# Garth Brooks/Dublin City Council



## cork (8 Jul 2014)

Why no political intervention?

This would have been a boost for business in Dublin.

Yet at political level - they carry on regardless.


----------



## Sunny (8 Jul 2014)

Absolutely. Compulsory purchase orders for the properties belonging to the residents who complained should be issued. The President should be on the next flight to meet Mr. Brooks personally and apologise on behalf on the nation. Croke Park should be given to the FAI as punishment for this mess. A Dail inquiry should be set up immediately to establish who is to blame. 

This would never have happened with Bertie at the helm. Bring back Bertie I say......


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Jul 2014)

Surely this is a very simple problem to solve for the future. 

Each venue gets a license to hold  a set number of concerts a year and whatever conditions attach to them.  Say Croke Park is allowed to hold 6 concerts, and no more than 3 in any one month or on consecutive days.

Then when they plan their concerts, they don't have to apply for special permission for that concert.  They can sell tickets knowing that the concerts will go ahead.

Brendan


----------



## Leper (8 Jul 2014)

The Garth Brooks five concerts debacle was handled dreadfully from the start.  Initially, nobody involved talked to anybody who would be affected.  This was a typical crass case where money was going to win, no matter what.  But, greed mounted and mounted and for once the money mongers failed.

I lived on the route to and from a major concert venue in the past.  I must say it was not a great experience.  You had to protect your family and your property from people who just did not care what they did.  Urinating in our front garden by the concert "patrons" was relatively minor.  Believe me, far worse used to happen.

Five consecutive major concerts in Dublin's City Centre was never going to be a runner.  These five concerts were on top of several recent concerts plus some major sporting events and more to come.

OK the business community lost out this time.  From their past gains did they even show any form of compensation to the people who live in the immediate area?  For once decent people stood up for themselves and won.  Now, I am not saying that everybody involved in the objections were in a position of high moral ground.

The whole matter could have been handled much better, but nobody chose to negotiate and they deserved what they got.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Jul 2014)

The aspect of this that strikes me is that the decision to licence 3of5 concerts seems to have been taken by one person without any explanation of the basis for the decision or any possibility of appeal. 

I don't know ( or even care ) whether the decision taken  was the correct one, but it strikes me as a process that should be unacceptable in a democracy


----------



## Delboy (9 Jul 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The aspect of this that strikes me is that the decision to licence 3of5 concerts seems to have been taken by one person without any explanation of the basis for the decision or any possibility of appeal.
> 
> I don't know ( or even care ) whether the decision taken  was the correct one, but it strikes me as a process that should be unacceptable in a democracy



Dub City Manager gave the nod to 3 of the 5. The other 2 were'nt allowed go ahead for public order reasons....but why you'd have no public order problems for 3 but would for the other 2 seems odd to me.

Turns out now that the Chairman of the Croke Park Streets Committee does'nt even live in the area. He's connected to the Handball Alley in Croke Park that have been in dispute with GAA bosses for the past number of years over relocating the handball premises


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jul 2014)

As I understand it, the promoters were taking a real flyer in going for 5. It is hard wired into Croke Park's 1993 planning permission that it can't stage more than 3 in a row.

We have planning rules for a reason, you can argue why 3? why not 5? The fact is the rules said 3. The promoters hoped that the sheer enormity of cancellation would force a bending of the rules. It was bullying, it was mob rule. Democracy would not have been served by giving in no more than up North on flags and parades.

As to Garth Brooks saying 5 or none, well that just beggars all belief for arrogance and disregard for his Irish fans.


----------



## TarfHead (9 Jul 2014)

cremeegg said:


> The aspect of this that strikes me is that the decision to licence 3of5 concerts seems to have been taken by one person without any explanation of the basis for the decision or any possibility of appeal.
> 
> I don't know ( or even care ) whether the decision taken was the correct one, but it strikes me as a process that should be unacceptable in a democracy


 
Dublin City Council has a chequered history of elected repesentatives being involved in planning decisions.


----------



## cork (9 Jul 2014)

The loss of tax revenue to the state.
The inability of public representatives to intervene was a disgrace.

Time we havd proper local government reform.

Directly elected majors with executive powers.


----------



## Leo (9 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> The loss of tax revenue to the state.
> The inability of public representatives to intervene was a disgrace.
> 
> Time we havd proper local government reform.
> ...



The ability of public representatives to intervene has resulted in many a disgrace in the past! We don't need to give them more powers to overrule  planning law when it suits them or their buddies, or wins a few votes.

As for the loss of tax revenue to the state, I think this card is being overplayed. Sure, Dublin hotels and restaurants would do well that week, but at a cost to those in the rest of the country, unless those who would have spend their money going to these concerts put this money under their matresses and never, ever spend it in the future. 

The extra travel involved would have resulted in lots more fuel used, more money out of the country... Also, how many million was Brooks going to take out of the country in his suitcase? The economics are a lot more complex than those representing the vested interests would have you believe.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> The ability of public representatives to intervene has resulted in many a disgrace in the past! We don't need to give them more powers to overrule planning law when it suits them or their buddies, or wins a few votes.
> 
> As for the loss of tax revenue to the state, I think this card is being overplayed. Sure, Dublin hotels and restaurants would do well that week, but at a cost to those in the rest of the country, unless those who would have spend their money going to these concerts put this money under their matresses and never, ever spend it in the future.
> 
> The extra travel involved would have resulted in lots more fuel used, more money out of the country... Also, how many million was Brooks going to take out of the country in his suitcase? The economics are a lot more complex than those representing the vested interests would have you believe.


I was going to make a similar point. The net gain/loss to the country is given by the trade balance. As you say the trade balance would probably have been negative. All other flows are internal with balancing "winners and losers".


----------



## Firefly (9 Jul 2014)

Dublin City Council and in particular Owen Keegan seem to be getting the blame for this. In my opinion the blame lies with the promoter. He's ultimately responsible as the project manager for the event. He might be constrained by legislation and bureaucracy but he should have worked around this and within the limits. Perhaps he knew the 3 night limit but decided to wait very late to lodge the application, taking the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" approach?


----------



## Firefly (9 Jul 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As to Garth Brooks saying 5 or none, well that just beggars all belief for arrogance and disregard for his Irish fans.



I'm not sure about this Duke. There would have been 160k fans unable to go - not sure the 3 concerts would have been very good as a result...bad karma and all that?


----------



## Sunny (9 Jul 2014)

Everyone in this mess comes out badly. 

Tommy Gorman needs to be dispatched to Nashville immediately to ask Mr. Brooks one question. 'What about the children Garth?'.....


