The Second Coming - Garth on his way, again, possibly, 2017

Timberrrrrrrr · 02-06-2016 07:18PM

The Raptor wrote: »

And claiming it was going to happen again. Some people are there for music instead of getting sloshed and ruining people's property.

400,000 fans over 5 nights and you're claiming that not one would have pissed on the street :rolleyes:

Cathy.C · 02-06-2016 07:29PM

DCC deciding not to licence two of the five concerts a mere three weeks before the gigs were set to take place was the real cause of the whole mess I would suggest. Well actually not to licence only one concert in fact as I believe an offer was made to licence four as soon as Brooks camp showed incredulity at the cancelling of three sold out concerts that were not far off taking place.

Anyway, what ever happened to that guy who took the €15,000 payment to stir up trouble in the courts?

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 07:49PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

DCC deciding not to licence two of the five concerts a mere three weeks before the gigs were set to take place was the real cause of the whole mess I would suggest. Well actually not to licence only one concert in fact as I believe an offer was made to licence four as soon as Brooks camp showed incredulity at the cancelling of three sold out concerts that were not far off taking place.

Anyway, what ever happened to that guy who took the €15,000 payment to stir up trouble in the courts?

Maybe they should apply a bit earlier then.

3 concerts was the established norm and Brooks and the promoter backed some good old fashioned high pressure tactics to force through their demands. It didn't work, tough **** time to move on.

I don't know what happened yer man, probably still hiding from the froth mouthed mob.

My name is URL · 02-06-2016 07:55PM

Cathy.C wrote: »

Anyway, what ever happened to that guy who took the €15,000 payment to stir up trouble in the courts?

Also what happened to all the concerned 'residents' that submitted fake objections to the concerts, using the names of kids and dead people?

They sound like a really level headed bunch of people. Like those with hundreds of posts talking about a concert they have no interest in and a singer they don't like

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 07:58PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Also what happened to all the concerned 'residents' that submitted fake objections to the concerts, using the names of kids and dead people?

They sound like a really level headed bunch of people. Like those with hundreds of posts talking about a concert they have no interest in and a singer they don't like

They avoided having to endure yeehawing animals sh!teing in their letterboxes.

My name is URL · 02-06-2016 08:23PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

They avoided having to endure yeehawing animals sh!teing in their letterboxes.

I'm sure their neighbors appreciate having them next door

If I had a choice between living next door to a GB fan and a scumbag that wouldn't think twice about fraudulently using my name on documents I know which one I'd choose

The people that submitted false objections (almost half were either fake or 'suspect) should be named and shamed. Who'd want to live next to someone who would do that?

Cathy.C · 02-06-2016 08:31PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

Maybe they should apply a bit earlier then.

From a timeline I just read on events Aiken actually applied for licences four weeks before the deadline and it was the DCC that dragged their feet by leaving it for almost three months after the applications were issued before announcing that they were refusing to licence two of the concerts.

I don't know what happened yer man, probably still hiding from the froth mouthed mob.

You see, this is something I keep reading. This sneering at type of fan Brook's attractes has been used as some kind of justification for how people reacted to the DCC clearing handling things quite poorly. Selling tickets for concerts that are unlicensed has always been the norm in Ireland but yet when the flawed system collapsed, people seemed more interested in slagging off fans of Brooks. One wonders if David Bowie, or indeed Springsteen had been treated this way, reusing to licence two of their gigs long after they had sold out and were in fact just about to take place, would people's opinion have been somewhat different. Sadly, I suspect they would.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 08:47PM

Ah the memories of this thread. The good old times.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 08:53PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

Maybe they should apply a bit earlier then.

3 concerts was the established norm and Brooks and the promoter backed some good old fashioned high pressure tactics to force through their demands. It didn't work, tough **** time to move on.

I don't know what happened yer man, probably still hiding from the froth mouthed mob.

Except in 2009, there were four concerts.

You see clearly they were allowed to apply for more and they received the licenses.

If it was that black and white about the three concerts per year, that fourth would never have happened that year. So not sure what kind of high pressure tactics the promotor used because they followed the rules.

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 09:05PM

The Raptor wrote: »

Except in 2009, there were four concerts.

