I think that's as good of a summary as one can do with 2 sentences.

There's always different sides of stories in any falling out, but I prefer to focus on facts. No matter who said what what to whom, Richie made a commitment for the tour and abruptly pulled out right before one of the shows leaving the band and fans high and dry. That is a fact. Everything else is just speculation, which is not something I personally care for 5.5 years later.

Richie had every intention of returning. He was prevented from doing so.

And given how he looked at his solo shows that followed months later (compared to just 1-2 years prior) it's not hard to figure out why that was.

I think you are probably right, but that is also speculation. It also does not remove the single fact we know, Richie decided not to show up.

We can debate whether he should have been allowed back. It's Jon's business and his call. If I were in his position and Richie wanted back in, I would take him in a second. However, if Richie had never left in the first place, there would be no need for the situation to deteriorate.

I am really trying to stick to the facts as much as possible. And, again (beating a dead horse), the fact we know about is that he did not turn up. Richie has never contradicted this either.

That said...

In terms of speculation, I think there are only two possible scenarios; Jon became so overwhelming and controlling that Richie could not bear it anymore, or Richie had another substance collapse and no-showed, and it snowballed from there.

Not speculation on my part.

Aloha !

Yeah, it's no speculation. Richie thought he could just come back and Jon told him to **** off. And yes, it's both Richie's substance abuse and Jon's controlling way of ruling the band that eventually killed the band.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Ok, great, but not really my point. Richie did not show up for the show but wanted to come back and was prevented, yes?

I think that's what you are saying. Would he have been fired if he had showed up and completed the tour? I guess not.

So, he got himself fired by essentially not showing up for work. By the way, I guess that is something most of us on this forum would also be fired for. Admittedly, that's a cold way of looking at it, but then it has been clear for some time that Jon does look at it that way.

Richie knows Jon better than any of us. He must have at least had an idea not showing up was essentially handing in his notice.

Aloha !

Cocaine, alcohol and prescription pills sure cloud your vision though. Richie thought he'd never get fired and could do as he please. It's a clash of ego's and eventually neither party won. Richie's career tanked and Jon sure knows his band sounds dire thanks to the breakup. Neither will admit it though.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Fact. Singular. He didn't show up.

So much for focusing on facts. :roll:

I believe "to figure out why" would fall under the category of "speculation". But if you're going to "figure out why", can you at least stick to the facts for your figuring?

I don't know how many "months later" you're talking about; but the first performance after Calgary that I can find is at the Hollywood Christmas Parade (8 mos. later). The video quality doesn't allow for a good look at his face but he sounds fine. Here's the next show (9 mos. later) where the image is clearer . Still looks in control to me.
https://youtu.be/T990Stsioqk

This one's from June 2014 (14 mos. later). Objectively speaking, he may be starting to put on weight, which can be an indication that he's drinking/drugging again, but it's hard to tell. For someone who may be using, he sounds pretty darn good on a song he recorded 20+ years before.
https://youtu.be/vkF8sZ6DkAA

It was further down the road that he started looking like he may be under the influence during performances; but, iirc, that was almost a year and a half after he supposedly fell off the wagon.


And for comparison, why go all the way back to 1-2 years prior? How about 2 weeks prior:

Lubbock, TX (Mar 17, 2013):
https://youtu.be/InQzLJJAUWU

If you insist on comparing it to a solo show, here's one from Oct 2012 (6 mos. before):

https://youtu.be/toLSEptcn34

No video, but here's a photo taken 3 days before Calgary:
http://m.tmz.com/#!2013/04/03/richie...usiness-money/

Looks happy and healthy there. But, yeah, it's possible that he fell off the wagon within the 2-3 days after the picture was taken, just in time and for just long enough to miss a show, and then bounced back almost immediately. But apart from what Azza understands from his source and Jon's ever-changing history, I see nothing that would indicate, much less prove, that Richie didn't show up because of substance abuse. In 2014, Richie said that drugs had nothing to do with his departure; and in 2013, Jon stated, point-blank, that it wasn't alcohol. So if it wasn't alcohol and it wasn't drugs, what substance are we talking about?

After Richie called Jon out for the one time he tried to hint that alcohol was involved in 2013, it wasn't until the THINFS promos started that Jon & Co. again started insinuating that addictions were the reason Richie "didn't show up". "Insinuating" being the key word, because to this day - unless I missed it - Jon still hasn't actually said that it was substance abuse, nor has he confirmed it when he was asked directly if the issue was alcohol or drugs.

So, if we're gonna start "figuring out why" about things, there's only one reason, that I can figure out, why Jon is using innuendo to paint a dark picture, but avoids calling it what it is. And that's that there might be legal repercussions if he publicly says that "substance abuse" was the reason Richie didn't show up and it turns out that he can't back it up.

Which begs the question, IF it wasn't substance abuse, why is Jon going to such great lengths to convince everybody that it was?

Fair enough, you got me here.

My second post was aimed at baiting Azza into revealing more information that he's no supposedly so secretive about.