----------



## Delboy (9 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> Dublin City Council and in particular Owen Keegan seem to be getting the blame for this. In my opinion the blame lies with the promoter. He's ultimately responsible as the project manager for the event. He might be constrained by legislation and bureaucracy but he should have worked around this and within the limits. Perhaps he knew the 3 night limit but decided to wait very late to lodge the application, taking the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" approach?



Apparently, the Promoter submitted all his plans weeks earlier than normal...per the Ray Darcy show this AM. Followed all the rules and guidelines


----------



## Firefly (9 Jul 2014)

Delboy said:


> Apparently, the Promoter submitted all his plans weeks earlier than normal...per the Ray Darcy show this AM. Followed all the rules and guidelines



That may be the case but he still should have ensured that everything was in order and processed. DCC may well be an issue here but the PM is ultimately responsible for the successful delivery of the project...


----------



## Leo (9 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> That may be the case but he still should have ensured that everything was in order and processed.



Absolutely, and as one of the biggest promoters in the country should have been well aware of the 3 night restrictions. It's also reported in the Times that Keegan told Aiken in advance that there was little chance of securing the 5 nights, and the likely outcome was only 3 would get licenced. That was conveyed to Brooks who insisted on 5 or nothing!


----------



## Sunny (9 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> Absolutely, and as one of the biggest promoters in the country should have been well aware of the 3 night restrictions. It's also reported in the Times that Keegan told Aiken in advance that there was little chance of securing the 5 nights, and the likely outcome was only 3 would get licenced. That was conveyed to Brooks who insisted on 5 or nothing!


 
That's unfair. I have never seen it reported like that. The Council 'raised concerns' about the concerts whatever that means. As far as I know, they never said there was little chance of them being licenced or said three would get licenced.  I could be wrong though. Do you have a link?

Why would the council licence three anyway? They are breaking the planning laws there as well hence the guy attempting court action. They should have either said no concerts or allow the five. All the parties in this saga are guilty of messing about.


----------



## DerKaiser (9 Jul 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> We have planning rules for a reason


That sums it up for me.

Our crooked banker friends, etc rode roughshod over the rules and regulations with the blessing of the regulator for years. The outcry now around planning rules being enforced undermines any righteous indignation around what the bankers were getting away with.

There is another argument about this bringing shame on the country and making us a laughing stock. Are we so insecure as to believe a charade involving a Country and Western singer from Oklahoma is a credible long term influence on how we are perceived worldwide?

Maybe someone should be getting on to Bruce Springsteen to offer him three nights playing to 240,000 people in croke park. That would be a good result.


----------



## cork (9 Jul 2014)

We need proper reform of local government.

Proper directly elected mayors with exucutive powers.

Why did Dublin City Council not bother to come out sooner?


----------



## Leo (9 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> That's unfair. I have never seen it reported like that. The Council 'raised concerns' about the concerts whatever that means. As far as I know, they never said there was little chance of them being licenced or said three would get licenced.  I could be wrong though. Do you have a link?


 
From here:



> Mr Keegan told the  promoters there was little likelihood five concerts would be permitted  and it was probable licences would be granted for just three.



Also a statement from the Council  saying they have consistently make it clear to the promoter once they became aware that tickets for 5 nights were on sale.



Sunny said:


> Why would the council licence three anyway? They are breaking the planning laws there as well hence the guy attempting court action. They should have either said no concerts or allow the five. All the parties in this saga are guilty of messing about.



I read somewhere that planning restricted them to a maximum of 3 in a row, but I can't find any authoritative source for that, so I'm not sure on that one. There is (was?) an agreement with residents that a maximum of 3 concerts would be held per year.

The basis for the legal challenge wasn't released, so anything on that is just conjecture.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jul 2014)

Latest:  Garth Brooks has written that he is heart broken and wants the "powers that be" in Ireland to change their mind.

I guess I would be heartbroken if a gambled a few million in a super bluff and got called.

No Surrender


----------



## AgathaC (9 Jul 2014)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Latest:  Garth Brooks has written that he is heart broken and wants the "powers that be" in Ireland to change their mind.
> 
> I guess I would be heartbroken if a gambled a few million in a super bluff and got called.
> 
> No Surrender



I get the feeling his wallet is hurting, more than his heart 
I've zero interest in him, and no sympathy, whatsoever, for him. I can't see why he couldn't have gone ahead with three concerts, especially as I believe he made a big deal of being so fond of Ireland, and so on. 
Disappointing for those who planned to attend, I'm sure.
I was incredulous at M Martin in the Dail today, talking about emergency legislation, in order that this could be sorted. Give me strength.


----------



## Delboy (9 Jul 2014)

Phew, it all looks like it's going to be ok now folks...Michael Lowry TD has issued a statement in line with FF's master plan earlier demanding emergency legislation to get the concerts back on.
We're getting signs of leadership just when we needed it the most


----------



## markpb (9 Jul 2014)

AgathaC said:


> I was incredulous at M Martin in the Dail today, talking about emergency legislation, in order that this could be sorted. Give me strength.



The satirical Twitter account Dail Plinth summed it up perfectly for me


> Fianna Fáil recommend passing a Bill to facilitate a millionaire Cowboy. I know there's a joke in there somewhere.


link


----------



## AgathaC (10 Jul 2014)

markpb said:


> The satirical Twitter account Dail Plinth summed it up perfectly for me
> 
> link



I can foresee the tribunal already. 
I just heard on news, someone wants to get President Obama to intervene...I checked the date, it's not April 1st...


----------



## Delboy (10 Jul 2014)

Mexican ambassador is getting involved now. Who said this was a Banana republic!


----------



## Sunny (10 Jul 2014)

Apparently the UN Security Council are going into emergency session with regards to this issue. There is supposed to be widespread support for a Resolution with even the Chineese completly aghast at the actions of Irish officials.


----------



## Firefly (10 Jul 2014)

DerKaiser said:


> Are we so insecure as to believe a charade involving a Country and Western singer from Oklahoma is a credible long term influence on how we are perceived worldwide?



Here here.