You see clearly they were allowed to apply for more and they received the licenses.

If it was that black and white about the three concerts per year, that fourth would never have happened that year. So not sure what kind of high pressure tactics the promotor used because they followed the rules.

They applied for an unprecedented amount of concerts without checking the viability no?

The timescale of the application and subsequent process left the planners in a position where they would have to either accept or reject the application at relatively short notice.

I consider that high pressure. The subsequent hysteria suggests I might be right

John_Rambo · 02-06-2016 09:10PM

My name is URL wrote: »

If I had a choice between living next door to a GB fan and a scumbag that wouldn't think twice about fraudulently using my name on documents I know which one I'd choose

Obviously the gentleman that saved you from five nights of red neck audio and fanbase exposure. yeehaaa! Here we go again!

Did you not know Dubliner's are the blacks of Ireland? We don't want a five night white thrash invasion.

rubadub · 02-06-2016 09:15PM

The Raptor wrote: »

Except in 2009, there were four concerts.

I nearly forgot about that point. The more clever & informed Aiken and Brooks defenders will be fcuking fuming that you brought that one up. It proves without a shadow of a doubt they knew they were total chancing cunts, taking the public for idiots.

There was uproar at the time in 2009. Take that had a gig and U2 got 3 gigs the next month, i.e. 3 in close succession, just like brooks could have done only he clearly decided he wouldn't have made enough money, and conned some poor idiots into believing otherwise, many knew fine well but just didn't want to badmouth their money grabbing idol, no doubt feeling betrayed by the cunt.

Looking for 3 would have been cheeky as there already had been 3.

This was big news in 2009, This made Aiken appear all the more of a deceitful prick when he was seemingly feigning ignorance over the agreement. This agreement was widely known, anybody involved in the gig industry would certainly have been fully aware, just as they know how likely it is to get mulitple gigs at slane. He was taking the public for utter fools.

http://www.atu2.com/news/local-fury-over-u2-ticket-sales.html

LOCAL FURY OVER U2 TICKET SALES

Dublin People, April 16, 2009

Angry Northside residents living in the vicinity of Croke Park have slammed the selling of tickets for the upcoming U2 concerts which have yet to be licensed.

Three July dates of the U2 360 tour, which will see 82,000 fans pile into Croke Park each night, were advertised and thousands of tickets have been sold without the licence being granted for the events.

While the licence request for the three dates was included in last week's planning list, residents who will be most affected by the gigs doubt that the council will reject permission for the event which is likely to generate e6.5 million in revenue.

"If they weren't sure that they would get the licence then they wouldn't have advertised the dates," said Barbara Ward of the Clonliff and District Residents' Association.

"It's a bit premature and just makes you wonder what the point is in going through the planning process for the licence in which public submissions from the public are invited.

"It's a joke and it makes a mockery of the residents who are led to believe they have a say on whether the concerts go ahead or not."

Last month, all 164,000 tickets for the two initial U2 concerts -- Friday July 24 and Saturday July 25 -- sold out in one hour prompting the band to announce a third date for July 27.

Tickets for the final Croke Park gig, which were priced e33.60, e59.80, e91.50, e131.50, went on sale on April 1.

Disgruntled residents living close to Croker believe they are being completely overlooked by both the council and the promoters.

"No one seems to realise how this extra date will impact on us," Barbara told Northside People.

"The concert will go on until all hours. It will be at least 1am before our neighbourhood settles down and we are able to get any sleep and many of residents need to get up for work the next morning."

Bill Byrne of Foster Terrace said residents were left frustrated when extra dates were added on without any consultation with locals.

"I just don't understand the logic behind this process which seems so flexible, especially when it comes to big bands and promoters who put so much pressure on the council to grant permission as the tickets have already been sold," he said.

Local councillor Emer Costello (Lab) criticised the promoter's ability to "put the cart before the horse," which she said left the council's hands tied.

"There's a lot of money riding on these gigs," she told Northside People.

"I really can't see the council rejecting the licence for these concerts for which tickets have already been sold.

"It's not as if anyone would be too keen on having to refund the 246,000 people who have bought tickets for the concerts."

