raymon wrote: » That original story you linked to is bogus. Alan Kelly has ruled out his political interference in planning process for the eventhttp://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/environment-minister-not-able-to-intervene-in-brooks-decision-636257.html
Sierra Oscar wrote: » Irish Examiner reporting that Minister Kelly is trying to negotiate a satisfactory outcome to allow the concerts to take place. Would be great if he is successful.New Minister Alan Kelly negotiating Brooks concerts
kippy wrote: » I don't disagree, but selling 400K tickets "subject to license" is not in any way feasible if you think about it. It is okay to say to punters that the tickets are subject to license however, when a punter buys a ticket for such a big event some have to make a lot of arrangements (accomodation, holidays etc etc) to get to that event. The timelines involved mean they have to commit to a lot of things before the license has been granted. Why would they buy tickets in future and commit to such a thing if the license hasn't yet been granted? (It hasnt stopped people buying tickets in the past but it might make people think twice.) Perhaps for certain events (numbers over X) a license should be granted before tickets are sold.
Happyman42 wrote: » If nothing else it is a timely reminder to punters that 'subject to licence' mean exactly as it says, buyer beware. Personally I think changing the system will threaten smaller less well known, harder sold gigs.
kippy wrote: » I dont either being honest and I agree with all of the above. However, I still don't believe it is a good idea letting organisations sell tickets for events before permission for said event has been granted - as you said it can lead to pressure being put on many individuals (as is happening here) with somewhat of a gun to their head as there are already thousands of tickets out there with time and money invested by many people. The past two weeks have been nothing short of farcical and has done untold damage to the reputation of the state, whomever you think to be in the right/wrong. The cancellation of the 2 gigs hasnt been the issue in my opinion but the subsequent clutching at straws has been far worse.
Happyman42 wrote: » I am not sure in light of listening to Mountcharles if I would make any. I will decide after Dail Committee gets some clarity on Aiken/Croke Park's behaviour. If it turns out (as I suspect) that they tried to pressure a decision well I don't see why we should change a system that has worked quite well.
kippy wrote: » The reason these promotors dont want to see it change is purely because they wont have the "on the fly" options of increasing the number of gigs they sell tickets for. I cant see any other downsides to be honest. It just means more organizing for them. Thats the only viable change that can and should be made to the law as far as I can see. I dont think its "kneejerk" in the slightest as whatever changes will be made will very plainly not be made in the short term. What changes do you think should be made?
Happyman42 wrote: » Yet other major promoters, MCD, Mountcharles and Electric Picnic have all been on record as saying that it work quite well, and the evidence would suggest that it does too. They all pointed to the fact that 'getting a livence prior' presents all sorts of problems too. So kneejerk responses here may work against the very viability of future gigs. Which would be a bad outcome.
kippy wrote: » The shortcomings in the licensing process is blatantly obvious and has been for years. The shortcoming being the fact that tickets should not be sold for events that are yet to get a license. That is all that needs to be changed with the licensing laws as far as I can see.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
raymon wrote: » I dont think using the word retarded in relation to Fianna Fail helps the debate. There are thousands of other words you could jave chosen.