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Jul 2014)

While I'm not entirely dismissing the concerns of some residents I think:



they've dirtied their bibs with forgery
Plenty of residents want the concerts
Dont buy a house near a stadium (there since 1910's or so) and then complain about it.
Choosing a guy who doesnt live there wasnt the brightest idea (ok he has his handball bake, surely that can be accommodated in some way).
Garth aint Swedish House Mafia - culchies are by and large grand people if you take the time to understand them ...ok US. I've been to Croker more times than ... well ...lots of times and the atmosphere outside is grand. Between you me and the wall, I'd walk through places when there's an event on that I wouldnt walk through any other day of the year (or without being on fairly red alert).
Other than that:



the planning system is a shambles, what cant be explored and decided upon in 3 weeks isnt work exploring.
in the context of a 3 week turnaround, ticket sales before planning should be prohibited.
Aiken/the GAA/Garth were being greedy. The GAA were breaking their own rule - I gather they were willing to get the chequebook out to solve the problem - I dont really have a problem with that, it should be an everyone wins scenario.
I think Garth should have played the 3 - this "its a 5 concert production" I dont really buy. His "threat" is a bit of an affront, if he cared so much about his fans (of whom I'm certainly not one) he should play the 3.
Ringing Obama etc. is a cringe but I dont have a problem with politicians seeking a solution "in the national interest".
We've already had the embarrassment, lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater, play the 5 shows, whether there's a few days off in the middle and/or the residents get a bumper pay off - everyone wins and Ireland Inc remains a business friendly environment.
That is all


----------



## Kine (10 Jul 2014)

I blame public sector employees


----------



## Betsy Og (10 Jul 2014)

Its really gone GUBU now, what genius thought up 2 concerts in one day??, I dont blame him for ruling that out. This isnt a broadway show.

Now lads just sort it, I'm going abroad on hols tomorrow and if I have to listen to    someone slagging me over this utter utter farce  there'll be hell to pay, HELL TO PAY I tells ya!!


----------



## Firefly (11 Jul 2014)

This will be super material for Reeling in the Years


----------



## Leo (11 Jul 2014)

Betsy Og said:


> Now lads just sort it, I'm going abroad on hols tomorrow and if I have to listen to    someone slagging me over this utter utter farce  there'll be hell to pay, HELL TO PAY I tells ya!!



You're safe enough, most US media reports of his comeback either don't mention it at all, or gloss right over the mention of cancelled Dublin shows. Apart from some UK media outlets covering it, the rest of the world doesn't really care!


----------



## cork (11 Jul 2014)

Looks pretty bad alright.

Maybe Obama might come up with a solution.

or our New Minister for Tourism.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> This will be super material for Reeling in the Years



Callan's Kicks is back on TV on Sunday night.  He probably couldn't be any funnier than the reality.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Jul 2014)

Delboy said:


> Apparently, the Promoter submitted all his plans weeks earlier than normal...per the Ray Darcy show this AM. Followed all the rules and guidelines


Would this be the same Ray Darcy that promised to emigrate if Enda Kenny became Taoiseach? We're still waiting Ray.

Not true at all - they submitted their papers in April, two months after selling 400k tickets. And why the delay? Because;


Firefly said:


> he knew the 3 night limit but decided to wait very late to lodge the application, taking the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" approach?


It was an obvious attempt by Aiken, and continued by Garth to bully the authorities for their financial gain. They failed.



cork said:


> We need proper reform of local government.
> 
> Proper directly elected mayors with exucutive powers.
> 
> Why did Dublin City Council not bother to come out sooner?


We absolutely do need political reform of local government and elsewhere, but I’m not sure this is the issue to focus on. I’m not sure what difference at all a directly elected mayor would make. Most of us have moved on from the bad old days of the FF controlled councils passing ‘Section 4’ motions (have I got the section right) to overrule the professional planners and build everything, everywhere. 
The process worked. The only problem was the promoter’s decision to sell 400k tickets before he got licence to proceed. 


Betsy Og said:


> While I'm not entirely dismissing the concerns of some residents I think:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ve no idea why you say that the system is a shambles, or why you expect serious decisions like this to be taken in three weeks. For a start, the Councils don’t have teams of people sitting round waiting for these applications to land. There is other stuff going on. If they drop everything, everything a promoter has a brainwave, the system will grind to a halt. It’s a 10 week process. Do you really think that Aiken and Garth didn’t take their own good time to work out their contract? Do you really think that getting the stage and the equipment and the ship doesn’t take a significant period? This is big business, and needs to be done professionally.  Is there any good reason why Aiken shouldn’t have sought permission last year, and held off on selling tickets until permission was granted (other than the reason of bullying authorities into permission)?


cork said:


> Why no political intervention?


Because it’s not a Fianna Fail government. And most other governments don’t go much for political intervention in due process. Leo said it better;


Leo said:


> The ability of public representatives to intervene has resulted in many a disgrace in the past! We don't need to give them more powers to overrule  planning law when it suits them or their buddies, or wins a few votes.



And then you said:


cork said:


> This would have been a boost for business in Dublin.


Again, Leo said it better:


Leo said:


> As for the loss of tax revenue to the state, I think this card is being overplayed. Sure, Dublin hotels and restaurants would do well that week, but at a cost to those in the rest of the country, unless those who would have spend their money going to these concerts put this money under their matresses and never, ever spend it in the future.
> The extra travel involved would have resulted in lots more fuel used, more money out of the country... Also, how many million was Brooks going to take out of the country in his suitcase? The economics are a lot more complex than those representing the vested interests would have you believe.


The figures being bandied about were nonsensical. Where did the 70k visitors buying tickets come from – Mr Aiken perhaps? Where did the figures of visitors spending €700 each on top of their ticket price come from ? I don’t know many couples who spend €1500 to go see a gig.
Perhaps the figures were based on the price-gouging rates normally charged by hotels who double and treble their normal rack rates to exploit ticket buyers. Forgive me if my heart doesn’t bleed for them.

The rather funny Waterford Whispers letter from Aiken to Garth just about sums up my views on the matter, though decorum and good taste prevents me from posting a link.

And this disposable income will end up being spent on other stuff, on local pubs, restaurants and maybe on hotel weekends away. It will all come out in the wash.


Firefly said:


> Dublin City Council and in particular Owen Keegan seem to be getting the blame for this. In my opinion the blame lies with the promoter. He's ultimately responsible as the project manager for the event. He might be constrained by legislation and bureaucracy but he should have worked around this and within the limits.


Absolutely


DerKaiser said:


> Maybe someone should be getting on to Bruce Springsteen to offer him three nights playing to 240,000 people in croke park. That would be a good result.


Now you’re talking....


----------



## cremeegg (13 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> The ability of public representatives to intervene has resulted in many a disgrace in the past! We don't need to give them more powers to overrule  planning law when it suits them or their buddies, or wins a few votes.



Politicians may make mistakes or act from improper motives, but surely decisions like this should be make by people who are appointed by the public and accountable to the public.

After all George Redmond wasn't a public representative.


----------



## RainyDay (13 Jul 2014)

cremeegg said:


> Politicians may make mistakes or act from improper motives, but surely decisions like this should be make by people who are appointed by the public and accountable to the public.
> 
> After all George Redmond wasn't a public representative.



Why would you expect politicians to make better decisions than professionals?


