Garth Brooks/Dublin City Council

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.




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.
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?

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.
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.

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?
 
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!
 
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.
 
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 :confused::rolleyes:
 
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.

I never said it was :confused::rolleyes:


Are we arguing over the difference between a broken process and 'not fit for purpose' process???
The process may have worked, but is it fit for purpose?

all I am asking is that we look at the process
 
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.
 
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"
 
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.
 
Fantastic! Pretty quick turnaround too in fairness. Great way for a small firm to get publicity too
 
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.
 
Back
Top