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

beakerjoe wrote: »

Ireland has already lost.

It hasn't.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's not the same it's being done in public, corruption was more underhand.

Ignoring the decision of the body set up to adjudicate on these matters (which is what it will be, one way or another if 5 gigs go ahead) will be a flagrant abuse of the law, whether it is done publicly or privately.

beakerjoe wrote: »

Of course it has, we look like a joke. Its rep internationally has been damaged.

Not in the least. Nobody abroad cares. You're sense of perspective it way out there.

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it's not the same it's being done in public, corruption was more underhand.

As I said, the principle is the same. Decisions are made, political influence attempts to change those decisions for those trying to make money from it.

Gergiev wrote: »

The last straw for me was when the so-called mediator, Kieran Mulvey, went to the media today saying our international reputation would be in shreds if we don't find a solution. So, in other words, he's not independent at all and came to the discussions with a premeditated result in mind... .

What absolute twaddle.

There was nothing "premeditated" about what he said, nothing at all. Just because his findings don't please you, doesn't mean they were not legit. I posted the article last night here which was based on his attempt to mediate the situation and as I said yesterday afternoon in the thread, there is a hardcore section of the residents in Croke Park who will never be pleased, no matter what happens, no matter what they are offered and surprise surprise, that is just precisely what Mulvey found he was up against.

He was also clearly with the residents in that he felt five concerts in a row was unfair and far too much to expect them to endure and so your comment suggesting he showed lack of independence is bs. He clearly went into the situation to attempt to help resolve the issue and be fair to both sides, but because you don't like what he has said, you imply he is biased and had a premeditated outcome but the truth is that you're the one who is biased as you're condemning the man's efforts just because his findings are not what you would like them to have being. Hope the irony of that is not lost on you.

His findings are nothing new by the way, as the hardcore element of the residents have always been pushing their luck down there and attempting to hold Croke Park to ransom.

Have to say I find it funny that the people saying over and over again that an agreement was made and that it should be adhered to, somehow yet still support the three concerts which have been granted licences. I mean, you either think the 2009 agreement should be followed, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I also find the faux concerns about Garth Brooks letting his fans down if not playing the three concerts to be nauseating. They are about as disingenuous as it gets and just being used to make the guy look like a money grabber, yet again. No matter that he chose Ireland and Croke Park out of pretty much anywhere in the world, nah, the guy clearly doesn't care about the Irish fans at all. Big meanie.

Look, for all those who think what he said show disrespect to his Irish fans, nothing could be further from the truth and what he was saying, was that he didn't want to discriminate against the 160,000, just because they bought tickets to the last two concerts and that he felt that they were just as important as the fans who bought tickets to the first three concerts. Seems an admirable thing to say to me but yet this is twisted to some how make the guy look greedy. Course, had he just said 'Okay so, I'll just play the three concerts', no doubt the same folks would be on here saying that he should have stuck up for the 160,000 and insisted it was all or nothing. You can't win, or at least, he couldn't as he would have been condemned for his comments no matter what he said.

Incidentally, I happen to think his response was perfect, as it showed not only does he wish to play the five concerts and not just three of them, but his comments have resulted in the powers that be working frantically to get the licences for the last two shows granted, at some stage, if not on the following Mon and Tues. Had he just excepted his fate and the fate of the 160,000 last week, then none of this would be going on. Sure.. nothing may come of it, but at least he gave himself and the 160,000 a chance by playing hardball like he has.

Who knows, they might be given the option of playing the last two shows on the following Friday and Saturday night, as most businesses in that area wouldn't be then adversely affected to the same degree they are on weekdays and as the majority of people don't work at weekends, it would be easier on the residents then also. Yes, it's unprecedented, but exceptions might be made considering the tickets have been sold, flights / hotels booked etc. Either way, anyone that thinks that Brooks might not play the Fri, Sat and Sun shows, which they have been granted licences for, are extremely gullible. Those shows mean the world to him and he is clearly just playing hardball here. It was obviously the correct and savvy thing to do and Aitken and him both know it. By doing what they have, they have made themselves open to any proposals which might be about to be put their way following today's meetings but have also simultaneously left themselves still with the option of playing the three offered. Jumping on the three last week would have been foolish.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I also find the faux concerns about Garth Brooks letting his fans down if not playing the three concerts to be nauseating. They are about as disingenuous as it gets and just being used to make the guy look like a money grabber, yet again............................

Incidentally, I happen to think his response was perfect, as it showed not only does he wish to play the five concerts and not just three of them, but his comments have resulted in the powers that be working frantically to get the licences for the last two shows granted, at some stage, if not on the following Mon and Tues. Had he just excepted his fate and the fate of the 160,000 last week, then none of this would be going on. Sure.. nothing may come of it, but at least he gave himself and the 160,000 a chance by playing hardball like he has.

So you're saying his blackmail is working ?

Skylinehead wrote: »

This argument doesn't wash with me. He's not discriminating against the 160,000 - DCC have done that for him. So it's up to him to play for the remaining 240k people or let them down - nobody else can be to blame for those concerts that were given the go ahead.

Makes no difference if it washes with you or not.

The fact that it is washing with those that make decisions is all that matters.

Business is like Poker, sometimes you have to bluff in order to get the largest pot.

Aitken and Brooks would have been fools not to bluff here as they have nothing to lose by doing so and everything to gain. This is in effect, a bluff with built in insurance, as the three concerts won't be taken off the table and so they can bluff risk free.

They might not get the two licences for the Mon and Tues, chances are they won't, nor even for Fri 1st and Sat 2nd of Aug, but it was well worth a try. As I said, grabbing the three gigs and settling as soon as it the offer was made would have been a fierce foolish thing to do altogether. What they've done instead is given themselves a chance of getting the go ahead for the gigs for those 160,000 ticket holders (which nobody else seems to give two hoots about) by doing what they have done. Fair play, hopefully it won't be vain.