anfearbeag you seem to view things in a very simplistic way. Are you saying you would support 6 concerts in Croke Park in a week if they took place across the New Year period (29th, 30th 31st December, 1st, 2nd, 3rd January) but you believe 4 concerts in the summertime is unacceptable? Maybe you believe the GAA should stop funding local community centres etc in the years they don't host 3 concerts as the disruption to the residents doesn't justify such expenditure?

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 05/07/2014 21:24:35    1614280

Snufalufagus
County: Dublin
Posts: 7703

1614233
Wrong!

Had these concerts gone ahead the biggest losers would have been:

The rule of LAW! (The right to 'Quiet Comfort') Enough is enough for the locals! Its a SPORTS VENUE, not a theatre!!
Honour and Integrity! (The GAA breaking its own agreement by 200% with the locals because of GAA greed)!
Democracy! (The City Council considers such applications for licences on behalf or the citizens of Dublin City based on what is """fair and reasonable""" for all citizens of the City). At a time of politics in this country being in the gutter - big money business must not and can not anymore be allowed to win the day over Dublin City Citizens!!!

Why can people not see the above which are crystal clear?!
How silly to think it has anything to do with the music or the singer!!

Regards,

Snufalufagus....Laochra Gael


The right to 'Quiet Comfort' you say? I assume whilst considering that this point is the fulcrum of your position on this topic that your being consistent in its application. When is that right enforced in regards to people who live beside or in the flight paths of Dublin Airport when it is ever increasing capacity? I assume you feel equal sympathy for those in inner city Dublin who live near bars and clubs whose noisy patrons keep them awake at night. I assume you feel sympathy for those living near Dublin port when ferry and cargo boats wake them up in the morning and during the night. What about those digging up the city in order to improve infrastructure, the incessant sound of drills causing untold annoyance. Should all mass protests be banned? I assume you basically feel equal sympathy for anyone affected by any sort of disturbance? Perhaps a reasonable position would put this down to living in a modern city.

I'd respect your position if it had any consistency to it. Yes Croke Park is a sports venue. Also, the Dublin Pub is a premises that serves alcohol, not a restaurant. We reside in 2014, not 1914. The economy of establishments change and ancillary revenue is as important to most institutions as is its main source of revenue. The fact most major stadia host these type of events is not a coincidence. You may call it greed, many more i suggest would call it prudence in a super competitive environment where staying in the black is difficult.

Democracy you say? I would be very interested in a poll of the citizens of Dublin whether 5 concerts in Croke Park is a good idea for this city. Whether 70 million spent in services is a good idea, whether supporting jobs is a good idea? The views of the DCC elite on this issue is more to do with lobbying than democracy i would say. If this represents democracy then its a spent force in my opinion. This certainly does not reflect the greater good for the majority of the people of Dublin.

To answer your last question, people do not see your point of view because it makes no sense.

seany16 (Dublin) - Posts: 1663 - 05/07/2014 21:47:23    1614297

I think the 5 concerts have to go ahead and will go ahead.

This all started when the gaa decided to develop croke park when they should have moved to a new site.
Back then just like now the gaa can't see past their noses, they were always bullies, no middle ground, ban anyone that didn't tow the line.
Time for people to wake up and I for 1 am glad the residents are taking them on.

allSOran (Sligo) - Posts: 690 - 06/07/2014 09:05:19    1614317

Seany16 nowhere in your post did you mention the residents. You speak about noise emanating from pubs,clubs,ports and airports. The noise that emanates from those places is as a result of the heir primary function. Noise emanates from Croke Park on Saturdays and Sundays throughout the year as a result of matches . What has happened here is that Croke Park and big business in particular have attempted to ride roughshod over the rights of the residents . Thankfully big business has now been made to face the consequences of its greed and cavalier attitude to those who live in the vicinity of Croke Park . I wonder if you were looking at another week of lockdown and late night noise in your own locality would you be so quick to espouse the economic imperative.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6180 - 06/07/2014 10:13:05    1614353

"Croke Park has been there for over 100 years and disruption in that area is part and parcel of daily life."

