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

osarusan · 08-07-2014 01:54PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

This post sums up the vast majority of people that so vehemently opposed to the concerts being salvaged. You all just really want to see people disappointed and chaos ensuing for the ticket holders who have booked flights, hotels etc. Comes across as really immature and shows that resident agreements being breached are far from what motivates you hundreds of posts on this thread, each, as it's really just an opportunity for many of you to point and laugh, ala Nelson Muntz.

From the poster who warns people in the area to beware of damage to their wing mirrors....your hypocrisy has no limits.

SteM · 08-07-2014 01:59PM

osarusan wrote: »

From the poster who warns people in the area to beware of damage to their wing mirrors....your hypocrisy has no limits.

Ah come on, it was JOKE... like most of his/her posts on this thread.

jack presley · 08-07-2014 02:03PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I'm no fan Fianna Fail, but their Bill proposal which would allow Government to overturn council decisions is surely needed.

While I agree that the whole licensing process needs a rethink and that there needs to be some sort of appeal process, the last thing I'd be in favour of is the Government being allowed to overturn the decision. Then what we'd get is more of what we got from SF/FF last night and politicians playing to the media in the hope of getting votes at the next election.

Planning has An Bord Pleanala, maybe licensing should have an independent appeal body too?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 08-07-2014 02:06PM

osarusan wrote: »

From the poster who warns people in the area to beware of damage to their wing mirrors....your hypocrisy has no limits.

By suggesting that what I am saying now is hypocritical because at the start of thread I said that car vandalism was a distinct possibility if the two concerts don't go ahead on the back of resident objections.. you are therefore implying that I was somehow advocating the vandalism that I was predicting could occur.

In short: cop on.

Predicting something is not advocating it.

Thoie · 08-07-2014 02:12PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I'm no fan Fianna Fail, but their Bill proposal which would allow Government to overturn council decisions is surely needed. If not now, then at some point in the future and it's ludicrous situation that local council can make a decision to refuse a licence for a concert when tickets have already been sold for it, especially when the fact that tickets can be sold for unlicensed events is Government's fault to begin with. Until that idiotic state of affairs is dealt with, then a bill like the following is what is needed:

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2014/07/planning-and-development-amendment-bill-2014.pdf

Seriously - that's like a bad joke. "Fianna Fail want the government to be able to overturn planning decisions". They fecking did it for years, and look where it got us.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 08-07-2014 02:19PM

Thoie wrote: »

Seriously - that's like a bad joke. "Fianna Fail want the government to be able to overturn planning decisions". They fecking did it for years, and look where it got us.

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

iguana · 08-07-2014 02:23PM

SteM wrote: »

What 'vendors' are you talking about? Musicians don't book themselves into venues like Croke Park you know? That's all done through agents that handle clients that can fill out the likes of Croker are few and far between. There are not many major promoters in this country. In the group of artists that can sell out the likes of Slane, Croker, Lansdowne, Pheonix Park etc the agents know the promoters etc.

With regard to this, I feel Brooks is something of a "victim" here too. While he's undoubtedly a savvy business man every bit as much, if not more than, a musician. He would have trusted Aiken to be a professional when it came to organising the venue. I doubt he has a clue about the realities of the location of Croke Park and the difficulties caused to the residents. I doubt Aiken was keeping him informed that the concerts might not get licenses and, knowing quite a bit about how the media works, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he was informed that the Monday and Tuesday gigs not being licensed in a way that words were put in his mouth about cancelling the other 3.

jack presley · 08-07-2014 02:24PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

I feel like we're going round in circles here but the only reason the decision was made 3 weeks before the gigs was because the licence application was only lodged in April and legislation allows a 10 week period. Which brings us back to the issue that the law needs reforming but no to the extent that politicians can overrule a decision. I'd love to see the arguments on whether something is 'exceptional' or not.

OldGoat · 08-07-2014 02:25PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

It's no less farcical that an astute business man many years in the business being 'shocked' at having permissions turned down.

Happyman42 · 08-07-2014 02:25PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

He is not a 'member' of local government, he has been given a job to make decisions without succumbing to interference from 'local government', national government and vested interests. Exactly the kind of things that got us where we are today.
Don't you remember city managers being caught trying to take huge amounts of cash out of the country? :rolleyes:

First Up · 08-07-2014 02:28PM

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah....your 12 posts in the last 4 hours make me think differently.

Nope, just trying to spread some reason and enlightenment - as always.

Looking at it logically; the current situation is a zero sum - either Brooks and the fans get their five gigs or somewhere between 160,000 and 400,000 people are disappointed, along with the collateral damage in cancelled trips, hotels and lost business.

The ONLY possibly win-win is some sort of deal that satisfies - or assuages - the residents and allows everyone who wants to enjoy the show.

