New Bon Jovi Album: This House Is Not For Sale (2016)

Given that I made a special trip to Jackson to buy the CD when it came out, YES, I am fully aware of when it was recorded.

Wrong. There was no uncertainty in Jon's PA during the show, on the contrary, "he won't be performing anytime soon" + in the statement on the official site, "Due to personal issues, Richie Sambora will not be performing on this upcoming leg. All shows will go on as scheduled."
That's why Phil was asked to join.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/04...n_3015948.html
Not what I'd call a "day to day decision"!

EDIT (for the braindead readers):
Calgary show without Richie: 4/2
Huffingtong Post article: 4/4 i.e. only 2 days later
and Phil was called on 4/2 but couldn't find a flight to arrive on time for the show so he joined only the day after and was hired for the rest of the leg, not for just one show.
"day to day decision"? yeah, right!

If there was some uncertainty it concerned only the rest of the tour + a blatant lack of info available, most concert-goers didn't know they could ask for a refund. But most likely those who knew didn't because either they didn't care or it would have cost them too much to cancel (flights, rented cars, hotel rooms, working days off...).

You need to get your timeline straight when you make statements...

You said that Jon offering refunds was your indication that Richie wasn't coming back and I said, if anything Phil joining the tour was more of an indication. Both of these things happened days after Richie left. At this point all information was day to day... All the other BS you posted above happened way after the fact and has nothing to do with anything involving your last statement.

What! 'Apparently' doesn't mean that. It's an adverb and could be used different ways depending on how it's stated. And if you are going to use that word you need to follow it up with a why. That's what an adverb is. It describes the verb. Example:

You saying that Richie wanted to come back but 'apparently' Jon wouldn't let him is being stated as if it's a hard fact. It's misleading..

You should have stated... Richie wanted to come back but 'apparently' Jon wouldn't let him in reference to the interview he gave a year later.

I know I keep repeating this to you but STOP MAKING THINGS UP and drawing your own conclusions without either hard facts or stating that it is your own opinion.

While I don't think it was day to day uncertainty I absolutely think it was tour leg to tour leg. No one could say if Richie was coming back because no one knew. It's too easy to lean on the report saying Richie wants to come back and Jon won't let him and connect the dots.

Phil repeatedly said he didn't know if he'd be back for Europe and the ball is in Richie's court and Matt said the same. Matt absolutely has every reason to fib a bit but what is Phil gaining by saying they're waiting on Richie? No formal announcement could have been made because no formal decision was made either way.

I disagree with the point about Richie not smart enough to scheme up firmly saying to announce he's not coming back to protect him and the band because it's not a scheme. it's just common sense. If you want the band's fan base, you keep them happy. If the band wants to give he impression that it's just a block in the long road, they say "we'll see". I mean true to form a good chunk of he band's fanbase stopped being hardcore for Richie once it was clear he's no coming back. That's not something you want early on when you're trying to kickstart being out there on your own.

I disagree with your disagreement! My experience in this business tells me that what may be common sense in the world of 9 to 5 jobs is not at all in the entertainment business. There are a lot of examples to prove it, here's the latest famous one:

http://www.mtv.com/news/2117204/zayn...one-direction/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...departure.html

But whatever. Each of us is entitled to have their own point of view, we don't have to agree on everything.

Enjoy!
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/d...can/apparently

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparently

Nothing new...

http://themusicuniverse.com/david-br...lbum-for-2016/

Per your link...used to describe something that appears to be true based on what is known

Key words "True" based on what is "known"

Jon saying that he'd be hard pressed to let Richie back in the band (to join the new album and tour 2015/2016) does not = Richie wanted to rejoin the 2013 tour 2 years prior and Jon said "No"

Not that I really want to get in between you two, but assuming that you are giving as much credence to Richie's comments as you are to Jon's, wouldn't the fact that Richie said he wanted to come back (known) and the fact that he didn't rejoin the band (known) then make the phrase "but apparently Jon wouldn't let him" an accurate use of the term?