In 1992, Croke Park was granted permission to hold three concerts per year. However, the events are subject to a council approved management plan and licensing.

"Under the licensing regulations Croke Park are obliged to lodge a detailed event management plan to the planning authority 16 weeks in advance of any proposed event," a Dublin City Council spokesperson said.

"Submissions are accepted by the planning authority for five weeks from the date of lodgement of the event licence application.

"The application is referred for comment to a number of consultees -- Health Services Executive, An Garda Siochana and Dublin Fire Brigade, for instance. A decision to grant or refuse a licence is an executive function of the planning authority. The licence application for three concerts at Croke Park is currently under consideration by the planning authority."

The spokesperson added: "The planning regulations do not preclude a promoter from advertising or selling tickets for an event in advance of the license being issued."

A spokesperson for MCD said it had placed notices regarding the U2 concerts in the media as part of its application which it had lodged with the council.

"In addition Croke Park has raised the issue at a recent Community Liaison Committee Meeting which includes representatives from the local community and local politicians," the spokesperson continued.

"All local politicians are regular visitors to Croke Park, and like other fans will attest to the professional standards to which events are run. Large events in Croke Park are extremely important ways of stimulating the Dublin economy. It is estimated that this weekend will benefit the city with an economic stimulus of some e100 million. In recognition of the cooperation from the local community to staging concerts at Croke Park MCD have made a substantial contribution to the Community Trust Fund which has been set aside for community enhancement projects in the locality."

If 7 gigs in close succession got announced for slane then I would start to worry if it would go ahead, this would be equivalent to what GB chanced, 5 nights more than ever before in a single year, 2009 -a year which saw huge complaints. And when slane got 2 gigs in a year in close succession the taoiseach had to intervene. In 2014 there were already 3 gigs by 1 direction, and some other event.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 09:29PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

They applied for an unprecedented amount of concerts without checking the viability no?

The timescale of the application and subsequent process left the planners in a position where they would have to either accept or reject the application at relatively short notice.

I consider that high pressure. The subsequent hysteria suggests I might be right

I think the promotors applied for the licences four weeks before the deadline. There was no pressure from them.

And as for the unprecedented amount of concerts, the city manager didn't have a problem with four of them. And when the whole thing went tits up, he was going to give the go ahead to have two concerts per day. The blame is on that eejit who gave the green light from day one in the first place.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 09:35PM

rubadub wrote: »

I nearly forgot about that point. The more clever & informed Aiken and Brooks defenders will be fcuking fuming that you brought that one up. It proves without a shadow of a doubt they knew they were total chancing cunts, taking the public for idiots.

The city manager gave assurances to the promotors and didn't see a problem with selling tickets for a fourth and fifth night. The blame lies with him, not anybody else.

Duckworth_Luas · 02-06-2016 09:36PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

Obviously the gentleman that saved you from five nights of red neck audio and fanbase exposure. yeehaaa! Here we go again!

Did you not know Dubliner's are the blacks of Ireland? We don't want a five night white thrash invasion.

Wow! What a bigot!

hynesie08 · 02-06-2016 09:37PM

The Raptor wrote: »

rubadub wrote: »

I nearly forgot about that point. The more clever & informed Aiken and Brooks defenders will be fcuking fuming that you brought that one up. It proves without a shadow of a doubt they knew they were total chancing cunts, taking the public for idiots.

The city manager gave assurances to the promotors and didn't see a problem with selling tickets for a fourth and fifth night. The blame lies with him, not anybody else.

Not really though. He didn't cancel any gigs.

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 09:38PM

The Raptor wrote: »

I think the promotors applied for the licences four weeks before the deadline. There was no pressure from them.

And as for the unprecedented amount of concerts, the city manager didn't have a problem with four of them. And when the whole thing went tits up, he was going to give the go ahead to have two concerts per day. The blame is on that eejit who gave the green light from day one in the first place.

I've outlined why it was high pressure tactics.

The promoter knew the problems added dates caused in the past -see your own example of 2009.

The promoter knew that length of the application process and knew the city manager was left with the choice of disappointing a huge amount of ticket holders or ****ting all over the local residents valid well established objections.

