Garth Brooks and Croke Park : Boss to intervene?

Started by armaghniac, January 20, 2014, 01:13:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

moysider

Quote from: macdanger2 on July 16, 2014, 07:58:50 AM
Quote from: moysider on July 16, 2014, 01:14:58 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 15, 2014, 10:24:20 PM
When was it actually applied for though?

5 gig event obviously. That is what was put to the council I assume. They hardly would put in a multiple choice 2/3/4 application? The DCC fucked up this big time by acting cute. They thought they would appease the residents that moan and get a compromise event on. Fair play to the yank. At least he saw through the usual Irish solution to an Irish problem. Bullshit. The problem was presented as a bully trying to get a way past legistlation. It turns out there was no legistlation to prevent the concerts! unbelievable. And it s as if he didn t know that before he made his decision. You couldn t make it up.
Dublin CC must be some rolling in cash.

Lets see.

Golden Goose: Listen Dublin/Ireland I can lay ye 5 golden eggs - all solid boss.

DCC: No. We can t cater with that amount of gold at all. 3 golden eggs is all we can deal with now. The country is awash with gold and we can do without the bother of much more.

Golden Goose: Well lads, its the five eggs or none. Else I ll have to lay my eggs elsewhere.

DCC: Keep yer gilden f**king eggs. We don t need them. We re a rich city already, we are. Besides, we don t like the sound of you re honks.

There was an application for 5 concerts, there were several objections (albeit some of them are now allegedly fraudulent) by the residents on the grounds that concerts on five consecutive nights would be too much of an imposition on their lives. The council took this into account and three concerts were granted.

If you compare it to an application for building a house - you apply to build a mansion on the top of a hill, the council review your application and any objections which come in and are likely to grant you permission for a bungalow off the crest of the hill - is this "f*cking up by acting cute"? Or following the planning guidelines and taking into account the views of stakeholders in the process??

References to how much money this was likely to generate are entirely irrelevant - the planning laws don't (and shouldn't) take into account how much money is likely to be generated from something. Or should we bend our laws any time someone comes knocking with a "golden egg"??

In the case of the house the applicant can bugger off and not bother building any house at all on the hill if he s not allowed build what he wants. He s not compelled to build the bungalow.

Anyway this was a 5 night event, not a monsrosity that would be blight on the landscape for ever. The point is that the DCC could have licensed the gig. If they felt that it was setting a precedent then they could have introduced legislation for the future capping events at 3 nights or whatever. At least then everybody would know where they stood and there would be no messing about. Granting a licence for the 5 nights would not have been bending any laws either as it turns out.

The money generated is a huge consideration because - well the country is broke. What was the point of Enda's gathering events to try and generate a few bob when an earner like this is casually brushed aside.

I can t see the greedy side of this at all. Brookes hardly needs the money. The chipper in Drumcondra I was in last week certainly could do with all the business it can get. So too all the other people that would have been employed in the build up to the event and around the shows. Sure Aiken would have done well. But what business doesn t try to make money?
Anyway isn t this the type of thing the government was trying to encourage.
The fact that a lot of people were going to enjoy themselves, at a time when there is f**k all to enjoy about the place, is a consideration as well.
Blame lies solely with DCC on this one.

balladmaker

#811
QuoteBlame lies solely with DCC on this one.

+1

(1) One man makes a decision in a democratic society and there is no right for anyone to appeal that decision?  Something badly wrong about that.

(2) GAA/Aiken never informed that 5 would not fly until 3 weeks before the gigs.

(3) Man who made the decision has a vested interest in the specific area where the shows are to be staged.

(4) Decision was based on false information i.e. forged objections.

(5) They offered 3 licences first, then put a 4th on the table, then made it 3 again, then offered 5 in 3 days, then offered 3 now and 3 in October ... all seems very unprofessional from DCC.  Brooks and his management team must have been thinking WTF.

THE MIGHTY QUINN

Quote from: hardstation on July 16, 2014, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: THE MIGHTY QUINN on July 16, 2014, 01:05:43 PM
It all boils down to the begrudging attitude of some people. Rather than look at the rich man and think' I wanna be that man', better to look at him and think, ' I wanna get that b**tard'
haha

FFS listen to yourself.
Priceless coming from a man with a chip on both shoulders


balladmaker

So a possible Judicial Review in the High Court today, and if Dublin City Council do not contest it, the shows will go ahead ... but Owen Keegan has said that they will contest it, someone needs to have a serious word with Mr. Keegan to take himself away on holiday for a few weeks starting now.


