Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 19-07-2014 06:27PM

kippy wrote: »

Whats bizarre was the joke that has taken place in the time since the decision was announced and the lack of interest GB had in playing to 240k people, indeed its also been apparant he turned down a number of compromises which was as far backwards a bend as DCC bent.

What Garth Brooks did and did not choose to do after Owen Keegan's phone call on July 2nd informing Aiken of his decision, has little if anything to do with what caused the mess to begin with. The fault lies with the application process and those involved in it.

Some people seem to think because the end result is something they are happy with, that this somehow means that the system is fine but how could it be when 1) you can sell so many tickets unlicenced and it has become common practice and 2) concerts end up cancelled just three weeks before they are due to take place.

There also seems to be some suggestion that people would like the nod and the wink politics back in this country if they are anything other than supportive of Owen Keegan's actions and that is absurd. People who agree with the decision made do not have the monopoly on wanting our political system to have integrity and be immune from corruption. Far from it.

I hope there is an independent review and a thorough one at that.

raymon · 19-07-2014 06:41PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

There also seems to be some suggestion that people would like the nod and the wink politics back in this country if they are anything other than supportive of Owen Keegan's actions and that is absurd. People who agree with the decision made do not have the monopoly on wanting our political system to have integrity and be immune from corruption. Far from it.

I hope there is an independent review and a thorough one at that.

Who said that? Nobody said anything of the like.

What I said was that Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

This is the old way of doing things . It is gone .

BeerSteakBirds · 19-07-2014 07:08PM

I dont know whats more important ... Garth Brooks or Seagulls.

Dan_Solo · 19-07-2014 07:26PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Some people seem to think because the end result is something they are happy with, that this somehow means that the system is fine

I don't think there's anywhere near as many think that as disgruntled C+W fans who think because the end result was something they weren't happy with, that this somehow means that the system is awful.

Dan_Solo · 19-07-2014 07:33PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What's obvious about it? Unless you are making the case that these 5 concerts would have a profound effect on the Croke Park area, enough to make it a conflict of interest?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 19-07-2014 09:28PM

raymon wrote: »

What I said was that Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

You suggest that Dooley (amoung others, but lets take him for the moment) thinks that because Keegan said he supported five concerts, that this to him means that the planning process would be "circumvented" or least would be an "irrelevance". Do you have anything to back this indictment up? Cause nothing I have seen Dooley say whatsoever should lead anybody to think that he believes such a thing. Seems to me, that a lot of people would like this to be the case, but bandying it about doesn't make it so. In fact, on contrary to what you suggest, Dooley has said a lot which makes it abundantly clear that he does not think the process should in anyway be circumvented:

"I don't question in any shape or form the way in which the event licence procedure was applied. I don't think there is anybody in this house that has any issue with the way in which you followed procedure. I think you followed it in way in which it should be followed".

Dooley also posed a question about the offer of the 4th night and said:

"You were prepared to give four if Mr.Keogan acted"

The use of the word 'if' here and his referencing of Keogan, also clearly shows us that he both, understood the licence application process, and indeed, supported it. At no stage did him give a contrary view to this.

In fact it was Dooley that teased the truth from Keegan regarding his support for all five concerts. He had not mentioned this previous. Not even in his 15 minute opening speech. He had in fact, skirted around it, by constantly using absolutes such as: 'I gave no assurance..', 'There was no certainty.. etc etc.

Fact of the matter here is that licences were refused for concerts three weeks before they were due to take place, and the reasons given for this refusal were for factors that were (as Dooley said) blindingly obvious five months previously. Those factors of course were 1) Over-intensification of the area 2) number of concerts would set a precedence. Which begs the question: why give the impression that you support the concerts all through the process of application, if the reasons you end up refusing to licence them are for issues which have been known all along.

This was put to Keegan, but yet again he started speaking in absolutes, saying if he had said 'no way' and 'refused to take calls' etc etc, that this would have been wrong, thereby avoiding the question, as it's not like Keegan only had just two options of response open to him: imply full support or tell Croke Park / Aiken to take a hike.