I am sorry Seany but that is just not true. I don't accept that. Disruption in the vicinity of a sports stadium is normal when there are sporting events on. The residents knew that when they bought/rented the houses and they accept that. They also knew, and accept, that there would occasionally be other events on. But what was being proposed here is a level of disruption to their daily life which no resident has ever seen before, and which could not have been anticipated when they moved to the area. It is the scale of the event which is the problem, and which is been driven by the greed of Garth Brooks, the promoters and the GAA (management).
JonCarter mentions the residents around Anfield when Liverpool play. I once lived within a stone's throw of Maine Road when Man City still played there. For twenty Saturdays (or Sundays) in the year, there would be traffic issues in the local area, and our daily lives would be put out a bit. But we knew that when buying the house so we put up with it. Occasionally it happened on weekday nights as well, and you put up with that also. It was an accepted part of living close to a football stadium. In the very same way that the residents around Croke Park accept the fact that their area will be disrupted on Sundays during the summer. But we never had to deal with the area being shut down for music concerts for five days in a row, and had it happened we would have objected, and we would have been entirely justified in doing so.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 10:36:30    1614364

Are you saying you would support 6 concerts in Croke Park in a week if they took place across the New Year period (29th, 30th 31st December, 1st, 2nd, 3rd January) but you believe 4 concerts in the summertime is unacceptable?

Your arguments are becoming more and more tenuous and juvenile the longer this goes on. Instead of considering what is fair for all parties, you are (like the GAA) picking out loopholes to try to justify unacceptable behaviour on their part. I have already answered that point in a previous post.

"Having 5 concerts on for five nights in a row is far more of an imposition on residents than having 6 concerts evenly spread out over a 2 year period."

So no, I don't think 6 concerts in a row from December to January would be acceptable. I think that the spirit of an agreement has to be honoured as well as the letter.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 10:42:55    1614366

anfearbeag it is funny you should mention Man City. They of course play at the Etihad Stadium now, a sports venue that hosts big concerts every summer. So similar to the Croke Park situation actually in that this year 1Direction played 3 concerts there. I think there are usually a lot more concerts each summer but they are redeveloping the stadium now, increasing its capacity, so it was just the 3 concerts this year. The residents did not seek any compensation for these 3 concerts, and there were no big objections to the increase in stadium capacity, because everyone living there recognises the benefits it brings to the area, and in truth how small the disruption is on concert days all things considered. So while you may have complained, you would have been a pretty lone voice. The Etihad is in one of Manchesters more deprived area, but thanks to the investment associated with it things are steadily improving. The surrounding area even has the top rated restaurant in Manchester now, which is only there due to the benefits of being close to a stadium. And most people happen to enjoy the excitement and atmosphere that a big concert brings to the area, it is one of the benefits of living in a city.

Regarding my point on the 6 consecutive nights over the new year, I know it is ridiculous but it illustrates a point - when an agreement is made you must recognise the spirit it was made in, rather than comparing it to a situation with your 10 year old and following it to the letter. Therefore it is surely appropriate to say that if the GAA are averaging less than 3 concerts a year, they are acting within the spirit of the agreement.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 06/07/2014 11:13:37    1614384

Therefore it is surely appropriate to say that if the GAA are averaging less than 3 concerts a year, they are acting within the spirit of the agreement.

No Soma. In fact I would say exactly the opposite. An agreement to hold a maximum of 3 concerts in a year, means that you hold a maximum of 3 concerts in a year. Not 1 this year and 5 next year.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 11:27:41    1614393

@ Snug

You keep talking about this "the right to quiet comfort". When you have been questioned on this as to context, you have either ignored the question or responded ab absurdo. Can you enlighten us on the context of your argument as to "quiet comfort"?