----------



## cremeegg (14 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Why would you expect politicians to make better decisions than professionals?



In this specific issue the decision does not require any specialist expertise. 

It is a matter of balancing the understandable concerns of the residents with the fans desire for the concert.

There is no perfect answer, just a balance between competing interests both reasonable but unfortunately conflicting.

That seems to be a decision that should be made by elected representatives rather that a council employee.


----------



## Firefly (14 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> And why the delay? Because;



Please don't mis-quote me. Below is what I posted with the key difference being the word "_Perhaps_". Also, please do not use this as a statement of fact when it is clearly a question.




Firefly said:


> Perhaps he knew the 3 night limit but decided to wait very late to lodge the application, taking the "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" approach?


----------



## RainyDay (14 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> Please don't mis-quote me. Below is what I posted with the key difference being the word "_Perhaps_". Also, please do not use this as a statement of fact when it is clearly a question.



No offence intended, I was intentionally omitting the 'perhaps' and taking the remainder as a statement of my opinion of what happened. Aiken is no fool, and knew well that the 3-gig limit was in place, but chose to ignore it and sell 400k tickets. If DCC or the Govt pander to him and let him away with it, it creates a charter for every promoter in the land to ignore planning requirements for the future.


----------



## Firefly (14 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> No offence intended, I was intentionally omitting the 'perhaps' and taking the remainder as a statement of my opinion of what happened.



OK



RainyDay said:


> Aiken is no fool, and knew well that the 3-gig limit was in place, but chose to ignore it and sell 400k tickets. If DCC or the Govt pander to him and let him away with it, it creates a charter for every promoter in the land to ignore planning requirements for the future.



Agreed.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> No offence intended, I was intentionally omitting the 'perhaps' and taking the remainder as a statement of my opinion of what happened. Aiken is no fool, and knew well that the 3-gig limit was in place, but chose to ignore it and sell 400k tickets. If DCC or the Govt pander to him and let him away with it, it creates a charter for every promoter in the land to ignore planning requirements for the future.



I think that's the core of the issue. DCC, the government, the state, the Mexicans, Obama etc where not the problem. Brooks and Aiken were the problem.


----------



## cork (15 Jul 2014)

Purple said:


> I think that's the core of the issue. DCC, the government, the state, the Mexicans, Obama etc where not the problem. Brooks and Aiken were the problem.



But when they saw a problem DCC, the government & the state were all found wanting.

There should have been a compromise on this.

Is Croke Park not to be used as a type of psedo national stadium?


----------



## Firefly (15 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> But when they saw a problem DCC, the government & the state were all found wanting.



How exactly?


----------



## RainyDay (15 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> But when they saw a problem DCC, the government & the state were all found wanting.
> 
> There should have been a compromise on this.


There was a compromise. They allowed three out of the five concerts to go ahead, which is double the amount permitted. Remember Garth originally planned just two concerts, but for some strange reason, refused to go ahead with three.

DCC did compromise - Garth/Aiken didn't - so now you know who to blame.


----------



## TarfHead (15 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> .. but for some strange reason, refused to go ahead with three.



IMHO .. Brooks has always been a businessman peddling a brand. When he saw ticket sales hitting 400K, his motivation was set. When  EUR (400K tickets * his cut) was no longer available to him, he made a cold-eyed decision to walk away.  Like closing a factory that no longer makes the money you want from it.

All the hokum about "favourite child" and "my mother's face" is about as sincere as a politican's promise.


----------



## Firefly (15 Jul 2014)

The White House wouldn't help him either. I suppose that's what having friends in low places get you 

sorry


----------



## RainyDay (15 Jul 2014)

TarfHead said:


> IMHO .. Brooks has always been a businessman peddling a brand.



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Brooks



> He received a track scholarship to Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, where he competed in the javelin.[15][19] Brooks graduated in 1984 with a *degree in advertising*.


----------



## Purple (15 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> But when they saw a problem DCC, the government & the state were all found wanting.
> 
> There should have been a compromise on this.
> 
> Is Croke Park not to be used as a type of psedo national stadium?


Nonsense. Rainyday is correct.


RainyDay said:


> There was a compromise. They allowed three out of the five concerts to go ahead, which is double the amount permitted. Remember Garth originally planned just two concerts, but for some strange reason, refused to go ahead with three.
> 
> DCC did compromise - Garth/Aiken didn't - so now you know who to blame.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2014)

DCC offered 4, which was pathetic but they were clearly bending over backwards to get a compromise.  

Cowboy wanted a total surrender. I can understand his initial bluff but once it became clear that paddy wasn't falling for it surely he should have cut his losses  - can't understand it.


----------



## cork (15 Jul 2014)

Croke park is a pseudo national stadium.

If DCC made their concerns known 6 months ago - a lot of this stuff could be avoided.


We really need directly elected mayors that are accountable.

A lot of lessons have to be learnt from this.


----------



## DB74 (15 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> Croke park is a pseudo national stadium.
> 
> If DCC made their concerns known 6 months ago - a lot of this stuff could be avoided.
> 
> ...



The one lesson we have learned is that the planning laws should not be circumvented by ANYONE in this country.


----------



## Sunny (15 Jul 2014)

DB74 said:


> The one lesson we have learned is that the planning laws should not be circumvented by ANYONE in this country.


 
Have we? The council circumvented them by granted three concerts. The Council themselves decided to go against what was laid out in the planning permission granted to Croke Park. The only argument was over how far they could go. 

That's why this whole thing was so ridiculous. I couldn't care less about the concerts (apart from the economic cost) and I am glad I don't have to listen to Garth Brooks verbal diarrhea anymore but I cannot understand the council granting permission for three and then bending over backwards to get the other two squeezed in. The should either have stopped them all or allowed all five as requested. I hear people say isn't it great that we stood up to Brooks and Aiken. Brooks will find another city to host his comeback concerts. He won't lose sleep over it hence why he didn't try and compromise. What did Dublin as a City get out of this whole mess? Our planning laws are still a joke and we don't get 400,000 people spending money in the city. Hardly reason to celebrate and say job well done.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> Croke park is a pseudo national stadium.
> 
> If DCC made their concerns known 6 months ago - a lot of this stuff could be avoided.


Maybe if Aiken has applied for licence 6 months ago, then DCC could have made their concerns known. He didn't - he waited till April - 3 months after selling 400k tickets.

For the record, it's not up to DCC to make any concerns known. There is a process for getting a licence. It  takes about 10 weeks. Therefore, you need to apply for licence 10 weeks before you need to sell your tickets. How hard is that?


cork said:


> Our planning laws are still a joke and we don't get 400,000 people spending money in the city. Hardly reason to celebrate and say job well done.