This is the old way of doing things . It is gone .

You started off your post by asking who said the very thing which you again imply with this last line the post and so I will just quote myself and in response:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

There also seems to be some suggestion that people would like the nod and the wink politics back in this country if they are anything other than supportive of Owen Keegan's actions and that is absurd. People who agree with the decision made do not have the monopoly on wanting our political system to have integrity and be immune from corruption. Far from it.

Mr.Micro · 19-07-2014 09:43PM

BeerSteakBirds wrote: »

I dont know whats more important ... Garth Brooks or Seagulls.

Seagulls....easy.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 19-07-2014 09:44PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think there's anywhere near as many think that as disgruntled C+W fans who think because the end result was something they weren't happy with, that this somehow means that the system is awful.

I am not a county and western fan and in fact, the vast majority of people that I see that have taken issue with how DCC conducted themselves, were not either. This is about a licence application process that failed, for one reason or another, and resulted in concerts being cancelled and refused licences, just three weeks before they were to take place and which close to 400,000 tickets had been sold for (and all that that entails, with regards to booked flights, hotels etc).

No matter what people think the cause of that is, one thing I am pretty sure of is: it has feck all to do with country and western music.

raymon · 19-07-2014 10:03PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You suggest that Dooley (amoung others, but lets take him for the moment) thinks that because Keegan said he supported five concerts, that this to him means that the planning process would be "circumvented" or least would be an "irrelevance". Do you have anything to back this indictment up? Cause nothing I have seen Dooley say whatsoever should lead anybody to think that he believes such a thing. Seems to me, that a lot of people would like this to be the case, but bandying it about doesn't make it so. In fact, on contrary to what you suggest, Dooley has said a lot which makes it abundantly clear that he does not think the process should in anyway be circumvented:

Dooley also posed a question about the offer of the 4th night and said:

The use of the word 'if' here and his referencing of Keogan, also clearly shows us that he both, understood the licence application process, and indeed, supported it. At no stage did him give a contrary view to this.

In fact it was Dooley that teased the truth from Keegan regarding his support for all five concerts. He had not mentioned this previous. Not even in his 15 minute opening speech. He had in fact, skirted around it, by constantly using absolutes such as: 'I gave no assurance..', 'There was no certainty.. etc etc.

Fact of the matter here is that licences were refused for concerts three weeks before they were due to take place, and the reasons given for this refusal were for factors that were (as Dooley said) blindingly obvious five months previously. Those factors of course were 1) Over-intensification of the area 2) number of concerts would set a precedence. Which begs the question: why give the impression that you support the concerts all through the process of application, if the reasons you end up refusing to licence them are for issues which have been known all along.

This was put to Keegan, but yet again he started speaking in absolutes, saying if he had said 'no way' and 'refused to take calls' etc etc, that this would have been wrong, thereby avoiding the question, as it's not like Keegan only had just two options of response open to him: imply full support or tell Croke Park / Aiken to take a hike.

You started off your post by asking who said the very thing which you again imply with this last line the post and so I will just quote myself and in response:

Please read my post again and stop misquoting me.

i did not state that dooley thought that the process should be circumvented. You said " In fact, on contrary to what you suggest, Dooley has said a lot which makes it abundantly clear that he does not think the process should in anyway be circumvented:" I did not suggest this in any way

i was stating that these people seem to have misinterpreted the "support" offered by the city manager meant that there was some assurance given outside of the normal process.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 19-07-2014 10:45PM

raymon wrote: »

Please read my post again and stop misquoting me.

i did not state that dooley thought that the process should be circumvented.

I never said you stated that Dooley thought the process "should" be circumvented.

In fact, I cut and pasted the end of your sentence into mine, making damn sure I quoted precisely what you said and so perhaps you could take your own advice about reading posts.

Here is the quote from your post along with my reply:

raymon wrote: »

...Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You suggest that Dooley thinks that because Keegan said he supported five concerts, that this to him means that the planning process would be "circumvented" or least would be an irrelevance.