M_O_B_1982 (Dublin) - Posts: 4 - 06/07/2014 12:20:00    1614418

The comparison of Croke Park to the Etihad stadium is also not a true or fair comparison for a number of reason.
Firstly the locations of the stadiums are very different. Croke Park is wedged into the middle of a residential area which almost touches the ground on every side, and has been there for over a 100 years, over which time the city has grown around it. The City of Manchester Stadium on the other hand was purpose built on a brown-field site as part of the Sports City Complex, on a large area of virtually derelict land. So the level of disruption to local residents is just not the same. In fact it was deliberately situated there because it wouldn't have a major impact on local residents. Croke Park would be far more comparable to the old Maine Road ground, or Anfield than the Etihad. For anyone unfamiliar with the location, just look at the pictures on the Wikipedia page. Croke Park and the Etihad are like chalk and cheese.
Secondly, the City of Manchester Stadium was built, as you say, in a deprived area of the city. I know it well, as I worked fairly close by for several years. It has transformed an area of the city which had nothing going for it. I believe that as part of the redevelopment, the club are building 2 new schools (primary and secondary), a community centre, and a new 7000 seater mini-stadium (Fancy trying to squeeze another small stadium beside Croke Park?) The area around Croke Park is nothing like the Eastlands area. Sure, it is no D4, but it is nothing like where the Etihad was built.
Thirdly, because the stadium was purpose built, the parking and transport around the stadium is light years ahead of Croke Park. 2000 parking spaces at the stadium? A tram line running right to the stadium with a tram stop on site? A regular bus service going to the ground on match-days?
And finally, the club pays 3 million a year to the local council to rent the stadium, which can then be spent on local services.

In fact if you want to look at a model for what Croke Park could have been, if the developers had shown more imagination, and people weren't fixed on clinging onto the past and keeping Croke Park where it is, then the Etihad is a cracking example of what could have been achieved. At present, it is nothing like Croke Park.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 12:30:48    1614426

@ JayP
"This will cost the local economy millions" ..... Not really. If there never was any Garth concert they would receive nothing. Local business were gaining money. Now they aren't gaining money. Cost neutral really!

You comment on ridiculous statements...this is the most ridiculous on here. The decision not to hold these concerts will result in a loss to the economy of roughly 20 million. To say that this is cost neutral is nonsense.
Going by your logic...If I didn't work, I would receive no wages. So I get a job which promises to pay me 50,000 next year. A third-party decision prohibits me from realizing this gain. So now I won't gain this now.
This is not cost neutral. It will cost me 50,000.

M_O_B_1982 (Dublin) - Posts: 4 - 06/07/2014 12:33:06    1614430

So then we are back to the idea of 6 concerts over the new year period in consecutive nights anfearbeag. You seem to want it every way for the residents, and that you want only Croke Park to respect both the letter and spirit of the agreement. I still believe that an average of 2.5 concerts per year is no massive burden on the residents in the area, considering the benefits the stadium and these concerts bring to the surrounds.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 06/07/2014 12:37:07    1614433

M_O_B.1982.

Flawed logic. If businesses in the area were set to gain revenue, surely you see if there were no concerts they lose no money. You cant lose what you dont yet have. The comment should be, business arent gonna make more money if the concerts dont go ahead.

Again, thanks for highlighting this. Why didnt these businesses back the residents when they were asking for dialogue with the GAA? Oh, they were busy thinking about the money they had not yet earned.

JayP (Dublin) - Posts: 1772 - 06/07/2014 12:46:20    1614439

"you want only Croke Park to respect both the letter and spirit of the agreement."

Of course the onus is on Croke Park to obey the letter and spirit of the agreement. They are the ones who are disrupting the day to day lives of local residents, and profiting handsomely from it. The onus is on them to keep the disruption to a minimum.
If it were the other way round, then the onus would be on the residents. If, to use an unlikely example, the local residents decided to organises a massive street party on the streets around Croke Park, which meant that supporters could not get to games, then I would expect them to hold the party on dates and times that caused minimum disruption to the normal workings of Croke Park. And if they agreed to hold the party on three Sundays a year, then I wouldn't consider it acceptable to hold no party this year and next, but to hold them on 9 Sundays in a row in the middle of summer the following year. It would still only average 3 days a year, but the timing of them would cause too much disruption to the normal workings of Croke Park to be acceptable.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 12:52:39    1614443

