Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Happyman42 · 14-07-2014 02:55PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That is part of their job...not it all though as they have been to pains to point out.

Have a look at their reasoning here and you can see that plainly.

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Press/Documents/LicenceDecisionNoticeGarthBrooks.pdf

K-9 · 14-07-2014 05:14PM

Tbh it all comes back to Croke Parks decision to go with 5, they really should have foreseen outrage from the residents. I can see why they thought they would get the go ahead with very few concerts over the last couple of years but an agreement is an agreement. I'm not particularly fond of the residents group since the stadium was redeveloped, but CP acted in bad faith leaving little trust between the 2 groups. The forgeries are a bit of a sideshow in that context and there's an element of straw grasping!

Permabear · 14-07-2014 05:28PM

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42 · 14-07-2014 05:36PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Has anyone verified the names on the petition?

At least the Times doesn't repeat the 40% claim.

Thoie · 14-07-2014 05:37PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is part of their job...not it all though as they have been to pains to point out.

Have a look at their reasoning here and you can see that plainly.

http://dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Press/Documents/LicenceDecisionNoticeGarthBrooks.pdf

So they managed to turn around the application in 11 weeks, while not skimping on the timeline to allow for observations? So if the promoters had applied at the beginning of February, having sold their 400,000 tickets by then, the decision could have been out before easter, allowing another whole 11 weeks to alter plans/resubmit and go through the entire process again, legally.

Just confirms my suspicions that the promoter deliberately delayed the application. This is not the first planning application they've made in their lives. They aren't some tuppenny hapenny crowd just starting out with their first ever planned event. They knew what they were doing, and it backfired. It's extremely disappointing for the ticket holders, but I still can't see that DCC did anything wrong.

For those who would like a new appeals process, what are you suggesting?

What are the timelines involved in your proposed appeal?
Is the promoter allow make alterations to the original submissions?
If so, how much time are you allowing for the public to make their observations?
If a member of the public has already paid their €20 to submit an observation the first time around, do they have to pay again?
If the promoter is not allowed alter their application, on what grounds should they be allowed request an appeal? What evidence would be required to show that the planners had missed an important consideration first time around? How would you define an important consideration?
Who do you want to review the appeal?
Should the fee for submitting an appeal be the same as the initial application fee?

Thoie · 14-07-2014 05:41PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If those 2,000 people were so eager for the concerts to happen, despite the agreements, and despite the impact why didn't they submit their "yes please" observations to DCC at the appropriate time? The public consultation phase allows for both agreement and objections. Would each of those 2,000 people put their money where their mouths are the next time a concert is planned, and pay €20 and write to DCC themselves?

K-9 · 14-07-2014 05:41PM

@permabear, Yes, some are for it, some aren't. My understanding is the 2,000 are mostly from the Summerhill side of the stadium. I don't know if you are familiar with CP but the Drumcondra/Cusack stand side would have more access issues. It can be a bit claustrophobic leaving the stadium there, I often leave it for 10/15 minutes until most have left. 5 concerts over 3 days was a really dumb idea for me, I couldn't see the DCC passing it, never mind GB going for it

Happyman42 · 14-07-2014 05:54PM

Thoie wrote: »

So they managed to turn around the application in 11 weeks, while not skimping on the timeline to allow for observations? So if the promoters had applied at the beginning of February, having sold their 400,000 tickets by then, the decision could have been out before easter, allowing another whole 11 weeks to alter plans/resubmit and go through the entire process again, legally.

Just confirms my suspicions that the promoter deliberately delayed the application. This is not the first planning application they've made in their lives. They aren't some tuppenny hapenny crowd just starting out with their first ever planned event. They knew what they were doing, and it backfired. It's extremely disappointing for the ticket holders, but I still can't see that DCC did anything wrong.

For those who would like a new appeals process, what are you suggesting?
What are the timelines involved in your proposed appeal?

Is the promoter allow make alterations to the original submissions?

If so, how much time are you allowing for the public to make their observations?

If a member of the public has already paid their €20 to submit an observation the first time around, do they have to pay again?

If the promoter is not allowed alter their application, on what grounds should they be allowed request an appeal? What evidence would be required to show that the planners had missed an important consideration first time around? How would you define an important consideration?

Who do you want to review the appeal?

Should the fee for submitting an appeal be the same as the initial application fee?

What form does a 'judicial review' take, as this was open to Aiken/Croke Park.
How does that work does anybody know and why wouldn't he have gone that road?
Would it provide a resolution or overturn the decision?

Permabear · 14-07-2014 06:12PM

This post has been deleted.

Thoie · 14-07-2014 06:16PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

What form does a 'judicial review' take, as this was open to Aiken/Croke Park.
How does that work does anybody know and why wouldn't he have gone that road?
Would it provide a resolution or overturn the decision?

In the case of planning you're looking at a Statutory Judicial review, which you'd have to take within 8 weeks of the decision. AFAIK that goes to the High Court - I've no idea if it would have been fast enough to allow the concerts to go ahead.

A judicial review doesn't decide on the merits of the application, it reviews whether the decision maker had the authority to make the decision (he did), the decision must be fair, and comply with the law (it's certainly legal - the fair bit would be for barristers to argue, and not in a "it's not fair little Timmy can't go to a concert" kind of way).

If the judge(s?) found that the proper process hadn't been followed they could quash the decision, at which point I presume you'd start again. The promoters may still go down that road, but I can't see it all coming together before the end of the month. I also still can't see anything that DCC did wrong that would merit taking the case, unless the promoter has good reason to believe they didn't follow proper process.