In that situation, I would just like the City Council stand back to let the parties concerned see if a deal can be done. Maybe it can't, which is fair enough. I just don't like to see Keegan or whoever is calling the shots in the Council prevent that possibility being explored.

First Up · 08-07-2014 02:30PM

SteM wrote: »

It was? I thought they didn't grant licenses for 2 of the 5 and then the artist made an ultimatum of 5 or nothing? How did the 'City Council' pull the plug on 5 gigs?

Correction acknowledged - "who pulled the plug on three of the five gigs."

Menas · 08-07-2014 02:31PM

First Up wrote: »

Nope, just trying to spread some reason and enlightenment - as always.

Looking at it logically; the current situation is a zero sum - either Brooks and the fans get their five gigs or somewhere between 160,000 and 400,000 people are disappointed, along with the collateral damage in cancelled trips, hotels and lost business.

The ONLY possibly win-win is some sort of deal that satisfies - or assuages - the residents and allows everyone who wants to enjoy the show.

In that situation, I would just like the City Council stand back to let the parties concerned see if a deal can be done. Maybe it can't, which is fair enough. I just don't like to see Keegan or whoever is calling the shots in the Council prevent that possibility being explored.

But there is no way to change the decision. No appeal allowed under current legislation.

And if the government try to rush thru legislation to change the licencing laws to allow these deals to be done then I will be the first to protest outside Leinster house.

First Up · 08-07-2014 02:34PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

But there is no way to change the decision. No appeal allowed under current legislation.

And if the government try to rush thru legislation to change the licencing laws to allow these deals to be done then I will be the first to protest outside Leinster house.

I'm not talking about an appeal. I'm talking about the Council having the power to review its own decision if it wants to.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 08-07-2014 02:34PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

He is not a 'member' of local government, he has been given a job to make decisions without succumbing to interference from 'local government', national government and vested interests. Exactly the kind of things that got us where we are today.
Don't you remember city managers being caught trying to take huge amounts of cash out of the country? :rolleyes:

Apologies, meant local council and what you are saying would be fine if there wasn't a big hole in the system in that tickets for events are traditionally, and legally, sold before the licensing has been issued. If that were not the case, then I don't think anyone would which to see this decision being overruled. Were it legally necessary to have a licence for an event before tickets could be sold, and these two dates refused before a ticket was sold, then nobody would be suggesting that Government step in.

The only reason anyone feels emergency measures need to implemented is because of the calamity situation that 160,000 people have been able to buy tickets to concerts which have been refused licences just mere weeks before they were due to take place.

Trigger Happy wrote: »

But there is no way to change the decision. No appeal allowed under current legislation.

Current being the operative word, which is precisely why people are calling for new legislation.

L'Enfer du Nord · 08-07-2014 02:35PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

That member of local government is acting within legislation created by central government. What's farcical is that the promoters went ahead and sold tickets for five concerts they didn't have permission for. If the Government passes 'emergency' legislation to facilitate this idea that rules are there to be broken clearly we've learnt nothing from the Celtic Tiger Boom/bust which was characterised by this 'feck regulations, Charge!...sure isn't it great for the country' attitude.

SteM · 08-07-2014 02:36PM

iguana wrote: »

With regard to this, I feel Brooks is something of a "victim" here too. While he's undoubtedly a savvy business man every bit as much, if not more than, a musician. He would have trusted Aiken to be a professional when it came to organising the venue. I doubt he has a clue about the realities of the location of Croke Park and the difficulties caused to the residents. I doubt Aiken was keeping him informed that the concerts might not get licenses and, knowing quite a bit about how the media works, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he was informed that the Monday and Tuesday gigs not being licensed in a way that words were put in his mouth about cancelling the other 3.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this at all. People in all walks of life put a lot of their business in the hands of professionals and trust them to do things correctly. Things were not done correctly during this process, the promoter overcommited and it's biting him in the arse.

I still think Brooks could have come out of it smelling like roses by saying something along the lines of 'Well I understand you all have your own planning laws, I'm so sorry that I can't play for 5 nights but we'll tear it up and have 3 great nights instead, Can't wait Dublin!' (Shout Yeehaw, wave stetson and grin).

No one could have been critical then.

smileyj1987 · 08-07-2014 02:36PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

It's only for events and allows Government to step in only when there is an exceptional circumstance.

It's farcical that a member of local Government can make a decision to refuse licence on an event which 160,000 tickets have been sold for, just three weeks before that event is due to take place.