The promoter was banking on the city manager caving in - that's high pressure tactics.

The attempts at finding badly thought out compromises that you cited above are further evidence that the pressure was felt.

rubadub · 02-06-2016 09:39PM

The Raptor wrote: »

The blame lies with him, not anybody else.

I know you don't believe this, nobody does, it's fucking laughable to think people could not think Aiken & Brooks are not at least partly to blame for the fiasco, utterly pathetic. I would put all the blame with them for trying to pull such a stunt in the first place. But then to completely fuck over all the fans by pulling out was just disgraceful.

They were both completely aware of the standing agreement, there is absolutely zero doubt. Many thanks again for bringing up 2009 to fully bolster the point.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 09:59PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

I've outlined why it was high pressure tactics.

The promoter knew the problems added dates caused in the past -see your own example of 2009.

The only problems were the residents.

Why have they got the issue with concerts again and will object to anything and everything to get their way? A new handball club without a bar in it?

The promotors didn't use high pressure tactics to get their way. Even the city manager didn't see a problem with selling tickets for five nights but did say there might be issue with residents because they went through all this before with them.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 10:01PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

Not really though. He didn't cancel any gigs.

Where did i say that he cancelled gigs?

He didn't have any concerts to cancel. He didn't licence the concerts.

hynesie08 · 02-06-2016 10:02PM

The Raptor wrote: »

hynesie08 wrote: »

Not really though. He didn't cancel any gigs.

Where did i say that he cancelled gigs?

He didn't have any concerts to cancel. He didn't licence the concerts.

He licensed 3, Garth cancelled. So how is it only his fault?

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 10:09PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

He licensed 3, Garth cancelled. So how is it only his fault?

Seriously?

He gave assurances for the whole five nights to the promoters. Backtracked at the last minute.

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 10:10PM

The Raptor wrote: »

The only problems were the residents.

Why have they got the issue with concerts again and will object to anything and everything to get their way? A new handball club without a bar in it?

The promotors didn't use high pressure tactics to get their way. Even the city manager didn't see a problem with selling tickets for five nights but did say there might be issue with residents because they went through all this before with them.

I take if you're joking?

Do you really not see the issue with having events of that scale on your doorstep?

Croke Park is in a residential area which isn't suitable for night time events.

However it's the largest venue in the country so there is huge demand to use it.

The compromise is an agreed amount of concerts - Aiken decided to ignore his knowledge of TD situation, sell tickets anyway and bulldoze through the planning.

Broken Hearted Road · 02-06-2016 10:16PM

You all need to get a hobby or a life or both and move to fcuk on from what happened two summer's ago. That goes for the two sides by the way:
1) any GB fans still hanging onto this
2) any Dubliners/objectors/Croke park residents still hanging onto so much hatred and dishing out pure poison towards Aiken promotions, Garth Brooks, GBs fans - the gigs did not happen. MOVE ON.

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 10:17PM

bobmalooka wrote: »

I take if you're joking?

Do you really not see the issue with having events of that scale on your doorstep?

Croke Park is in a residential area which isn't suitable for night time events.

However it's the largest venue in the country so there is huge demand to use it.

The compromise is an agreed amount of concerts - Aiken decided to ignore his knowledge of TD situation, sell tickets anyway and bulldoze through the planning.

Night time event?

It was an evening event in the middle of summer.

Patser · 02-06-2016 10:17PM

Has anyone informed the Mexican Ambassador?

That was another high point to the surrealism of last year.

hynesie08 · 02-06-2016 10:19PM

The Raptor wrote: »

bobmalooka wrote: »

I take if you're joking?

Do you really not see the issue with having events of that scale on your doorstep?

Croke Park is in a residential area which isn't suitable for night time events.

However it's the largest venue in the country so there is huge demand to use it.

The compromise is an agreed amount of concerts - Aiken decided to ignore his knowledge of TD situation, sell tickets anyway and bulldoze through the planning.

Night time event?

It was an evening event in the middle of summer.

What time does evening become night in your mind?