I stated that from Dooley's words in the Oireachtas, he was very clear about the fact that he in no way felt that the process should be circumvented, as he made a point of making it clear that he fully supported the licence application process.

So, I again put the same question to you again:

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

You suggest that Dooley (among others, but lets take him for the moment) thinks that because Keegan said he supported five concerts, that this to him means that the planning process would be "circumvented" or least would be an "irrelevance". Do you have anything to back this indictment up? Cause nothing I have seen Dooley say whatsoever should lead anybody to think that he believes such a thing. Seems to me, that a lot of people would like this to be the case, but bandying it about doesn't make it so.

raymon · 19-07-2014 11:08PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I never said you stated that Dooley thought the process "should" be circumvented.

In fact, I cut and pasted the end of your sentence into mine, making damn sure I quoted precisely what you said and so perhaps you could take your own advice about reading posts.

Here is the quote from your post along with my reply:

I stated that from Dooley's words in the Oireachtas, he was very clear about the fact that he in no way felt that the process should be circumvented, as he made a point of making it clear that he fully supported the licence application process.

So, I again put the same question to you again:

i never implied that dooley thought that the process should be circumvented. I didnt say that and i dont believe that

Regarding whether he believed that an assurance had been given.Thats the impression that i got. My opinion is that that they all seemed to think that assurances were given.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 12:45AM

raymon wrote: »

i never implied that dooley thought that the process should be circumvented. I didnt say that and i dont believe that

I never said you implied it. Never said you said it either.

Look, I am not trying to nit pick you here. You made a comment and I just want to know why you have the opinion you expressed. I'll re-frame the question if you like:

Why is it that you feel Dooley, Aiken, Duffy or McKenna feel because Keegan said he supported the concerts, that this meant to them that DCC would circumvent the licencing laws and grant the licences to them with a nod and a wink. I have never seen any of these men say or do anything whatsoever that would suggest that they thought anything of the sort would be done.

From my perspective, I see Aiken, McKenna and Duffy (in particular) as being three men who were perplexed at the decision that was made, not because they were of the opinion that the process would've been circumvented for them, but because they felt that they had done all they had to, with regards to addressing the concerns of the residents, and everything else that was asked of them during their statutory meetings with DCC. I'm not saying they did, but that is how I read these men. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that they are being dishonest. On the contrary, they seem very genuine in their.. bafflement.. for want of a better word.

Regarding whether he believed that an assurance had been given.Thats the impression that i got. My opinion is that that they all seemed to think that assurances were given.

Well, I have never read nor seen any of them saying they felt "assured" of being granted the licences. If they have, maybe it was because they believed they had done all that was suggested that they had to, with regards to the licence application process and certain issues which the DCC had raised, and so felt assured of being granted the licences for that reason, but that in no way is indicative of them thinking that the licence application process would be circumvented.

raymon · 20-07-2014 01:05AM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

I never said you implied it. Never said you said it either.

Look, I am not trying to nit pick you here. You made a comment and I just want to know why you have the opinion you expressed. I'll re-frame the question if you like:

Why is it that you feel Dooley, Aiken, Duffy or McKenna feel because Keegan said he supported the concerts, that this meant to them that DCC would circumvent the licencing laws and grant the licences to them with a nod and a wink. I have never seen any of these men say or do anything whatsoever that would suggest that they thought anything of the sort would be done.

From my perspective, I see Aiken, McKenna and Duffy (in particular) as being three men who were perplexed at the decision that was made, not because they were of the opinion that the process would've been circumvented for them, but because they felt that they had done all they had to, with regards to addressing the concerns of the residents, and everything else that was asked of them during their statutory meetings with DCC. I'm not saying they did, but that is how I read these men. I don't see any evidence whatsoever that they are being dishonest. On the contrary, they seem very genuine in their.. bafflement.. for want of a better word.