Instead, we have 330,000 spending their disposable income locally, in their own pubs and restaurants, with some maybe spending it on weekends away etc. They'll certainly be getting better value for money for their spend, as they'll be avoiding the price-gouging tactics operated by hotels around these big events.

As for the supposed 70k tourists, given that most flights are non-refundable, there are great opportunities for hotels to be creative (Garth Tribute night anyone) and keep those tourists coming. 

And overall, we won't have a huge amount of disposable income heading overseas in Garth's back pocket, or paying for overseas equipment and crew etc.


----------



## Firefly (15 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Maybe if Aiken has applied for licence 6 months ago, then DCC could have made their concerns known. He didn't - he waited till April - 3 months after selling 400k tickets.
> 
> For the record, it's not up to DCC to make any concerns known. There is a process for getting a licence. It  takes about 10 weeks. Therefore, you need to apply for licence 10 weeks before you need to sell your tickets. How hard is that?



The fact it takes 10 weeks, or two and a half months, to get a license for a concert may well be an issue too. Given that the promoter is trying to secure a large act (and possibly fend off competition from other venues) it probably means he must go the route he has gone, by selling the tickets in advance of a license. In addition this process has been going on for years so one could argue that DCC should have aired their concerns before now. It's still ultimately the promoter's fault in this particular case...he would have known the Croke Park limit being in the game so long, but it doesn't help that the process takes so long for what is only afterall a concert. 

The process may have worked, but is it fit for purpose?



RainyDay said:


> Instead, we have 330,000 spending their disposable income locally, in their own pubs and restaurants, with some maybe spending it on weekends away etc. They'll certainly be getting better value for money for their spend, as they'll be avoiding the price-gouging tactics operated by hotels around these big events.



That's debatable. Maybe fans will book a flight to one of the other concert destinations, thereby bringing the money out of the country. 

Also, price-gouging is a subjective and emotive term. Pricing according to demand would be more fair no?



RainyDay said:


> And overall, we won't have a huge amount of disposable income heading overseas in Garth's back pocket, or paying for overseas equipment and crew etc.



That may be true in the short-term, but if you were a big act and you were planning a world tour would you look as favourably at Ireland as a destination now?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (15 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> That may be true in the short-term, but if you were a big act and you were planning a world tour would you look as favourably at Ireland as a destination now?


Great, that is one import leakage stemmed


----------



## RainyDay (15 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> The fact it takes 10 weeks, or two and a half months, to get a license for a concert may well be an issue too. Given that the promoter is trying to secure a large act (and possibly fend off competition from other venues) it probably means he must go the route he has gone, by selling the tickets in advance of a license. In addition this process has been going on for years so one could argue that DCC should have aired their concerns before now. It's still ultimately the promoter's fault in this particular case...he would have known the Croke Park limit being in the game so long, but it doesn't help that the process takes so long for what is only afterall a concert.
> 
> The process may have worked, but is it fit for purpose?


I really don't see the problem. The same process applies to all outdoor events, so there is no competitive advantage or disadvantage. All similar venues have the same issue. If the acts want access to Irish punters (who tend to pay a lot more than UK or European punters for each ticket), they play it our way. 

I don't accept your point that he HAD to sell tickets in advance. He didn't HAVE to sell the tickets. If he had applied for the licence in good time, he could have got the licence long before the tickets were sold. The decision to sell the tickets early is about cash flow and testing the market - commercial decisions, not legal or procedural.



Firefly said:


> That's debatable. Maybe fans will book a flight to one of the other concert destinations, thereby bringing the money out of the country.
> 
> Also, price-gouging is a subjective and emotive term. Pricing according to demand would be more fair no?


What I've seen fits the description of price gouging nicely thanks. You're right that some of the money will indeed leave the country, but really, is this significant enough to override a sensible planning process?



Firefly said:


> That may be true in the short-term, but if you were a big act and you were planning a world tour would you look as favourably at Ireland as a destination now?


If I was a big act, I certainly wouldn't be looking at Aiken in Croker if another act already had 3 gigs there. Apart from that, if the Irish market continued to be as lucrative as other destinations, I'd be in like Flynn.


----------



## AgathaC (16 Jul 2014)

TarfHead said:


> IMHO .. Brooks has always been a businessman peddling a brand. When he saw ticket sales hitting 400K, his motivation was set. When  EUR (400K tickets * his cut) was no longer available to him, he made a cold-eyed decision to walk away.  Like closing a factory that no longer makes the money you want from it.
> 
> *All the hokum about "favourite child" and "my mother's face" is about as sincere as a politican's promise*.



Love this! 
Now I wish the whole thing would just go away.


----------



## Firefly (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I really don't see the problem. The same process applies to all outdoor events, so there is no competitive advantage or disadvantage. All similar venues have the same issue.



I was referring to international venues so I should have made that clear. 



RainyDay said:


> If the acts want access to Irish punters (who tend to pay a lot more than UK or European punters for each ticket), they play it our way.



This is nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding on how things work in the real world. Rules are there to be met sure, but they should change if they need to. You can now tax your car online and get a passport via the post for example. Would it be unreasonable for DCC to offer a fast-tracked option for major gigs looking for extra nights for example, or are we saying it takes another 10 weeks for the 4th night and yet another 10 weeks for a 5th night? By the way I'm not advocating this solution - I know nothing about licensing laws nor the music industry but changes to the current process should be examined at the very least given this whole fiasco. The promoter is clearly at fault here, but all I am asking is that we look at the process - it may have "worked" but perhaps it explains why the practice of selling tickets subject to license has been going on for years. 




RainyDay said:


> I don't accept your point that he HAD to sell tickets in advance. He didn't HAVE to sell the tickets. If he had applied for the licence in good time, he could have got the licence long before the tickets were sold. The decision to sell the tickets early is about cash flow and testing the market - commercial decisions, not legal or procedural.



I agree but with any large act (especially one like Garth Brooks making a comeback) it must be very difficult to judge the market up front. Having to wait 10 weeks for a license for a 4th night and then another 10 weeks for a 5th seems impractical to me. I accept that the rules are the rules and in this case I'm glad the law of the land was up held, but as I have pointed out, this "Irish" way of booking shows and selling tickets in advance of getting a license has been going on for years. If the process of getting a license was quicker this probably wouldn't be happening. Again, I know nothing of licensing and 10 weeks may well be the fastest this can be processed, but I would have my doubts.




RainyDay said:


> What I've seen fits the description of price gouging nicely thanks. You're right that some of the money will indeed leave the country, but really, is this significant enough to override a sensible planning process?



