Garth Brooks concerts cancelled - READ FIRST POST FOR MOD NOTES

hynesie08 · 13-07-2014 01:30PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

Was he though?

Calina · 13-07-2014 01:30PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

citation required for him being told it would be a mere formality.

The fact that it wasn't a formality, btw, is evidence against your assertion of corruption but that's another day's work.

muddypaws · 13-07-2014 01:31PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

Who told him that?

Peppa Pig · 13-07-2014 01:33PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Even Peter Aiken confirms your post is a pile of nonsense.

Peter adds he had meetings with Dublin City manager Owen Keegan in relation to the Brooks concerts.

And he led you believe that five concerts would be okay? "He didn't lead me to believe that," Peter says,

Proof

Happyman42 · 13-07-2014 01:35PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

How long have Aiken been getting licences? If this office is corrupt or has been corrupt maybe the likelihood is that Aiken was distributing 'brown envelopes' over the last 50 years and that this time...at long last they weren't accepted?

secman · 13-07-2014 01:36PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

the same way you can about a world class selling artist

Apart from Ireland and US where else in the world would there be any demand ? And as I typed Ireland my heart sank a little ,really really am bemused by his blind support over here.

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:36PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Even Peter Aiken confirms your post is a pile of nonsense.

lol I suppose you can always ignore the actual headline . . . .

You should work for DCC, you'd be perfect for them

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue "

Reformed Character · 13-07-2014 01:37PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

First point is disputed.
Second is defamatory!

nxbyveromdwjpg · 13-07-2014 01:38PM

jonnny68 wrote: »

The Stone Roses would.

That would be great but not a hope, their Phoenix Park gig didn't sell out and it's half the capacity

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:39PM

secman wrote: »

Apart from Ireland and US where else in the world would there be any demand ? And as I typed Ireland my heart sank a little ,really really am bemused by his blind support over here.

Come back to us when you sell 190 million records . . . .

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:40PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

First point is disputed.
Second is defamatory!

DCC are internationality known and famous for their planning corruption and scandals

muddypaws · 13-07-2014 01:41PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Even Peter Aiken confirms your post is a pile of nonsense.

Thats interesting, seems as though we've all been wrong about this whole thing, reading that, Aiken isn't saying the shows will bring €50m into the Irish economy, he actually said it would be €50m per show. Now I'm not an economist, and my maths isn't great, but each concert goer would be spending around €625?

Peppa Pig · 13-07-2014 01:42PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

lol I suppose you can always ignore the actual headline . . . .

You should work for DCC, you'd be perfect for them

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue "

I have just proven to you that the only person who mattered never told him this. If you cannot see this then there is nothing more I can do for you.
Keep throwing slander at DCC. I am sure you can back your allegations up in court.:rolleyes:

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:44PM

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I have just proven to you that the only person who mattered never told him this. If you cannot see this then there is nothing more I can do for you.
Keep throwing slander at DCC. I am sure you can back your allegations up in court.:rolleyes:

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue " - You can try to ignore the headline all you wish.

The planning tribunal proved all we need to know about DCC and planning corruption in Ireland. Even the planning objections DCC accepted were forged.

visual · 13-07-2014 01:45PM

jonnny68 wrote: »

What is it with (predominantly culchies) and this Yankee red neck, we're a laughing stock of Europe, a source of great amusement to those other countries, major cringeworthy.

IIn the week where you have innocent Palestinians murdered by Israel and bigots up the north celebrating their "culture" (sic) not to mention Greyhound workers still locked out, etc, etc news that actually matter yet we're subjected to this circus in the media who have to take a long hard look at themselves

Im sure they have their own threads and wouldn't appreciate GB discussion in there as it would be considered off topic

hynesie08 · 13-07-2014 01:45PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue " - You can try to ignore the headline all you wish.

The planning tribunal proved all we need to know about DCC

We ignore the headline because the actual story refutes it.

Pumpkinseeds · 13-07-2014 01:46PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Christ you people are stooping low..

The president of a hospital clearly thought Brooks was a soft touch and squeezed him for $500,000 to build a women's centre and even sweet talked him about putting up a plaque for his mother to secure the cash.. After seven years, Brooks found out they had never used the money for a women's centre at all and had used the money for other projects, none of which included a plaque honouring the late Mrs.Brooks. This hospital was in his hometown by the way and so obviously would have meant a lot to him. A jury agreed with him and awarded him $1m (which included his original donation).

Took money from the sick and dying. I suggest applying to a red top for a position, as you clearly have what it takes.

It was his home town. All 12 jurors admitted that they knew who he was. He claimed that the money was donated anonymously and without strings attached yet he also claims that a building was to be not only named after his mother, her name would be in neon lights on the hospital building, so hardly an anonymous donation at all. It was one persons word against anothers.