Well, I have never read nor seen any of them saying they felt "assured" of being granted the licences. If they have, maybe it was because they believed they had done all that was suggested that they had to, with regards to the licence application process and certain issues which the DCC had raised, and so felt assured of being granted the licences for that reason, but that in no way is indicative of them thinking that the licence application process would be circumvented.

Hold on a sec . I never said anyone was dishonest. I dont believe they were.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 01:55AM

raymon wrote: »

Hold on a sec . I never said anyone was dishonest. I dont believe they were.

Good lord.

First you say I misquoted and misrepresented you, when I hadn't.
Then you say I said you implied something, when I didn't.
Now you say I said that you accused people of being dishonest, when I also didn't.

At the start of the paragraph with the word 'dishonest' in it, are the words: "From my perspective". Did you miss that? And in that paragraph I said to me, Aiken, Duffy and McKenna came across as being perplexed at the decision not to grant the licences and that is how I read them and that I don't feel they were being dishonest in that regard, ie: to me, they were not just pretending to be perplexed.

Now, is there any chance you can actually address the question I put to you.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Why is it that you feel Dooley, Aiken, Duffy or McKenna feel because Keegan said he supported the concerts, that this meant to them that DCC would circumvent the licencing laws and grant the licences to them with a nod and a wink.

Oh and while I'm here:

raymon wrote: »

I found it disgusting to see Timmy Dooley accusing a planner of bias at the committee today.The man has family living near Croke Park.

Dooley did not "accuse"; Keogan of being biased. He asked him questions regarding possible conflict of interest, in much the same way that Keegan asked questions regarding Oireachtas committee members, their GAA membership and possible conflict of interest.

raymon · 20-07-2014 07:30AM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Good lord.

First you say I misquoted and misrepresented you, when I hadn't.
Then you say I said you implied something, when I didn't.
Now you say I said that you accused people of being dishonest, when I also didn't.

At the start of the paragraph with the word 'dishonest' in it, are the words: "From my perspective". Did you miss that? And in that paragraph I said to me, Aiken, Duffy and McKenna came across as being perplexed at the decision not to grant the licences and that is how I read them and that I don't feel they were being dishonest in that regard, ie: to me, they were not just pretending to be perplexed.

Now, is there any chance you can actually address the question I put to you.

Oh and while I'm here:

Dooley did not "accuse"; Keogan of being biased. He asked him questions regarding possible conflict of interest, in much the same way that Keegan asked questions regarding Oireachtas committee members, their GAA membership and possible conflict of interest.

By saying that these people are not dishonest implies somehow that I implied that they were dishonest. Not so - I dont believe anyone in this debacle operated dishonestly - this is my point that you are missing.

After viewing all three sessions of the hearings I formed an opinion. My opinion is that Aiken, GAA and Dooley Seem to have misinterpreted the City manager's "support" that the city manager gave as some kind of assurance that 5 concerts would go ahead. It is also my opinion that the city manager gave no such assurance and was misinterpreted. I dont think anyone was being dishonest. They got the wrong end of the stick.
Thats all my opinion extends to on this issue. It seems like you are trying to trip me up in some way.

You also said that Dooley didnt accuse DCC (Keoghan) of being biased. Well after viewing all three sessions I formed an opinion on this. My opinion on this is that Dooley questioned the DCC in an acutely accusatory manner whereas his questioning of the GAA and Aiken was like a good old buddy to buddy chat. Did you watch all three sessions?

This is the extent of my opinion. Other people may form other opinions that are valid . But I think my opinion is valid too.

You say that you are not nit picking ......

Godge · 20-07-2014 09:25AM

raymon wrote: »

Who said that? Nobody said anything of the like.

What I said was that Garth Brooks , Aitken , Gaa and now that Fianna Fail gombeen Timmy Dooley all seem to think that when the City Manager said that he supported the concerts, that this was a nod and a wink that the planning process would be circumvented in some fashion or at least would be an irrelevance.

This is the old way of doing things . It is gone .

(1) Keegan told Aiken and the GAA that he supported five concerts
(2) Keogan did not declare a conflict of interest or Keegan ignored it. To those that refute this may want to read the following document carefully.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,8776,en.pdf

(3) It seems some falsified objections were made which are now being investigated by the gardai.