I think it might be time to go to Specsavers, I never said anything about overriding a sensible planning process, so again, please don't misquote me! I am merely pointing out that your assertion that "we have 330,000 spending their disposable income locally" may not be accurate.



RainyDay said:


> If I was a big act, I certainly wouldn't be looking at Aiken in Croker if another act already had 3 gigs there. Apart from that, if the Irish market continued to be as lucrative as other destinations, I'd be in like Flynn.




That would represent a very impressive knowledge of promoters and local planning laws for, presumably one of many international gigs you would be performing at.


----------



## cork (16 Jul 2014)

People turned aganist Abbotstown because it was out a bit.

Then residents have a problem living beside stadiums.

People want it every way.


----------



## Sunny (16 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> People turned aganist Abbotstown because it was out a bit.
> 
> Then residents have a problem living beside stadiums.
> 
> People want it every way.


 
People turned against Abbotstown because it was a Bertie Ahern vanity project. The FAI can't fill the Aviva and they were supposed to move to the 75,000 seater stadium. That made sense alright.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> People turned aganist Abbotstown because it was out a bit.
> 
> Then residents have a problem living beside stadiums.
> 
> People want it every way.


If I ever want to employ a spin doctor I'll PM you.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> I was referring to international venues so I should have made that clear.
> 
> This is nonsense and shows a complete lack of understanding on how things work in the real world. Rules are there to be met sure, but they should change if they need to. You can now tax your car online and get a passport via the post for example. Would it be unreasonable for DCC to offer a fast-tracked option for major gigs looking for extra nights for example, or are we saying it takes another 10 weeks for the 4th night and yet another 10 weeks for a 5th night? By the way I'm not advocating this solution - I know nothing about licensing laws nor the music industry but changes to the current process should be examined at the very least given this whole fiasco. The promoter is clearly at fault here, but all I am asking is that we look at the process - it may have "worked" but perhaps it explains why the practice of selling tickets subject to license has been going on for years.
> 
> ...


There is no suggestion that anyone has to wait multiples of 10 week periods. All Aiken had to do was make a commercial judgement about the maximum number of nights that are feasible (let's say 5 is the magic number), and then make an application for permission for 5 nights of gigs 6 months in advance of the date. He then gets permission 3 months ahead, and puts tickets on sale for the first two nights. If they sell out, he goes for a further two nights. If the 4th night isn't completely sold out, he cancels the possibility of the 5th night. It's not rocket surgery.

The only impediment to this approach is that he won't be able to lie to punters and say 'two nights only, get your tickets quick' - but I'm not sure that it is the role of the State to help service providers to mislead punters.

I don't see where the conclusion that 'the process is broken' is coming from. One problem with one exceptional circumstance is not evidence of a broken process. If the promoters stick to the process and allow adequete time, the process works.

I don't have any particular difficulty with a review of the process, though of course the time and energy spent on this review will mean that something else goes undone. Is it really worth diverting resources into this review, or do we just tell promoters to apply in good time?



cork said:


> People turned aganist Abbotstown because it was out a bit.
> 
> Then residents have a problem living beside stadiums.
> 
> People want it every way.



Jeez, those goalposts are moving so fast, it is all just a blur. Every time your arguments are addressed, you move onto to another angle.


Firefly said:


> I think it might be time to go to Specsavers, I never said anything about overriding a sensible planning process, so again, please don't misquote me! I am merely pointing out that your assertion that "we have 330,000 spending their disposable income locally" may not be accurate.


You're right, the 330k figure may not be accurate. Aiken just might have over-egged the figure of 70k coming from abroad to boost his case, so perhaps it is 350k, or 380k. Or perhaps it is really down to 300k. Who knows?

Either way, it's not a hugely strong argument for changing the process.



Firefly said:


> That would represent a very impressive knowledge of promoters and local planning laws for, presumably one of many international gigs you would be performing at.


Now there's an idea....3 nights or the full 5, do you reckon?


----------



## RainyDay (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> As for the supposed 70k tourists, given that most flights are non-refundable, there are great opportunities for hotels to be creative (Garth Tribute night anyone) and keep those tourists coming.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...-go-country-in-lieu-of-garth-brooks-1.1868070
Well that was a quick response from Failte Ireland to my suggestion. Fair play....


----------



## Sunny (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> There is no suggestion that anyone has to wait multiples of 10 week periods. All Aiken had to do was make a commercial judgement about the maximum number of nights that are feasible (let's say 5 is the magic number), and then make an application for permission for 5 nights of gigs 6 months in advance of the date. He then gets permission 3 months ahead, and puts tickets on sale for the first two nights. If they sell out, he goes for a further two nights. If the 4th night isn't completely sold out, he cancels the possibility of the 5th night. *It's not rocket surgery*.


 
Not many things equate to rocket surgery to be fair!


----------



## Firefly (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I don't see where the conclusion that 'the process is broken' is coming from.



Where did I conclude that the process was broken? That's *3 times* in one thread you have mis-quoted me. It's very difficult to debate with someone who keeps up with this kind of racket.


----------



## Firefly (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> You're right, the 330k figure may not be accurate. Aiken just might have over-egged the figure of 70k coming from abroad to boost his case, so perhaps it is 350k, or 380k. Or perhaps it is really down to 300k. Who knows?
> 
> Either way, it's not a hugely strong argument for changing the process.



I never said it was


----------



## RainyDay (16 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> Where did I conclude that the process was broken? That's *3 times* in one thread you have mis-quoted me. It's very difficult to debate with someone who keeps up with this kind of racket.





Firefly said:


> I never said it was




Are we arguing over the difference between a broken process and 'not fit for purpose' process???


Firefly said:


> The process may have worked, but is it fit for purpose?





Firefly said:


> all I am asking is that we look at the process


----------



## Firefly (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Are we arguing over the difference between a broken process and 'not fit for purpose' process???



No, I never said the process was broken or not fit for purpose, I was merely _asking_.


----------



## dereko1969 (16 Jul 2014)

Purple said:


> If I ever want to employ a spin doctor I'll PM you.



Chemical Ali has nothing on them.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Jul 2014)

Firefly said:


> No, I never said the process was broken or not fit for purpose, I was merely _asking_.


Fair enough. Now that you mention it, I never said that you said that the process was broken. 

There does seem to be a view out there that the 'process is broken' or 'DCC screwed up'. I don't see any evidence of this at all.


----------



## Purple (16 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Fair enough. Now that you mention it, I never said that you said that the process was broken.
> 
> There does seem to be a view out there that the 'process is broken' or 'DCC screwed up'. I don't see any evidence of this at all.



