I agree in principal, but there is one problem I have with the logic when I think about it. If there is more to know (again, there must be, even at a minimal level), why isn't Richie saying so?

Sure, he is locked into some legal agreement where he can't throw Jon under the bus. I get that, but does that legal agreement extend to Jon having carte blanche to throw Richie under the bus? I think not. If addiction was not the reason (let's say large percentile reason), then why is Richie simply not saying "hey, me falling to my addictions was not the reason I left, I can't delve into the reasons why, but it was not that?

I don't buy because he is the bigger/better man. You say they let us know what they want us to know. Ok, but why wouldn't Richie want us to know he was not off his tits and that caused his departure? Surely, if addiction was not the reason and Jon has (implicitly) said it was and David has (explicitly) said it was, that would be libelous if untrue.

So, while it seems obvious there are things at play we don't know about, it also seems obvious to me that addiction was the main reason Richie left. Remember, we are talking about that point in time. Perhaps Richie was moving towards the door anyway and was disenchanted in general. However, that precise moment he left seems to have been caused by addiction, unless Jon is lying and Richie is letting him.

I have no doubt that they have Richie slapped down in a legal contract that doesn't let him say a thing about it. BJ will have the worlds best entertainment lawyers at their beck and call. Richie isn't allowed to say a thing, while Bj can say can throw Richie under the bus whenever they want. Of course, It's all speculation, but that's how big businesses and the legal system work...

We know a month later he said he wanted and expected to rejoin the tour.

We now know the band gave him tough love by not letting him because he wouldn't get himself clean.

That tough love line is such bullshit. If my "brother" was having problems with addiction I wouldn't kick him out and not bother to check up on him for 5 years. Don't make me laugh...no love there...

I found it weird as well, maybe it's my bad English? 'cause I didn't understand that part very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RJ5...outu.be&t=3988

Exactly... And I think it's much worse, placing more blame on Richie... I think Jon and the guys did a lot to help Richie and had a lot patients.

Prior to his departure in 2013, he left the band twice mid album / mid tour / mid promo. Bobby filled in during the LH promo and Phil during TC/GH Tour... I really think Richie thought he was irreplaceable and thought he could just walk in and out again...

However with all that said, Richie's 3 departures all happened during Albums/Tours so they were public... I'm sure even more went down that never hit the press during the off seasons...

This is pure speculation but I honestly think that Richie's limitations on WAN were because he just wasn't capable... He wasn't creative, we wasn't consistent, and just created a very difficult atmosphere for everyone...

I'm not buying the poor Richie had to stop promoting his album and needed more time off... Dave was equally busy with his plays (and had more success) and didn't seem to be complaining at all. As a matter of fact, Dave and Tico (and Huge) seem very relaxed...

Look, I'm not saying Jon is perfect, I'm not saying WAN wasn't rushed (regardless of the reason - Record Co Pressure or Assets for an NFL Team) but if Richie's wasn't ready, he should have ironed all that out prior or just finished the remaining 8 months (with a lot of time off in between) and then went on hiatus.

These guys signed up to be in a successful rock band and with that, comes discipline. His habits got in the way of that...

Sure we all speculated for years but now 5 years later, the guys are becoming more and more vocal just proving our evidence to be correct...

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk

But we know for a fact that Tico said "NO" to Jon when he called to say to come and start work on the album. He wanted a break. So Jon started without him. It's obvious that they were all somewhat fried at this time, but Jon's the boss so all that mattered was was he wanted to do....I honestly think that if WAN never existed things would be very different now...

I think this may have lost me because it has little basis in legal fact (at least in the United States). Big business will absolutely shut you down from discussing fine details of operations, but Richie would be able to say simply "I wasn't high". Again, if it is untrue Jon and David are being slanderous and Richie does have the legal right to defend himself without needing to touch on the details.

Of course, it also ignores the fact Richie can also have the world's best entertainment lawyers at his beck and call.

Do you really believe Richie could not say his additction was not the reason and not break the legal framework? I happen to know he could (at least in US law) if dealing with slander.

Just to expand this a little. I think any slander accusation would be easily defendable, even if Richie's addictions did not cause his departure. That said, we are also working on the assumption that Richie once signed an agreement that stipulated he could not discuss anything about the band if he left the organization. Additionally, such a contract would also state that the organization could simultaneously say what they want about him without reproach. If this is the contract Richie signed, he needs to learn to read or get a better agent.

Again, such a contract would not prevent him simply correcting a wrong.

But we've already established that the addictions WAS a part of why he left the band or wasn't allowed back or whatever, I don't think anyone is contesting that. So he can't say that what they guys are saying isn't true because it (partly) is. There are just (in my opinion) other details that led to that, which have not been divulged in public. All he has implied is that there's more to the story...which is the only way he can really defend himself without going in to details...

I've heard rumours about other stuff from people that I work with, but I'm not about to get into that. They are literally just rumours, and I'm not going to be one of those guys that says he heard from a friend that and acquaintance went to lunch with richie's guitar tech and he said, etc etc etc..

It's highly unlikely that Richie would have the same caliber of lawyers on his own that the Bon Jovi organisation would, nor would he or his lawyers have the same influence, power, etc...he wouldn't have been in any position to negotiate the contract on his terms.

WAN is a weird one. Any disenchantment from Richie over that album must come from the fact the album got in the way of his solo album, but there is no sense in that. I think he himself said WAN was fully recorded before Aftermath was finished. He must have known what committment came after recording.

Jon must have told him there would be enough time to complete his solo run. The problem I have always had with this is that Richie's solo album run its course. Release, tour, TV spots, they were all done by time WAN was released. That album had no more traction even if Richie wanted more time.

Richie also co-wrote five of the songs on WAN. He contributed to the mess that album was and is. Who knows, perhaps Because We Can, Pictures of You, What's Left Of Me, Thick As Thieves, and Army of One are Richie songs that Jon just changed a word on to get a credit.