To say that all is well with the planning process and the old ways are gone is ridiculous. It actually looks much the other way around.

Dan_Solo · 20-07-2014 11:01AM

Godge wrote: »

(1) Keegan told Aiken and the GAA that he supported five concerts
(2) Keogan did not declare a conflict of interest or Keegan ignored it. To those that refute this may want to read the following document carefully.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administration/FileDownLoad,8776,en.pdf

(3) It seems some falsified objections were made which are now being investigated by the gardai.

To say that all is well with the planning process and the old ways are gone is ridiculous. It actually looks much the other way around.

1) Support does not equal guarantee of licensing.
2) If Croke Park residents were to be disrupted to the point where owning property there was a conflict of interest, this adds more weight to 5 concerts being absolutely untenable.
3) Why does the record number of legitimate objections disappear whenever someone mentions the minority of proven false ones?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 01:31PM

raymon wrote: »

By saying that these people are not dishonest implies somehow that I implied that they were dishonest. Not so - I dont believe anyone in this debacle operated dishonestly - this is my point that you are missing.

I was referring to them all looking perplexed. I said that I don't believe their state of perplexion was 'dishonest'. You didn't state anything about their reaction being fake and so how could I be implying that you felt they were being dishonest in that regard. That makes zero sense but continue to think what you wish in any case.

After viewing all three sessions of the hearings I formed an opinion. My opinion is that Aiken, GAA and Dooley Seem to have misinterpreted the City manager's "support" that the city manager gave as some kind of assurance that 5 concerts would go ahead.

Well, I have no idea why, as nothing either McKenna, Duffy, Aiken or Dooley said, gave any indication that they felt Keegan saying he supported the concerts, actually meant he was assuring them that he would grant the licences. If you have any quotes, I would like to hear them as I too watched the hearings and all I heard Aiken,McKenna and Duffy say was that at no stage did they feel the licences would not be granted, in that they felt that had done all of what was required of them. They all explained that they felt this way, not because they had been assured, but because Keegan was giving them the impression that all was well and that they had met their marks, so to speak.

It is also my opinion that the city manager gave no such assurance and was misinterpreted. I dont think anyone was being dishonest. They got the wrong end of the stick.

Thats all my opinion extends to on this issue. It seems like you are trying to trip me up in some way.

I am not trying to 'tie you up'. I am asking you to qualify something that you are saying. You see, I watched the hearings also and I find it irritating to see these people being so badly misrepresented, as they are. Timmy Dooley's comments at the hearing gave the CONTRARY view to the one you have suggested he holds, which again is: that he "misinterpreted" Keegan's support of the five concerts to be an "assurance" that the licences would be granted and the licence application process would be "circumvented". They are your words and I am trying to ascertain just why it is that you feel Timmy Dooley holds the views which you have suggested he does, as I have not seen him say anything whatsoever that would, or should, lead anybody to reasonably think that.

Now, I have asked you for quotes to back up your opinion and so only fair that I include some to back up mine:

Timmy Dooley @ The Oireachtas

"Mr.McKenna and Mr.Duffy said here, that there was a belief based on that conversation back in Feb, that DCC would support a licence application for all five concerts. Now in fairness Mr.Keegan, you have not denied that you gave that impression to Mr.McKenna. What you have said in a statement that you issued is that you gave no assurance, no certainty, no firm offer.. these are all absolutes. Mr.McKenna has never indicated that there was an absolute.."

"..when you had that conversation with Mr.Kenna where you gave the impression that you would be supportive, in a general way, without the issue of assurances, we all accept that, we know how the process works, you couldn't have, you wouldn't have the authority to do that at that stage, but you gave him some belief, or he had some expectation, legitimate or otherwise, that if he submitted an application for five concerts and recognizing that the additionality would be required, and if they reached that threshold, then they could legitimately expect a positive outcome but it seems to me as I said, the issues which you refused the five licences were all blindingly obvious to you in advance of that process even beginning.."