THE MIGHTY QUINN

On a much more serious note, where exactly does the big guy live in the States?  I'm touring over here at the moment and I wouldn't want to bump into him. The sound of an Irish accent could put him over the edge

balladmaker

#817
QuoteEven if they do manage to go on the crowd going will be so stressed at this stage they'll hardly be able to enjoy it!

Counselling will be required on entrance to the stadium ...

http://www.rte.ie/ten/news/2014/0716/631191-another-bid-to-save-brooks-concerts/

bcarrier

Duffy and McKenna's representations are very damning of Keegan. 

There also appears to have been widespread misreporting of the licensing situation.

Croke Park has an automatic entitlement to three but needs to apply for a special licence for more. This is not "they are only allowed to hold three concerts a year".

balladmaker

QuoteCroke Park has an automatic entitlement to three but needs to apply for a special licence for more. This is not "they are only allowed to hold three concerts a year".

And that's an important point, no limit to the number of concerts they can have in Croke Park, so long as they receive additional licences beyond the first 3.

Owen Keegan is not looking good in all of this at present, something not adding up at present, and Peter McKenna said he'll swear that he was told by DCC that they were supportive of 5 shows.

Under Lights

Can this thread be locked now that it is confirmed as cancelled?

thebigfella

This could end up in the European court of human rights yet.

macdanger2

Quote from: balladmaker on July 16, 2014, 04:26:48 PM
QuoteCroke Park has an automatic entitlement to three but needs to apply for a special licence for more. This is not "they are only allowed to hold three concerts a year".

And that's an important point, no limit to the number of concerts they can have in Croke Park, so long as they receive additional licences beyond the first 3.

Owen Keegan is not looking good in all of this at present, something not adding up at present, and Peter McKenna said he'll swear that he was told by DCC that they were supportive of 5 shows.

It's worth pointing out that Keegan's statements to the Dail committee were in direct contradiction of McKenna's statements. Clearly one of them is lying but there's no evidence as to which one. You could just as easily say that McKenna is not looking good in all of this or that Keegan's statements are damning of McKenna.

I agree that there should be an appeals process but it 100% should not lie in the hands of an elected representative - anyone with any knowledge of our recent history should be able to see that. Responsibility for changing that process lies with the govt though and until it's changed, it shouldn't be circumvented because of the money involved.

muppet

Quote from: macdanger2 on July 16, 2014, 04:57:58 PM
Quote from: balladmaker on July 16, 2014, 04:26:48 PM
QuoteCroke Park has an automatic entitlement to three but needs to apply for a special licence for more. This is not "they are only allowed to hold three concerts a year".

And that's an important point, no limit to the number of concerts they can have in Croke Park, so long as they receive additional licences beyond the first 3.

Owen Keegan is not looking good in all of this at present, something not adding up at present, and Peter McKenna said he'll swear that he was told by DCC that they were supportive of 5 shows.

It's worth pointing out that Keegan's statements to the Dail committee were in direct contradiction of McKenna's statements. Clearly one of them is lying but there's no evidence as to which one. You could just as easily say that McKenna is not looking good in all of this or that Keegan's statements are damning of McKenna.

I agree that there should be an appeals process but it 100% should not lie in the hands of an elected representative - anyone with any knowledge of our recent history should be able to see that. Responsibility for changing that process lies with the govt though and until it's changed, it shouldn't be circumvented because of the money involved.

Agreed.

Appeals could be to the Commercial or High Courts at €10,000 a pop.
Further appeal to the Supreme Court at €50,000 a go.

Then you would know it meant something to those involved.
MWWSI 2017

balladmaker

QuoteIt's worth pointing out that Keegan's statements to the Dail committee were in direct contradiction of McKenna's statements. Clearly one of them is lying but there's no evidence as to which one. You could just as easily say that McKenna is not looking good in all of this or that Keegan's statements are damning of McKenna.

I'm not saying that anyone has lied, just that both ends of the arugument appear to have a different take on it, which they both may fully believe to be 100% correct.  McKenna said he'll swear via an affidavit, he obviously believes his version of events.