Castletown Concert Committee Report

Report >> 4.3 Seating

Complaints, 761 in total, in relation to seating far exceeded the other complaints. The vast majority of seating complaints referred to the flat part of the arena directly in front of the concert stage. They ranged from no seats being available, people obviously sitting in the wrong seats to seats being actually missing. These complaints are, in our view, most disconcerting and surprising.

The cost of tickets for this concert was very expensive. The simple reason for this is that the artiste performing is one of the highest paid performers in the world. A better understanding of the relativity of fees between artistes can be gleaned from the comparison of best tickets to the Dome in London recently. Barbra Streisand appeared there a week after Castletown House and a best seat cost £750 [Sterling]. A few weeks later the same seat for Prince cost £31.50 [Sterling]. So it is quite obvious that the performer determines the cost of each seat. This of course does not take from the complaints by patrons, but it goes to illustrate how charges are determined and that irrespective of the cost of the ticket, the availability of the seat is the key issue, not the cost. All patrons are entitled to a satisfactory service taking all the circumstances into account.

It is true to say that the committee in examining the seating plan found it to be complex and very difficult to understand. To the professionals it was not as difficult, and perhaps on a perfect evening in July it would not have created the problems it did.

To understand some of the problems that related to seating it is important to set the scene as it applied to the Event Manager and his team. The weather conditions (see appendix 5) had created many problems for them to deal with in car parking, general site conditions, movement of transport and machines on site. It is quite obvious to this committee that having the Castletown House site prepared in time for the opening night created many challenges for the Event Management team.

On Wednesday the 11th July the seating co-ordinator had a meeting with Ticketmaster as per normal practice in the week of a concert. The seating co-ordinator employed by MCD on the night was very professional and experienced, having dealt with hundreds of events in the past. While the seating and reseat plan was complicated, they were satisfied that if everything was completed in terms of seating identification and numbering that the seating plan would work.

While this issue of seating identification and numbering was considered a priority, the event management team was tasked with many other challenges, as a consequence of site deterioration and other demands.

One of these demands was the removal of sections of seating behind each delay tower. These had to be physically removed at the artistes management’s request as they did not want to see empty seats. This provided it's own problems later when patrons for those seats thought they had never existed, even though they had been re-allocated/upgraded to another area. In the promoters experience it is better to leave the seats 'in situ', so that patrons can actually see the seats and the lack of vision that existed because of their actual location behind a 'delay tower'.

An important background to the seat and labelling situation is that during the ticket sale period, the demand for tickets was greater in the Price 3 - €193.50 and Price 4 - €118.50 sections. This resulted in a number of rows in the middle section of the 'flat' seating being removed before the show in order to avoid a view of empty seats by the artiste. The result of this caused confusion in that in the mid section areas row numbering was non-sequential.

Because of the heavy rain for several hours on Friday the 13th, and the last minute changes being made to seating, numbering and labelling of seating did not take place. It was put back to the morning of Sat 14th, the day of the concert. While seat numbering and labelling took place on Saturday morning, it was not without its problems. MCD staff and the seating contractors strived earnestly to complete the task on time; however a problem arose resulting in a large number of replacement labels having to be done by hand. These were being done on the afternoon of the concert in conditions of heavy rain. In fact during the rehearsal this work was continuing. It was not completed prior to doors opening. Row and seat signage was put on low crowd control barriers because higher signage holders would have been unstable on the soft ground. This created another difficulty as the signage could not be seen by people as the normal flow of pedestrian traffic was blocking the view.

Normally all the seat and rows would be finished and the 70 ushers briefed by the Seating Co-ordinator. This did not happen as the doors opened at 6.15pm and the crowed flowed into the arena. According to MCD staff, the different sub contractors and some patrons that were interviewed, a number of patrons became immediately hostile and aggressive. This may have been caused by their experiences in getting to the venue. We are satisfied that irrespective of difficulties that existed as described above, certain patrons re-seated themselves and thereby caused a domino effect as other seat holders arrived for their seats. The ushers described never having experienced such un-cooperative and hostile behaviour in the past, to such a level that they became overwhelmed under the demands.

Once irregular seating took place, even on a small scale, it created major problems for all others in those seating areas. There were instances where patrons refused point-blank to vacate seats not allocated to them when asked to do so by ushers and security, even so much so that some even refused when members of the Garda Síochána were called. Such behaviour irrespective of the cause creates an unmanageable situation for those in charge. This is not to take from the responsibility off MCD, who as the promoter were fully responsible for the service provided to patrons on the night. Nevertheless to criticise MCD solely for what occurred without explaining just some of the issues that arose and the behaviour of some patrons would be unfair.

While we could go into much more detail on different aspects of what occurred on seating issues on the night, it is our view unnecessary as the ultimate responsibility rests with MCD. Our conclusions on complaints in relation to seating are as follows:

1. Seats behind delay towers should not have been removed, irrespective of what the artiste wished. When people are being re-seated they want to see the reason for it.

2. Some patrons with complete disregard for other patrons re-seated themselves in seats not allocated to them and in refusing the direction of ushers created a domino effect whereby others felt oblidged to do something similar. This in essence did nothing to ease a difficult situation that already existed.

3. Signage irrespective of ground conditions should be visible to patrons.

3. Ushers were not wearing identifiable clothing as provided by MCD. It seems these were mislaid prior to doors opening. This should not have occurred as it is a vital part of identification for patrons at such an event.

4. The overall expectation of some patrons attending an outdoor concert after 50+ days of persistent rain seems to have been far too optimistic when we consider the footwear and general attire of some.

5. For some there appears to have been a certain lack of understanding of what to expect at such a venue even to the point that some were unaware that it was an outdoors event. The committee is satisfied that the promoters made considerable effort through advertising and PR to inform concert goers what to expect. The price of a seat does not usually, in a concert such as this one, indicate the level of service to be provided, but in fact indicates the fee of the performer.

Those patrons who were not properly seated for the concert deserve and are entitled to be compensated for what they endured. This is covered in the recommendation in the final chapters.

<< [back to chapter 4.2] | [to contents] | [on to chapter 5] >>