As can be seen from the above quotes, not only is Timmy Dooley not under the impression that assurances were given, but he also is aware that they could not have been given. He also makes it clear that he also fully understands that there was application additionality which the GAA had to further address in order to satisfy DCC. Dooley's words also make a joke of the notion that he felt Keegan's support meant that the licence application process would be "circumvented" because of Keegan saying he supported the concerts.

You also said that Dooley didnt accuse DCC (Keoghan) of being biased. Well after viewing all three sessions I formed an opinion on this. My opinion on this is that Dooley questioned the DCC in an acutely accusatory manner whereas his questioning of the GAA and Aiken was like a good old buddy to buddy chat. Did you watch all three sessions?

He wasn't "accusatory". He asked questions. As I said, in the same way that Keegan did when he asked the Oireachtas if it's members, who were also members of the GAA, would be asked to not attend the hearings as a result of it.

This is the extent of my opinion. Other people may form other opinions that are valid . But I think my opinion is valid too.

That's fine, but I don't think there is anything wrong with asking people what they are basing their opinion on, especially when their opinion so drastically misrepresents the stance of so many involved.. as your opinions undoubtedly do.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 03:08PM

Interesting facts merging regarding the man who initiated injunction proceedings:

Handball club's solicitor helped scaffolder take High Court injunction

THE community handball club behind the hard-line campaign against the Garth Brooks' Croke Park concerts helped a scaffolder who collects empties in the club house to take a High Court injunction to stop the shows going ahead, the Sunday Independent has learned.

Brian Duff emerged out of nowhere as a key player in the country-and-western farce when he launched a legal challenge a fortnight ago, then dramatically called it off claiming his life had been threatened.

Mr Duff, who lives in a council flat off Parnell Street, claimed that he was a concerned local resident who was given €15,000 from unnamed figures "north and south of the border" who "wanted to take the GAA down" to fund the High Court action, and a new suit to boot.

However, the Sunday Independent has confirmed that Mr Duff collects glasses in the Croke Park Community and Handball Centre, the club that is at war with the GAA and mounted a vigorous action against the concerts on behalf of its 570 members.

Nial Ring, an independent councillor on Dublin City Council who is on the community handball centre's management committee, confirmed that Brian Duff was associated with the handball club but said it didn't fund his legal action.

"Brian Duff collects glasses in the club house and he has the odd pint," he said. "He was never approached by the management committee to take an injunction. As far as I am aware, he approached Eamon O'Brien, said he was going to do it and he put him in touch with Tony Fay (the solicitor for the community handball club)."

The independent councillor also said the club did not fund Mr Duff's legal action, and said the management committee would "never have contemplated" doing so.

"As an accountant who has overseen the accounts of the club, I can tell you that the club does not have €15,000," he said. Mr Duff and Mr O'Brien did not return calls to the Sunday Independent last week.

The mystery of Mr Duff's backers has fuelled the drama, as the final curtain fell on the Garth Brooks farce last week.

Promoter Peter Aiken sold 400,000 tickets for five Garth Brooks concerts at Croke Park, but the council licensed only three. Brooks pulled out and last ditch talks to save the shows failed on Monday. Tickets are now being refunded.

The fiasco ended in recrimination before an Oireachtas committee with Owen Keegan, the council's chief executive, who was summoned twice last week to respond to the GAA's claims that he had supported the five shows. Mr Keegan admitted he initially indicated his support for the five concerts, but insisted he gave no assurances they would go ahead.

Eamon O'Brien, who lives in Castleknock, angered some north inner city residents when he emerged as the public face of locals objecting to the concerts. Locals formed a counter campaign supporting the concerts, referring to Mr O'Brien as a "so-called spokesperson representing residents" who "wasn't from the area".

Dan_Solo · 20-07-2014 04:46PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Interesting facts merging regarding the man who initiated injunction proceedings:

Much waffle about pretty much nothing there. How many legitimate objections again? It was a record number I believe? One guy did X, Y, Z so what?

