Mick denies Stevie Nicks kicked Lindsey out of

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by Angel75

Great point!
SM - there IS evidence to support Lindsey's view to tour both FM and solo together. Why are these never wrong and never lie 'media outlets' not mentioning this?

I wonder to myself has there ever once in history been a time when a media outlet has reported something as fact when it was a lie or untruth? Hmmmmm

Oh my ... the band told Rolling Stone that Lindsey wanted a "solid year" delay in the tour from October 2018 to November 2019. Where did you get this two year stuff?

And I agree that Lindsey asked the band to have a concurrent solo tour alongside the Mac tour. The band said "no" and Lindsey kept pushing for that and the two sides went back and forth and Lindsey proposed moving the Mac tour back a year (as Rick Turner acknowledged). Eventually the band became more and more frustrated with this and fired Lindsey. Lindsey and his friends/family think this is a raw deal.

[Dr.Brown]

From January 2018 (when things apparently came to an impasse) to November 2019 = 22 months. That's almost two years.

What is Lindsey's most extensive tour ever, time-wise?

Perhaps you can do some research, find out, and then see for yourself why a demand for such a delay is outlandish, especially given the age and health condition of other band members.

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

Oh my ... the band told Rolling Stone that Lindsey wanted a "solid year" delay in the tour from October 2018 to November 2019. Where did you get this two year stuff?

And I agree that Lindsey asked the band to have a concurrent solo tour alongside the Mac tour. The band said "no" and Lindsey kept pushing for that and the two sides went back and forth and Lindsey proposed moving the Mac tour back a year (as Rick Turner acknowledged). Eventually the band became more and more frustrated with this and fired Lindsey. Lindsey and his friends/family think this is a raw deal.

Lol NOW you're saying this? This is literally what most people have been saying. That the band is manipulating the truth with their whole "he just didn't want to go on tour for a whole year" story. Whenever the supposed delay suggestion happened or didn't happen, he was TRYING to do something that would work with the band's tour plan and they weren't budging and then just threw him out. It's not some huge conspiracy intended to bash on other members (although it's perfectly reasonable to question the intentions of people like Mick and Stevie), it's just people obviously objecting to the fact that Lindsey was trying to work something out so he could do the solo thing he wanted to do but the band was unfair in not allowing it and its criminal that they would just throw him out because he was trying to get them to be flexible on HIS side for once(rather than Stevie's-- who they will always work around, no matter what she does) and then paint a colored version of the story in the press to make themselves look better.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by dreamsunwind

Lol NOW you're saying this? This is literally what most people have been saying. That the band is manipulating the truth with their whole "he just didn't want to go on tour for a whole year" story. Whenever the supposed delay suggestion happened or didn't happen, he was TRYING to do something that would work with the band's tour plan and they weren't budging and then just threw him out. It's not some huge conspiracy intended to bash on other members (although it's perfectly reasonable to question the intentions of people like Mick and Stevie), it's just people obviously objecting to the fact that Lindsey was trying to work something out so he could do the solo thing he wanted to do but the band was unfair in not allowing it and its criminal that they would just throw him out because he was trying to get them to be flexible on HIS side for once(rather than Stevie's-- who they will always work around, no matter what she does) and then paint a colored version of the story in the press to make themselves look better.

The bogus conspiracy theory is that this was a Mick/Stevie plan to boot Lindsey. It was Lindsey agreeing to the Mac tour 1-2 years ago and then deciding that he also wants a solo tour and then pushing and pushing to have his solo tour concurrent w/ the Mac tour. The band had every right to say "no". The band tried all they could to work out a compromise but eventually became frustrated with Lindsey. Anyone who watched the "Destiny Rules" documentary saw just how uncompromising Lindsey can be. This is like any company that doesn't want an employee doing another job that could affect the person's job performance or the company itself. The band tried to make it work with Lindsey but eventually cut ties with him when it became clear that a compromise couldn't be reached.

[dreamsunwind]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

The bogus conspiracy theory is that this was a Mick/Stevie plan to boot Lindsey. It was Lindsey agreeing to the Mac tour 1-2 years ago and then deciding that he also wants a solo tour and then pushing and pushing to have his solo tour concurrent w/ the Mac tour. The band had every right to say "no". The band tried all they could to work out a compromise but eventually became frustrated with Lindsey. Anyone who watched the "Destiny Rules" documentary saw just how uncompromising Lindsey can be. This is like any company that doesn't want an employee doing another job that could affect the person's job performance or the company itself. The band tried to make it work with Lindsey but eventually cut ties with him when it became clear that a compromise couldn't be reached.

The Destiny Rules documentary???? LOL.
All that really showed to me is Lindsey being dramatic and ~new artsy music-y~ and then ultimately giving up his double album dream (interestingly who was VERY uncompromising in NOT wanting it to be a double album-- Stevie! Who threatened not to tour for the length of it if that were to happen, a big factor in why it was scrapped).
And if you honestly think Fleetwood Mac is so adamant that they don't want their members doing anything that could somehow affect the band then I really don't know what to tell you. If they were serious about that then Stevie would've gotten the boot DECADES ago, maybe when she went to Australia to sing with Tom Petty instead of working in the studio with her band. Or any of the countless delays she's caused or BS they've let her get away with. They only care when it's a member who doesn't fill arenas the same way and it's easier for them to just get replacements, no matter how much that member has given to the band for decades.

[nicepace]

This thread is unbearable. Sugar Mouse, just give up, will you please? You have tried and tried and tried to get people to say: "you're right." And nobody is saying "you're right." Why do you have such a desperate need for people to say "you're right"? If you're convinced in your mind that your explanation is correct, just let it go at that, okay? What difference does it make to you what anybody else thinks!!!