K-9 · 14-07-2014 06:25PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The streets are very narrow on the Drumcondra side moreso than other sides, if I'm correct, one of which borders the canal. I think somebody posted earlier that DCC said they'd consider it but I doubt after the whole debacle they'd give a definite answer. Part of the problem seems to be some nod, nod, wink, wink replies Aiken got from DCC initially, so I doubt they'd repeat that.

Permabear · 14-07-2014 06:29PM

This post has been deleted.

raymon · 14-07-2014 06:54PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exactly - he should agree to perform three concerts or turn the container ships around now. At least Timmy Dooley will get to go to the one of the three concerts then and there wont be any need to immediately change the legislation to accomodate him.

Then the government can take a proper look at what went wrong and change the events planning legislation to have a proper, transparent appeals process,

Thoie · 14-07-2014 07:15PM

raymon wrote: »

Then the government can take a proper look at what went wrong and change the events planning legislation to have a proper, transparent appeals process,

I'm still not convinced that an appeals process would have helped in this scenario, and no-one's given any reasons as to why an appeal would have worked. Other than "ah go on, go on, go on", what would have changed?

80,000 extra people at rush hour on a Monday and Tuesday is still very disruptive. Concert-goers taking a few hours to leave the place on a Monday/Tuesday night (after 3+ previous days of disruption) is still disruptive. 5 days of disturbed sleep in a row would be close to torture for me (though other people are nicer than I am).

kippy · 14-07-2014 07:19PM

Thoie wrote: »

I'm still not convinced that an appeals process would have helped in this scenario, and no-one's given any reasons as to why an appeal would have worked. Other than "ah go on, go on, go on", what would have changed?

80,000 extra people at rush hour on a Monday and Tuesday is still very disruptive. Concert-goers taking a few hours to leave the place on a Monday/Tuesday night (after 3+ previous days of disruption) is still disruptive. 5 days of disturbed sleep in a row would be close to torture for me (though other people are nicer than I am).

Yep. People who are unhappy with the process are generally ones who have tickets and arrangements made.
The DCC gave 3 nights and ultimately the decision not do do 3 nights came from GB.

gandalf · 14-07-2014 07:44PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That article clearly states that DCC brought the Gardai in to investigate when they became suspicious. Surely it stands to reason that they also set aside those objections.

A compromise was made by DCC that they had no obligation to make and the so called star refused it. At this stage we should all move on and if changes need to be made to legislation the politicians should debate and amend the law to prevent a cock up like this happening again.

Dan_Solo · 14-07-2014 08:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The pro-GB side would have more credibility too if the best they have is "some random amount of objections may have been fraudulent said somebody."

Dan_Solo · 14-07-2014 08:17PM

K-9 wrote: »

Part of the problem seems to be some nod, nod, wink, wink replies Aiken got from DCC initially, so I doubt they'd repeat that.

Source? Aiken? "a source"?

K-9 · 14-07-2014 08:26PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Source? Aiken? "a source"?

Should have put according to, but tbh I've no reason to doubt him. There may have been some wires crossed in his version and what was meant by DCC.

Dan_Solo · 14-07-2014 08:33PM

K-9 wrote: »

Should have put according to, but tbh I've no reason to doubt him. There may have been some wires crossed in his version and what was meant by DCC.

You have no reason to doubt the story of one side in this argument who stands to personally lose oodles of cash?
mmmmmk....

Thoie · 14-07-2014 10:02PM

All concerts definitely cancelled - refunds will go ahead.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0714/630770-garth-brooks/

Dan_Solo · 14-07-2014 10:14PM

Thoie wrote: »

All concerts definitely cancelled - refunds will go ahead.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0714/630770-garth-brooks/

Stuck to their guns. Fair play to them just this once.

Happyman42 · 14-07-2014 10:55PM

Excellent...proud for once and gutted for genuine fans.

gandalf · 14-07-2014 11:32PM

Thank god that is over with. Now get back to doing your jobs politicians!

raymon · 14-07-2014 11:43PM

Great news! Hopefully this will all end now.
Obviously sorry for real fans .

Except for one .......What will Timmy Dooley do now with no concert to go to ?

Happyman42 · 14-07-2014 11:45PM

What now...huge writs?
Will be interesting to see what comes out in the wash and if Aiken can survive.
It's all gonna hurt.

Permabear · 14-07-2014 11:47PM

This post has been deleted.

Cerco · 14-07-2014 11:47PM

raymon wrote: »

Great news! Hopefully this will all end now.
Obviously sorry for real fans .

Except for one .......What will Timmy Dooley do now with no concert to go to ?

He will be okay cause "he's got friends in low places":)

K-9 · 14-07-2014 11:50PM

Interesting one, surely Aiken would be covered by acts of God! Seriously, DCC decisions would be outside his control so maybe he's covered that way? Tough on the fans but thing seemed to spiral and that includes GB.

Thoie · 14-07-2014 11:55PM

K-9 wrote: »

Interesting one, surely Aiken would be covered by acts of God! Seriously, DCC decisions would be outside his control so maybe he's covered that way? Tough on the fans but thing seemed to spiral and that includes GB.

Obviously depends on his insurance, but I'd be surprised if this was covered. For example, if I never serviced my car, and ignored engine warning lights, and crashed because of a mechanical failure, I'd expect my motor insurance company to tell me tough chucks, my own negligence led to the problem.

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Comments