Good loser · 20-07-2014 06:11PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Much waffle about pretty much nothing there. How many legitimate objections again? It was a record number I believe? One guy did X, Y, Z so what?

It certainly matters. It could have been the clinching point in the process for all anybody knows - or understands - how Keegan came to his absurd decision.

kippy · 20-07-2014 06:25PM

Good loser wrote: »

It certainly matters. It could have been the clinching point in the process for all anybody knows - or understands - how Keegan came to his absurd decision.

What in the name of all that is good was absurd about the decision?

syklops · 20-07-2014 06:32PM

I still say the title of the thread should be changed. Enda Kenny didnt intervene. And rightly so.

Good loser · 20-07-2014 06:51PM

kippy wrote: »

What in the name of all that is good was absurd about the decision?

The proportions. 400 people trump 400,000.

bumper234 · 20-07-2014 06:57PM

Good loser wrote: »

The proportions. 400 people trump 400,000.

Where do you get your 400 number from?

Dan_Solo · 20-07-2014 07:03PM

Good loser wrote: »

It certainly matters. It could have been the clinching point in the process for all anybody knows - or understands - how Keegan came to his absurd decision.

But you've started with the assumption it was an incorrect decision (with no evidence to back that) and worked backwards. Even if all the false objections are discounted, it was still a record number of objections. And no objections at all were actually required for DCC to refuse they license. They could've just looked at the application and said "too much disruption in the area" without looking at a single objection.

Dan_Solo · 20-07-2014 07:06PM

Good loser wrote: »

The proportions. 400 people trump 400,000.

400 what? Objections lodged? People who signed the objections? People who would be disrupted by the concerts? 400 Points of concern raised by Gardaí, HSE or traffic dept. against the concerts?

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 07:32PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Much waffle about pretty much nothing there. How many legitimate objections again? It was a record number I believe? One guy did X, Y, Z so what?

Keegan has indicated that he would have licenced all five concerts, if Croke Park gone the "full way" in meeting the needs of the residents, but that because DCC felt that they hadn't, they only granted three (four really, as Keegan wouldn't ask Brooks to gurantee to do a concert that he wasn't pretty sure Keogan would green light). If you read the Mulvey report, you will see that he states that almost all the residents were happy with the agreement he had mediated regarding the legacy fund of €500,000 and the assurance that there would be three concerts from here on out and that its was a small hardcore element that were causing the issues and as we all know, that element is the Streets Commitee / Handball alley crowd and so... to say that the news that this man had connections with the alley and that he wasn't even a resident is "nothing", is frankly: absurd.

Dan_Solo · 20-07-2014 07:45PM

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller wrote: »

Keegan has indicated that he would have licenced all five concerts, if Croke Park gone the "full way" in meeting the needs of the residents, but that because DCC felt that they hadn't, they only granted three (four really, as Keegan wouldn't ask Brooks to gurantee to do a concert that he wasn't pretty sure Keogan would green light). If you read the Mulvey report, you will see that he states that almost all the residents were happy with the agreement he had mediated regarding the legacy fund of €500,000 and the assurance that there would be three concerts from here on out and that its was a small hardcore element that were causing the issues and as we all know, that element is the Streets Commitee / Handball alley crowd and so... to say that the news that this man had connections with the alley and that he wasn't even a resident is "nothing", is frankly: absurd.

But what does this guy have to do with Keegan's decisions to license 3 concerts and Brooks' decision to play none?
Nothing. At all.

Wishiwasa Littlebitaller · 20-07-2014 08:05PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But what does this guy have to do with Keegan's decisions to license 3 concerts and Brooks' decision to play none?
Nothing. At all.

What does Garth Brooks decision on July 2nd, have to do with a system that was so flawed that it resulted in concerts, which 160,000 people held tickets for and which they had booked flights and hotels for etc.. getting cancelled because they were refused licences, just three weeks before they were due to take place?

Toaiseach intervenes in Brooks debacle.

Comments