The reason, by the way, that people aren't saying "you're right" has nothing to do with bad reasoning or lack of logic, but your own lack of evidence. No one knows who you are, you're a newcomer here, you are saying the same weak arguments over and over and over, and you are quoting two anonymous "sources" -- oh please! And you can't stop trying to get people to agree with you!

I usually stay out of this sort of argument, but they have never in my years on the Ledge gone on this long. I suggest the rest of us just block Sugar Mouse and get on with our lives.

[HomerMcvie]

Originally Posted by nicepace

This thread is unbearable. Sugar Mouse, just give up, will you please? You have tried and tried and tried to get people to say: "you're right." And nobody is saying "you're right." Why do you have such a desperate need for people to say "you're right"? If you're convinced in your mind that your explanation is correct, just let it go at that, okay? What difference does it make to you what anybody else thinks!!!

The reason, by the way, that people aren't saying "you're right" has nothing to do with bad reasoning or lack of logic, but your own lack of evidence. No one knows who you are, you're a newcomer here, you are saying the same weak arguments over and over and over, and you are quoting two anonymous "sources" -- oh please! And you can't stop trying to get people to agree with you!

I usually stay out of this sort of argument, but they have never in my years on the Ledge gone on this long. I suggest the rest of us just block Sugar Mouse and get on with our lives.

I agree completely. It takes a lot to wear me out, but Sugar Mick is doing it!

I'm seriously considering your third paragraph. Because it just won't stop.

[sasja]

Sugar, maybe just give it a rest now, and wait until Lindsey starts his tour and does press, and get it from the horses mouth then, perhaps. Or, down the line, if the shyster and co. deem to comment further, get your gratification then. Because, I am not seeing you achieving that satisfaction in this thread here with us, darlin' !

[lovethemac1]

Originally Posted by nicepace

This thread is unbearable. Sugar Mouse, just give up, will you please? You have tried and tried and tried to get people to say: "you're right." And nobody is saying "you're right." Why do you have such a desperate need for people to say "you're right"? If you're convinced in your mind that your explanation is correct, just let it go at that, okay? What difference does it make to you what anybody else thinks!!!

The reason, by the way, that people aren't saying "you're right" has nothing to do with bad reasoning or lack of logic, but your own lack of evidence. No one knows who you are, you're a newcomer here, you are saying the same weak arguments over and over and over, and you are quoting two anonymous "sources" -- oh please! And you can't stop trying to get people to agree with you!

I usually stay out of this sort of argument, but they have never in my years on the Ledge gone on this long. I suggest the rest of us just block Sugar Mouse and get on with our lives.

Amen. In the 7 years I have been here, I have always enjoyed the discusssions and different points of view. I think i have to block Sugar Mick because he/she is just trying to annoy everyone that doesn’t share his/her point of view. I have NEVER EVER felt this way about anyone on The Ledge.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

And I agree that Lindsey asked the band to have a concurrent solo tour alongside the Mac tour. The band said "no" and Lindsey kept pushing for that and the two sides went back and forth and Lindsey proposed moving the Mac tour back a year (as Rick Turner acknowledged). Eventually the band became more and more frustrated with this and fired Lindsey. Lindsey and his friends/family think this is a raw deal.

See, that’s speculation on your part. Many here are speculating either the concurrent tour was a compromise or that he never asked for the tour to be delayed because the only plan WAS a concurrent tour.

Stevie is the only one who said he wanted to delay rehearsals until next November. However, people directly connected with Lindsey, one even being in Lindsey’s band, have only talked about a concurrent tour. So, it’s literally a matter of who you choose to believe.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

See, that’s speculation on your part. Many here are speculating either the concurrent tour was a compromise or that he never asked for the tour to be delayed because the only plan WAS a concurrent tour.

Stevie is the only one who said he wanted to delay rehearsals until next November. However, people directly connected with Lindsey, one even being in Lindsey’s band, have only talked about a concurrent tour. So, it’s literally a matter of who you choose to believe.

No. Lindsey hasn't denied the story of him delaying the tour. You can't believe his story if he doesn't have a story.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

No. Lindsey hasn't denied the story of him delaying the tour. You can't believe his story if he doesn't have a story.

Yes you can if a surrogate, in this case his luthier and his bassist (who would very obviously have known about tour dates), have only talked about a concurrent tour. The earliest Lindsey will talk about it is maybe during his own tour pressers, and he will probably be very vague about it even then, assuming he can even go into detail.

[Storms123]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Yes you can if a surrogate, in this case his luthier and his bassist (who would very obviously have known about tour dates), have only talked about a concurrent tour. The earliest Lindsey will talk about it is maybe during his own tour pressers, and he will probably be very vague about it even then, assuming he can even go into detail.

You will never win with this one. He/she manipulating the English language more than Bill Clinton when he was on trial.

[Sugar Mouse]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

Yes you can if a surrogate, in this case his luthier and his bassist (who would very obviously have known about tour dates), have only talked about a concurrent tour. The earliest Lindsey will talk about it is maybe during his own tour pressers, and he will probably be very vague about it even then, assuming he can even go into detail.

The trouble with your story is that Rick Turner acknowledges that Lindsey did ask to delay the Mac tour. So even his surrogate admits this. The debate isn't whether Lindsey pushed to delay the Mac tour, it's whether the band should have fired him over it. How much of a delay would justify his firing?

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Sugar Mouse

The trouble with your story is that Rick Turner acknowledges that Lindsey did ask to delay the Mac tour.

No he didn’t.

“At one point, Lindsey had proposed that both FM and he with his band tour at the same time with the LB band filling in dates between the FM shows. The report was that Stevie wanted at least a day between gigs; Lindsey wanted to play as much as possible. That's what I heard from a most reliable source at the NAMM show in January.”

Not delay. Concurrent.