anfearbeag the Etihad stadium comparison was more to do with your suggestion that sports stadiums should be only used for sports, and that if there are concerts in them then residents have every right to complain. In truth, a lot of modern sports stadiums are used for a variety of purposes, whether that be the Etihad, Emirates or Croke Park. I agree the Etihad has advantages over Croke Park, but there are houses right across the road on 2 sides so noise levels will be comparable at least. The truth is that in Manchester nobody cares as they see the bigger picture.
Regarding your jibe at the GAA about a lack of foresight and clinging onto history, I think you are forgetting what the economy of Ireland was like when the Croke Park redevelopment started. It was the early 90's and there was very little money in the country - the GAA had to do the redevelopment in phases as they did not have the finances to build an entire new stadium. However they took on the financial burden and risk and have ended up with an incredible stadium. To try and portray an amateur organisation as backward for this is a bit idiotic.

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 06/07/2014 12:59:56    1614448

@ JayP

The decision not to hold the concerts will cause a loss to the economy. There is no flawed logic in this. If everyone in the country decides not to work for a year, your logic will say that this is cost-neutral. Because the work won't happen.

M_O_B_1982 (Dublin) - Posts: 4 - 06/07/2014 13:04:23    1614453

Oh, they were busy thinking about the money they had not yet earned.

This is the essence of business, enterprise and employment. It is about the future expected profit/wage motive. I'm not sure why you are surprised by this.

M_O_B_1982 (Dublin) - Posts: 4 - 06/07/2014 13:08:06    1614456

It sure is an unlikely scenario you have used there, in fact it would be fair to say it is completely daft. You are talking about the residents doing something which prevents Croke Park being used, here we are talking about Croke Park doing something that inconveniences the residents so there is quite the distinction. In truth, I would say a street party would add to the atmosphere on big game day in Croke Park, even if it was a little inconvenient, and I would encourage it. As the residents have not had any street party since 2008, perhaps they could have one every Sunday next year to make up for it?

Soma (UK) - Posts: 2630 - 06/07/2014 13:13:53    1614459

Firstly Soma, I didn't say that sports stadiums should only be used for sports. Nor do the residents associations. I fully accept that sports stadiums will be used for other events. So do the residents associations. What I would argue is that there is an acceptable and unacceptable level to which these sports stadiums are used for other purposes, and that level varies from stadium to stadium depending on local conditions. In the case of a sports stadium built in the middle of a residential area, the level which was being proposed here is just too high to be fair for the local residents. Noise is only one factor. The closure of streets and general traffic chaos is of equal if not greater concern, and does not occur to anything like the same degree in Manchester.
I accept your point on the financial restrictions that Croke Park faced when redeveloping the ground, and I was probably unfair in my criticism. However, I stand by my earlier point that they made no provision at the time for easier access to the stadium, even if that was to occur in the future. In addition they have done nothing in the intervening period, and appear to have no plans to do anything in the future to alleviate the traffic/parking issues in the area.
Also and most importantly, given that they did not have the financial ability to built a new stadium outside of prime residential areas and instead redeveloped the existing ground, they cannot now pretend that they are not stuck in that residential area and that there are no restrictions on their activities because of that. If you want to hold 8 concerts a year (like the Etihad did with Take That) then fine. Build a stadium on a brown-field site where disruption to residents is kept to a minimum, and make sure that you re-develop the general area to keep the locals sweet. If you want to (or have to) keep your current location in a residential area and redevelop that, then that's fine also. But you have to accept the limitations that come with that. One of which is the level of non-sporting activity that can occur there.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 06/07/2014 13:20:55    1614463

Hope this mess gets sorted to the satisfaction of all local residents and ticket holders alike.

Seems to be a throwback to an era of zero/light touch regulation when those that could organised/planned/built away ignoring all agreed parameters ( three events in this case) and to hell with the consequences. Of course back then some well positioned local politician (no names now please) would by now have clinched a licence in their favour.

I am not a Garth Brooks fan but would hate to see those who paid good money for tickets have their travel, holiday and accommodation plans messed up.
Looking forward to a satisfactory resolution in the next 24-48hours.

Curlew66 (Roscommon) - Posts: 605 - 06/07/2014 13:32:31    1614475