Suing a hospital is as low as it gets really. He got double what he donated, that money will have come out of the hospital budget and will have affected the poorest of the poor. Jesus, GB fans will ye please wake up and see the tacky fat bastard as the cheap money grabbing lard ass prick that he really is.

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:46PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

We ignore the headline because the actual story refutes it.

Or rather it selectively suits

Either the newspaper, it's reporting, the article and its headline is reputable and accurate, or it's not, which is it ?

Cienciano · 13-07-2014 01:47PM

I think everyone needs to have a read of Gene Kerrigan's article in todays Sindo.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/superstar-garth-brooks-charlie-in-a-cowboy-hat-30427041.html

hynesie08 · 13-07-2014 01:49PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Either the headline and the article are reputable and accurate or they are not, which is it ?

Both, He was never led to believe he wasn't getting the license is a true statement.

But so is owen keegan never told him he was getting them.

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:50PM

Cienciano wrote: »

I think everyone needs to have a read of Gene Kerrigan's article in todays Sindo.

Agree, so everyone can remind themselves what a fact less personal opinion column from the Indo looks like.

Cienciano · 13-07-2014 01:54PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Agree, so everyone can remind themselves what a fact less personal opinion column from the Indo looks like.

I think you need to go and look up what "factless" means.

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:54PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Both, He was never led to believe he wasn't getting the license is a true statement.

But so is owen keegan never told him he was getting them.

So is the headline accurate and therefore article accurate and factual or not ?

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue "

Ace2007 · 13-07-2014 01:55PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

@EOTR

I see you still haven't acknowledge this.

In fact refusing to accept you were proven wrong, just shows everyone how pathetic your arguments are, you post constantly on these threads, telling everyone else they are wrong, but when someone proves to you there you are wrong, your ignore it and keep on criticising others.

Must be Sad to live with this mentality.

I've decided that it this is just a pointless argument, Folk like EOTR clearly just respond to what they want to and will never admit they are wrong.

So won't be back posting on here unless he replies (as he's skipped over it about 3 times at least he won't).

Reformed Character · 13-07-2014 01:56PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

So is the headline accurate and therefore article accurate and factual or not ?

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue "

And DCC insist that from the outset they made the promoter fully aware of their concerns regarding holding 5 concerts.

Jim Rockford · 13-07-2014 01:58PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

And DCC insist that from the outset they made the promoter fully aware of their concerns regarding holding 5 concerts.

DCC are internationally well know for their truthfullness, competence, and track record in planning matters . . . lol

hynesie08 · 13-07-2014 01:59PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

So is the headline accurate and therefore article accurate and factual or not ?

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue "

Nice attempt at deflection, What you said was

Jim Rockford wrote: »

And was told repeatedly and led to believe, like every other concert in Ireland, it would be a mere formality.

Guess he didn't read the brown envelope clause.

So who told him? It wasn't Owen Keegan.

Peppa Pig · 13-07-2014 01:59PM

.

Peter Aiken wrote:

I was lead to believe I would get the 5 licences no problem

Owen Keegan wrote:

Not by me you weren't

Peter Aiken wrote:

He never did lead me to believe that

Peter Aiken wrote:

Cienciano · 13-07-2014 02:02PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've decided that it this is just a pointless argument, Folk like EOTR clearly just respond to what they want to and will never admit they are wrong.

So won't be back posting on here unless he replies (as he's skipped over it about 3 times at least he won't).

Garth Brooks is a man who sued a hospital because they didn't use his anonymous donation the way he wanted it. I reckon if he turned out to be a serial killer that wears peoples faces the fans on here would still make excuses for him.
The article in the sindo summed it up nicely. Garth Brooks hasn't heard the word "no" since 1990.

Ace2007 · 13-07-2014 02:02PM

Jim Rockford wrote: »

"Garth Brooks promoter Peter Aiken insists he was led to believe getting a licence for fourth and fifth shows would not be an issue " - You can try to ignore the headline all you wish.

The planning tribunal proved all we need to know about DCC and planning corruption in Ireland. Even the planning objections DCC accepted were forged.

Just on this before I sign off on this thread - I will quote what aiken said... "He didn't lead me to believe (that it would be ok to get a licence)"

Peter adds he had meetings with Dublin City manager Owen Keegan in relation to the Brooks concerts.And he led you believe that five concerts would be okay? "He didn't lead me to believe that," Peter says, "because they [Dublin City Council] are not going to say that, because you have to submit all the details. If I say, 'I want to do a Garth Brooks concert on a certain date', they say, 'get it in on paper and we'll have a look at it -

Garth Brooks concerts cancelled - **READ FIRST POST FOR MOD NOTES**

Comments

Garth Brooks concerts cancelled - READ FIRST POST FOR MOD NOTES