It's not a farce and never will be a farce . It's the best way of doing the process . The man will look at all the facts and make his decision about the concerts based on facts !!!
If it was a few people making the decision then it will make the process run for longer and become more complicated . So yeah this is the best way to handle the licenses .

jack presley · 08-07-2014 02:36PM

First Up wrote: »

I'm not talking about an appeal. I'm talking about the Council having the power to review its own decision if it wants to.

I'd prefer an independent body looking at appeals as opposed to the council reviewing their own decision.

slimjimmc · 08-07-2014 02:37PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Apologies, meant local council and what you are saying would be fine if there wasn't a big hole in the system in that tickets for events are traditionally, and legally, sold before the licensing has been issued. If that were not the case, then I don't think anyone would which to see this decision being overruled. Were it legally necessary to have a licence for an event before tickets could be sold, and these two dates refused before a ticket was sold, then nobody would be suggesting that Government step in.

The only reason anyone feels emergency measures need to implemented is because of the calamity situation that 160,000 people have been able to buy tickets to concerts which have been refused licences just mere weeks before they were due to take place.

It already is, the law prohibiting promoting an event without having first secured a licence has been pointed out many times in this thread.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 08-07-2014 02:40PM

slimjimmc wrote: »

It already is, the law prohibiting promoting an event without having first secured a licence has been pointed out many times in this thread.

I'm talking about laws that are traditionally enforced, not covered in dust.

I've been at gigs in Marley Park where days before where still subject to licence.

First Up · 08-07-2014 02:40PM

jack presley wrote: »

I'd prefer an independent body looking at appeals as opposed to the council reviewing their own decision.

That would create a whole new layer of administration and I suspect a legal minefield. My only point in all this is that IF the parties concerned are able to reach a compromise they should be allowed do so and not be prevented from doing so by the Council.

Happyman42 · 08-07-2014 02:40PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Apologies, meant local council and what you are saying would be fine if there wasn't a big hole in the system in that tickets for events are traditionally, and legally, sold before the licensing has been issued. If that were not the case, then I don't think anyone would which to see this decision being overruled. Were it legally necessary to have a licence for an event before tickets could be sold, and these two dates refused before a ticket was sold, then nobody would be suggesting that Government step in.

The only reason anyone feels emergency measures need to implemented is because of the calamity situation that 160,000 people have been able to buy tickets to concerts which have been refused licences just mere weeks before they were due to take place.

How about people accepting the words 'subject to licence'? Solves the whole problem.
I routinely accept conditions of sale and clauses in contracts.
As somebody pointed out earlier, having to get the licence before starting to ascertain demand presents a whole different set of problems and deterrents to even thinking about holding an event.

The system has worked fine up until now, the clusterf**k happened because the promoter and The GAA ignored agreements and oversold the venue knowingly. And the artist's intervention has done nothing to help the situation either.

smileyj1987 · 08-07-2014 02:41PM

jack presley wrote: »

I'd prefer an independent body looking at appeals as opposed to the council reviewing their own decision.

An independent body that could be open to the whole brown envelope treatment . Em no thanks

Caliden · 08-07-2014 02:42PM

Personally I think the majority of the blame is with Dublin County Council.

When the application was made in April they should have told Aiken that 5 days in a row was impossible and to revise their plan or change the venue.

Lord Henry voiced his opinion on the matter recently and said that if he made the same application to Meath county council they would have told him flat out that it wasn't possible.

Aiken/GAA at the same time should not have sold tickets without consulting with DCC and if they did then DCC dropped the ball.

Menas · 08-07-2014 02:42PM

smileyj1987 wrote: »

An independent body that could be open to the whole brown envelope treatment . Em no thanks

As opposed to elected officials who could be open to the whole brown envelope treatment? And populist vote getting moves?

eeepaulo · 08-07-2014 02:43PM

do they only have three clips of video of him?

there is the one with the basball cap on

the one of him runnning up and down the ramp

the one with him, arms spread, infront of the crowd

There must be something else

jack presley · 08-07-2014 02:43PM

smileyj1987 wrote: »

An independent body that could be open to the whole brown envelope treatment . Em no thanks

do you hear of any brown envelopes with An Bord Pleanala these days? That's the kind of body I'm on about.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 08-07-2014 02:43PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

The system has worked fine up until now, the clusterf**k happened because the promoter and The GAA ignored agreements and oversold the venue knowingly. And the artist's intervention has done nothing to help the situation either.

I wholeheartedly agree, but the wrong people are going to be paying the price here. Predominantly: the ticket holders and the artist.

I would have no problem with Aitken and the GAA being banned from holding concerts at Croke Park for five years due to their idiocy here.

First Up · 08-07-2014 02:44PM

Trigger Happy wrote: »

As opposed to elected officials who could be open to the whole brown envelope treatment? And populist vote getting moves?

Or a non-elected official digging his heels in because it makes him feel powerful.

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

Comments