I agree. The promoter, the GAA and the Cowboy chanced their collective arms and got caught out. 
It never would have happened if Albert Reynolds was still in charge. He'd have had Brooks doing a Joe Dolan tribute tour. The tag line could have been "There's no show like a no show"


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Jul 2014)

From the Irish Times 

 	Sick of the [broken link removed] concert “debasco” dominating everything you read online? Want to block all things Garth Brooks related from your newsfeed?
  	Dublin-based digital media firm EightyTwenty has created a solution  called “Garth Blocks” in an attempt to give the public some respite.
  	The company says the Chrome plug-in rids the internet of all references to the American country singer.


----------



## Firefly (17 Jul 2014)

Fantastic! Pretty quick turnaround too in fairness. Great way for a small firm to get publicity too


----------



## cork (17 Jul 2014)

The story that keeps giving.

The picture of Michael Ring & Pascal Donoghue today is worth 1000 words.

Is this the best our govt could come up with?


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> The story that keeps giving.
> 
> The picture of Michael Ring & Pascal Donoghue today is worth 1000 words.
> 
> Is this the best our govt could come up with?


 
Bertie, Fagan's should be open at this stage. Just pop around and relax for a few hours.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Jul 2014)

cork said:


> The picture of Michael Ring & Pascal Donoghue today is worth 1000 words.


It's nice that we can agree on something.


----------



## Purple (17 Jul 2014)

I don't see the attraction of Brooks; we've enough cowboys of our own.


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2014)

Purple said:


> I don't see the attraction of Brooks; we've enough cowboys of our own.


 
I don't either but the fact remains that 400,000 people were willing to spend an awful lot of money to se him. Out of curiosity, does anyone know the exact reason why 5 concerts weren't allowed. I don't care about the rights and wrongs. Just the actual reasons laid out by DCC. Have they been made public?


----------



## Leo (17 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone know the exact reason why 5 concerts weren't allowed. I don't care about the rights and wrongs. Just the actual reasons laid out by DCC. Have they been made public?



DCC  linked on page 3 of this thread.


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2014)

Leo said:


> DCC  linked on page 3 of this thread.


 
Cheers. So the reasons were:

The scale, magnitude and number of the concerts with an expected attendance of in excess of 80,000 people per night over five consecutive nights, three of them being week nights is unprecedented for Croke Park Stadium.

*Surely just because something is unprecedented doesn't automatically mean permission should be refused. It should lead to increased analysis but I fail to see why it is one of the grounds for refusal. *

Three consecutive concerts have already taken place in Croke Park from the 23rd to 25th of May 2014. Given that Croke Park is situated in a heavily populated residential area, five shows in a row following on from the three concerts already held there this year is considered an over intensification of use of the stadium for the holding of special events/concerts. It would be in effect permitting an increase of 100% in terms of the maximum number of concerts that had previously been held in Croke Park in any given year since the redevelopment of the stadium.

*That's fair enough but why grant three? That was still permitting an increase of almost 100%.*

The cumulative effect on residents and on some businesses in the Croke Park and surrounding neighbourhoods, of licencing five shows in a row, three of them on weekdays, would lead to an unacceptable level of disruption to their lives/livelihoods over an unprecedented and prolonged period caused by, concert related noise, access restrictions, traffic disruption, illegal parking and potential antisocial behaviour. The City Council would also be concerned with the precedent that would be created if five consecutive concerts in a row of this scale were licenced.

*DCC received 373 submissions on this application. This is a tiny percentage of the local area. It has since transpired that a large number of these submissions were fake and that other residents in the area wanted the concerts to go ahead for employment reasons. So 400,000 people buy tickets basically saying they want a concert to be put on. Less than 300 people complain about the concert being put on. Most local businesses would also be in favour. Hmmmmm. Again, I don't understand the precedent argument. Simply state that is a once off thing and in future, no events of this size will be granted permission.*

*DCC have a responsibility to the whole of Dublin City. That's what they always say when it comes to building infratructure projects in areas that local's object to. Leaving aside Garth Brooks and Aiken, I fail to see how DCC can say it made the correct decision. Do the opinions of less than 300 people really outweigh the economic boost that Dublin would have enjoyed? If so, then good luck to DCC with the next waste disposal plant they decide to build. *


----------



## RainyDay (18 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> *Surely just because something is unprecedented doesn't automatically mean permission should be refused. It should lead to increased analysis but I fail to see why it is one of the grounds for refusal. *


How did you conclude that 'unprecendented' = 'automatic refusal'? Mentioning 'unprecendent' in the response does not mean that 'unprecendent' = 'automatic refusal' - it simply points out that the fact that the event was unprecedented was one of the factors.



Sunny said:


> *DCC received 373 submissions on this application. This is a tiny percentage of the local area. It has since transpired that a large number of these submissions were fake and that other residents in the area wanted the concerts to go ahead for employment reasons. So 400,000 people buy tickets basically saying they want a concert to be put on. Less than 300 people complain about the concert being put on. Most local businesses would also be in favour. Hmmmmm. Again, I don't understand the precedent argument. Simply state that is a once off thing and in future, no events of this size will be granted permission.*


Planning is not a numbers game. It's not a case of 'I  got more supporters than you got objections, so I win'. The planners listen to the objections, and listen to the supporters, and then make their decision. Any suggestion that it had become a numbers game would lead to mass X-Factor style voting campaigns to bump up the numbers on either side.



Sunny said:


> *DCC have a responsibility to the whole of Dublin City. That's what they always say when it comes to building infratructure projects in areas that local's object to. Leaving aside Garth Brooks and Aiken, I fail to see how DCC can say it made the correct decision. Do the opinions of less than 300 people really outweigh the economic boost that Dublin would have enjoyed? *


As described above, the economic arguments have been overplayed. Should DCC really be trying to take all that money into Dublin, if that it taking large amounts of leisure spending out of Cork and Limerick? With the concerts not going ahead, surely most of the disposable money will be spent in Ireland anyway, with the same economic impact - in fact, maybe with a higher impact if people aren't paying stupid money to hotels and B&Bs.


Sunny said:


> If so, then good luck to DCC with the next waste disposal plant they decide to build. [/B]


It's been quite a while since DCC built any waste disposal plant, and will probably be quite a while more before another one comes along.


----------



## Sunny (18 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> How did you conclude that 'unprecendented' = 'automatic refusal'? Mentioning 'unprecendent' in the response does not mean that 'unprecendent' = 'automatic refusal' - it simply points out that the fact that the event was unprecedented was one of the factors.


 
But why just because something is unprecedented is it a factor in refusing something? Just because something hasn't happened before isn't a reason for explaining why it can't happen. It's simply a fact. It's not a reason. 



