and it should be 'compulsory' reading so we ALL know where we are at.

Anyway there has been a call from the Dublin Business Association calling on the Dublin City Manager to overrule his decision and allow the concerts to go ahead biting the loss of over €50 in spinoff business to the local community.

ThisRegard · 06-07-2014 07:08PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It should be made a sticky, casual posters dropping in don't understand and it should be 'compulsory' reading so we ALL know where we are at.

Anyway there has been a call from the Dublin Business Association calling on the Dublin City Manager to overrule his decision and allow the concerts to go ahead biting the loss of over €50 in spinoff business to the local community.

Who'd turn their nose up at €50!

Interest group speaks out on its interests shocker.

Peppa Pig · 06-07-2014 07:08PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Putting on any concerts above the three was breaching the rules set out in the 2009 agreement and giving the residents legitimate reasons to object to the DCC.

Yet DCC did grant licences despite it being a breach.
So how were the 2 refused licences solely down to rules being broken?

Take your time

Reformed Character · 06-07-2014 07:11PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

It should be made a sticky, casual posters dropping in don't understand and it should be 'compulsory' reading so we ALL know where we are at.

Anyway there has been a call from the Dublin Business Association calling on the Dublin City Manager to overrule his decision and allow the concerts to go ahead biting the loss of over €50 in spinoff business to the local community.

Which bit of " DCC cannot review, amend, or rescind the decision they have made" do these people not understand?

end of the road · 06-07-2014 07:12PM

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

I think there is a lot of misguided anger here, particularly from the fans to the residents which I think is unfair. While I am not a Garth Brooks fan myself I know plenty of people who were desperate for tickets, I get that. It isn't the residents fault though, yes, they live near Croke Park, but that does not mean that they should be subjected to anti social behaviour and have to deal with what come with gatherings at Croke Park.

I personally blame the GAA and Aiken promotions, there was an agreement in place, they decided to break that agreement, blatantly not giving a crap because of all the money involved. I can only assume that they felt that Dublin City Council wouldn't give them any bother for the same reason. Now there are 400,000 fans being left disappointed, I can understand the vitriol, but not it being directed at the residents in the way that it has been by some. I think they had stand up because if they didn't then how many concerts would the GAA have allowed next year?

I do believe that had all parties sat down together and consulted one another this could have been sorted. Sadly it didn't happen and I doubt that it will which I think is a crying shame, it's the fans and residents I feel really sorry for.

it was only a few residents, again whether they stood up or not is irrelevant now as croke park can now have as many concerts as they like once they can get event licences granted

onlyme! · 06-07-2014 07:13PM

Originally Posted by jack presley View Post
From the Journal:

The Labour Party have said that, “The ball is now firmly in the court of the promoter, Aitken Promotions and the artist, Garth Brooks.
The party has proposed that Brooks must agree to stage the three concerts this month and play the final two next year – at the end of a Garth Brooks World Tour.

That's not a bad compromise don't you think?

Thats very good of the labour party to grant permission for two shows next year! who needs DCC!

Billy Suffolk · 06-07-2014 07:14PM

Time to call Brook's bluff

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 06-07-2014 07:19PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Yet DCC did grant licences despite it being a breach.
So how were the 2 refused licences solely down to rules being broken?

Take your time

I have already answered this..

The DCC said they gave regard to "mitigation measures" put by Aitken and decided to allow three of the five concerts as a result.

What about that do you seem to have such difficulty grasping?

gerbilgranny · 06-07-2014 07:19PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

Which bit of " DCC cannot review, amend, or rescind the decision they have made" do these people not understand?

The bit that means it's a bad decision for the Irish economy?

Red Nissan · 06-07-2014 07:19PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

Who'd turn their nose up at €50!

Interest group speaks out on its interests shocker.

Well spotted, that of course would be €million.

end of the road · 06-07-2014 07:20PM

Grayson wrote: »

Why not 15 concerts.