The Raptor · 02-06-2016 10:22PM

Broken Hearted Road wrote: »

You all need to get a hobby or a life or both and move to fcuk on from what happened two summer's ago. That goes for the two sides by the way:
1) any GB fans still hanging onto this
2) any Dubliners/objectors/Croke park residents still hanging onto so much hatred and dishing out pure poison towards Aiken promotions, Garth Brooks, GBs fans - the gigs did not happen. MOVE ON.

The hatred came from the Dubs and/or anti country people from the start of the thread. Why can't the the Garth supporters have their say?

bobmalooka · 02-06-2016 10:24PM

The Raptor wrote: »

Night time event?

It was an evening event in the middle of summer.

Give over, the event finished at night.

You're right it was summer time, that changes everything.

Edit: nice dodge, want to address the rest of my post or just focus on your definition of night?

Cathy.C · 02-06-2016 10:28PM

rubadub wrote: »

I nearly forgot about that point. The more clever & informed Aiken and Brooks defenders will be fcuking fuming that you brought that one up. It proves without a shadow of a doubt they knew they were total chancing cunts, taking the public for idiots.

You're wrong, but even if you were right and Croke Park, Aiken etc were "chancers", so what? A system should not be in place which is so easily exploited by chancers and which results in such a debacle. If there is, then it is the system that it as fault as that is what venues and promoters do, they try and make money by holding events. However, what your failing to appreciate is that this is why they have preliminary discussions so as to prevent what occurred occurring and for all concerned to be able to give voice to and and all issues that they might have but that obviously relies on all parties being honest about where it is that they stand.

Aiken, Croke Park and Garth Brooks at no stage misrepresented their position. They were open about everything they were doing and in regular communication with DCC at each and every turn. It was DCC however that did not sufficiently communicate with the promoter and the venue, not the other way around. They admitted this in the Committee hearings when they said that they had told Aiken they supported the application for the five concerts. He now famously added his line about support not meaning assurances but that was just playing with words. The role of DCC includes having to inform promoters if there are any significant reasons as to why any of their licence applications would be refused and they never did so, at any stage. The only issues ever discussed were concerns of residents by again Croke Park and Aiken were given the impression that these could be mitigated.

What I found so odd about those hearings at the time was how Keegan kept going on and on about how the amount of concerts were the reason he was refusing the licences but sure the number was quite obviously known long before the licence applications were made and so then why not make their position known at that stage. Even if you want to be pedantic and say well they need to receive applications before they can comment about not entertaining them (which is not true but whatever) then what is the excuse for not refusing to licence them after the mandatory five week period after the applications had been made? Why sit on them for almost three months?

In any case, the Government have all but admitted that the system was at fault and in particular, DCC not making their position clear. Didn't really get much press at the time but last year they slightly changed the relevant planning regulations and amendments were made which mean that Owen Keegan would no longer be able to do what he did three weeks out from those concerts taking place as now DCC must make up their minds one week sooner:

"A local authority shall make a decision under section 231(3) of the Act in respect of an application not earlier than 5 weeks after receiving the application and not later than 4 weeks prior to the date for the holding of the event to which the application relates or, in the case of an application for a number of events at a venue in a period not exceeding one year, not later than 4 weeks prior to the holding of the first event;

Here's a brief overview of all amendments.

It will now be mandatory for event promoters to have a pre-application consultation meeting with the relevant local authority prior to submitting an event licence application.

Event licence applications will not be accepted by a local authority unless a pre-application consultation meeting has already taken place with the event promoter.

Event promoters will not be entitled to advertise or sell tickets for events prior to the holding of a pre-application consultation meeting with the relevant local authority/

Where tickets for events have been advertised and sold prior to the holding of a pre-application consultation meeting, an application for an event licence will not be accepted by the relevant local authority.

Event licensing applications must be lodged with the relevant local authority at least 13 weeks in advance of the proposed event (currently 10 weeks).
Local authorities must make their decision on an event licence application no later than 4 weeks in advance of the proposed event.

Where it is proposed to add performances to a schedule already announced, a further pre-application consultation meeting will be required to take place before the announcement of any additional dates.

The public consultation period in relation to event licence applications is being reduced to 3 weeks (currently 5 weeks).

Source.

The Second Coming - Garth on his way, again, possibly, 2017

Comments