RainyDay said:


> Planning is not a numbers game. It's not a case of 'I got more supporters than you got objections, so I win'. The planners listen to the objections, and listen to the supporters, and then make their decision. Any suggestion that it had become a numbers game would lead to mass X-Factor style voting campaigns to bump up the numbers on either side.


 
Why do you continuously misquote people in this thread? Where did I say it was purely a numbers game? It was DCC themselves that stated that they took the over 300 submissions into account when making their decision. They mentioned the number, not me. I simply pointed out if they wanted to go down the numbers game, there is another side to the equation. It has since transpired that a large percentage of these submissions were fake. On that basis alone, DCC based part of their decision on flawed information. We don't know what weight DCC gave to these submissions when making their decision but less than 300 objections is not a lot considering DCC were talking about 'unacceptable disruption to their lives'. It is pretty obvious that the majority of residents in the local area didn't consider the disruption to be so unacceptable that they lodged an objection. 



RainyDay said:


> As described above, the economic arguments have been overplayed. Should DCC really be trying to take all that money into Dublin, if that it taking large amounts of leisure spending out of Cork and Limerick? With the concerts not going ahead, surely most of the disposable money will be spent in Ireland anyway, with the same economic impact - in fact, maybe with a higher impact if people aren't paying stupid money to hotels and B&Bs.


 
Sorry but that is a completely ridiculous argument. DCC should refuse five concerts because of the economic damage they would cause Limerick and Cork? So on that basis, all large sporting events and concerts that have the potential to attract people into Dublin should be banned because they are causing economic damage to the provincial areas. I am going down to Galway Arts Festival for a week from Dubin. Should Galway County Council have refused the license for that because Galway is getting money I could be spending somewhere else.

DCC have a responsibility to Dublin and the businesses that pay rates in Dublin. They are not responsible for Irish GDP figures.

Anyway, I don't really care either way but I probably would if I was a Dublin rates payer as it looks like a very poor decison based on the explanations they gave for reaching it. You are obviously very passionate about the subject and disagree so there you go. I am moving on with my life anyway......


----------



## RainyDay (18 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> But why just because something is unprecedented is it a factor in refusing something? Just because something hasn't happened before isn't a reason for explaining why it can't happen. It's simply a fact. It's not a reason.


No-one has said that '*just *because something is unprecendented' that it is a factor in refusing it. It's not the unprecedented bit on its own. It's the unprecendented bit as part of an overall picture.

Is it really that unusual? It's not an unusual question at all, in any situation to ask 'Have we done this kind of thing before?'. It doesn't mean that we refuse it because we haven't done it before, but it does mean that scrutinise it a bit more carefully.



Sunny said:


> Why do you continuously misquote people in this thread? Where did I say it was purely a numbers game? It was DCC themselves that stated that they took the over 300 submissions into account when making their decision. They mentioned the number, not me. I simply pointed out if they wanted to go down the numbers game, there is another side to the equation. It has since transpired that a large percentage of these submissions were fake. On that basis alone, DCC based part of their decision on flawed information. We don't know what weight DCC gave to these submissions when making their decision but less than 300 objections is not a lot considering DCC were talking about 'unacceptable disruption to their lives'. It is pretty obvious that the majority of residents in the local area didn't consider the disruption to be so unacceptable that they lodged an objection.


Please don't misquote me. I didn't say that you said that it was purely a numbers game. I simply said that it's not purely a numbers game. You brought up the question of 400,000 ticket buyers vs 300 objectors. It's a meaningless comparison. 

Your conclusion that "the majority of residents in the local area didn't consider the disruption to be so unacceptable that they lodged an objection" is not sound. There could be many, many reasons for someone not to object. Maybe their literacy is poor, or their English language skills or poor. Maybe they've no idea how planning processes work. Maybe they were intimidated by others in their community one way or other. Who knows. You've opted for a single explanation for their reasons for not objecting, which has no basis in fact.

I'm not an expert in planning, but as I understand it, the question of fraudulent objections would be a moot issue, for the purposes of the planning decision (though indeed it should be investigated by Gardai). It's not a question of how many people object. It's a question of what reasons for objections are given. I'd guess that it is fairly unlikely that the fraudulent objections brought new information on the table, so they really wouldn't have impacted the decision either way.



Sunny said:


> Sorry but that is a completely ridiculous argument. DCC should refuse five concerts because of the economic damage they would cause Limerick and Cork? So on that basis, all large sporting events and concerts that have the potential to attract people into Dublin should be banned because they are causing economic damage to the provincial areas. I am going down to Galway Arts Festival for a week from Dubin. Should Galway County Council have refused the license for that because Galway is getting money I could be spending somewhere else.
> 
> DCC have a responsibility to Dublin and the businesses that pay rates in Dublin. They are not responsible for Irish GDP figures.


For someone who accuses others of misquoting, I think you might want to take the stone out of thine own eye first.

I didn't say that "DCC should refuse five concerts because of the economic damage they would cause Limerick and Cork". I said that the economic arguments for approving extra concerts were overplayed, because it is largely just moving spending around within Ireland, rather than bringing fresh money into Ireland. As other posters have pointed out, in fact, it might well be taking more money out of Ireland (in Garth's back pocket and in the pockets of his overseas crew) than it brought in.




Sunny said:


> Anyway, I don't really care either way but I probably would if I was a Dublin rates payer as it looks like a very poor decison based on the explanations they gave for reaching it. You are obviously very passionate about the subject and disagree so there you go. I am moving on with my life anyway......


Actually, I don't care that much about Garth at all. What I do care about is the knee-jerk reaction of how the Government or the Council screwed. Thankfully, there hasn't been much knee-jerking here on AAM.


----------



## Sunny (18 Jul 2014)

You are absolutely right in everything you say. I withdraw all comments  on the subject. DCC are above approach and I apologise for questioning the basis of their decision. Now off to Galway to spend a lot of money. Not that the local economy and Galway County Council should be happy about that because its only money moving within Ireland......


----------



## RainyDay (18 Jul 2014)

Have a great time in Galway. If you get moving quick, you'll be just in time for this local gig, which won't result in your 'loadsamoney' being taken out of the economy;

http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/art...nge-celebrates-with-garth-brooks-tribute-band


----------



## cremeegg (18 Jul 2014)

Rainyday and Sunny I think I saw you both in Galway today,


----------



## Leo (21 Jul 2014)

Sunny said:


> But why just because something is unprecedented is it a factor in refusing something? Just because something hasn't happened before isn't a reason for explaining why it can't happen. It's simply a fact. It's not a reason.



You'd have to go back and look at the planning permission granted to Croke Park which included reference to holding such events. The Council stated allowing all 5 would represent an intensification in use of Croke Park as a concert venue, so in line with planning law, new permission would really be required.


----------