Did you read the article in the independent about what it's like for the residents. For hours before and after they aren't allowed to bring vehicles in or out. they are only allowed in certain areas. They have to get permission from private security contractors if they want to leave or enter. And that's before you include the actual disruption caused by the fans coming and going. On match days apparently it's all over by early evening and they at least know it's going to be a Sunday.
This is 5 days disruption from early afternoon to late at night. That includes three working days/nights.

People keep saying "why did they move next to a stadium then?" A point to make is that if you include GB then more concerts have been held there in the 12 months than in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010. No-one who lives there ever signed up for that level of disruption. That's why they complained, that's why DCC stopped the last two. They said that 3 was a disruption but they couldn't allow the extra two. I think that was their way to try and find a middle ground and not just ban all 5.

the minute you move into or are born into an area where there is an international stadium you absolutely sign up for any events that stadium decides to put on, nobody has to ask permission from private security contractors, them being private they have no rights no matter what they may say

end of the road · 06-07-2014 07:23PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Putting on any concerts above the three was breaching the rules set out in the 2009 agreement and giving the residents legitimate reasons to object to the DCC.

Oh and by the way, concerns were made by the residents when only two Brook's concerts were announced.

the 2009 agreement if it exists was probably not legally binding, so croke park could break it away if it exists

hynesie08 · 06-07-2014 07:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

the minute you move into or are born into an area where there is an international stadium you absolutely sign up for any events that stadium decides to put on, nobody has to ask permission from private security contractors, them being private they have no rights no matter what they may say

Subject to license.

Peppa Pig · 06-07-2014 07:26PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I have already answered this..

The DCC said they gave regard to "mitigation measures" put by Aitken and decided to allow three of the five concerts as a result.

What about that do you seem to have such difficulty grasping?

The difficulty I have in that you keep saying licences were not granted due to rule breaches.
Please explain to me that the first GB concert got a licence,when it breached the 3 concert rule/

muddypaws · 06-07-2014 07:27PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

LOL.

The legal decision was made based on the bloody rule breeches and yet you say: "There hasn't been a rule breach".

Gas.

The agreement actually states 3 events, a legal argument could be made that a series of concerts by the same artist on consecutive dates is one event. Can you not see that if DCC felt that there been a breach of the rules, no licence at all would have been granted?

Now I'd like to know why we moved onto breeches, will it be knickerbockers next? That would be Gas.

Reformed Character · 06-07-2014 07:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

the minute you move into or are born into an area where there is an international stadium you absolutely sign up for any events that stadium decides to put on, nobody has to ask permission from private security contractors, them being private they have no rights no matter what they may say

Bullshíte. By your logic the GAA should be allowed to hold 365 concerts a year.

Reformed Character · 06-07-2014 07:29PM

end of the road wrote: »

the 2009 agreement if it exists was probably not legally binding, so croke park could break it away if it exists

I would pay money to hear that argument put before a High Court Judge!:D:D

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 06-07-2014 07:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

the 2009 agreement if it exists was probably not legally binding, so croke park could break it away if it exists

Oh absolutely and resident agreements tend to change down the years in any case, which is why I said last night that I hope the GAA tears up anything they have agreed and takes it as far as the Supreme Court, if needs be, to revoke any measures placed upon them from An Bord Pleanala which they feel are suffocating them going forward as a business, which thisnonsense three concert limit surely is doing.

I doubt there is another stadium in the world whose local residents have as much influence as Croke Park's do over what can and cannot be held there and for how long for. I'm all for fairness and not taking the mick out of the residents. There safety needs, parking needs and general well being should always be a factor whenever events are being held there, particularly with regards to times of night that work can take place, but three concerts a year, no helicopter shooting footage and insisting in 10pm curfews is a bloody joke.

secman · 06-07-2014 07:32PM

Steam Roller wrote: »

They are allowed to apply for more than 3 with a public event licence. Thats in the planning permission also.

Look
http://votemcauliffe.com/concern-raised-as-planning-doubts-hang-over-garth-brooks-concert/

Of course they can apply for as many as they wish over and above the 3, but DCC look at the overall situation and make their decision ans in this case granted 3 extra .

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

Comments