Can We Take Legal Action?

[pattip2000]

Where are all the posts thanking the band for this announcement?

 

[U2SavesTheWorld]

God, I love this thread.

 

[Shag On A Rock]

Where are all the posts thanking the band for this announcement?

The U2.com announcement happened over night Australian time. We're just waking up to the good news now.

 

[kellyahern]

Where are all the posts thanking the band for this announcement?

I wouldn't look in the news forum .

 

[fly so high!]

I promise that this is my FINAL comment on this issue until they either reschedule or cancel.

I must appear to be really insensitive to the bands situation at present - suing above, regular demand for update etc etc. U2girl has been pretty consistent in damning the views that I've expressed and similar views expressed by others.

I do fully accept that there must have been a very good reason for the postponement . I'm sure it was a painful decision to make and one that was very carefully considered. I respected their decision because they clearly communicated that they felt that they had no other option - my financial loss by comparison was unimportant. I am in no way insensitive.

So Why Have They Been Quiet? - The opposing views to mine seem to be centred around 'why bother if nothing has changed?' Well I think circumstances have changed. Bono certainly led (if not said) us to believe that they were very close to rescheduling. He was talking about days. Even if he was exagerating how quickly it might be resolved- nearly 3 months is not anywhere near the same ballpark as 'days'. Either it was never a case of being days away (in which case someone ought really have put the record straight then) OR circumstances have changed. If the latter it true then I really don't believe that affected ticketholders are being insensitive to wanting to know what is going on.

MODS - If I post here again on this subject please BAN me!

I'm with you on this, and i truly do not believe that you are being insensitive.....i don't care if i get flamed for my comments either but just like the previous threads the people flaming these kinds of comments......which lets put it in perspective is just ONLY comments on the SILENCE,guys,C'Mon!!!............ are from people who have had the pleasure of seeing them already.

But answer to the original question: No, you can't sue! Nothing to sue for

 

[fly so high!]

The U2.com announcement happened over night Australian time. We're just waking up to the good news now.

WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

It looks like they are preparing what to write on the boards!!!!!
Very close,my friends,very close....indeed!

 

[bono_man]

nice to see them finally say something. it wasnt much, but at least it was an acknowlegement! my letter the the customer complaints department at principle last week must have done the trick!

 

[corianderstem]

Hey, the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

 

[U2girl]

Where are all the posts thanking the band for this announcement?

Hang on, here come the "what took them so long" and "we still don't have the DATES" posts.

 

[Neenie]

Hooray! It’s about time there was an official announcement of some sort. U2.com’s new slogan should be “better late than never”

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Hooray! It’s about time there was an official announcement of some sort. U2.com’s new slogan should be “better late than never”

why simply because they had nothing further to announce, but yes were forced to make this statement?

 

[kennerado]

You can all thank me now.

 

[Neenie]

why simply because they had nothing further to announce, but yes were forced to make this statement?

It should have been out of common courtesy of keeping people informed; especially months after the dates are imminent announcement. The new announcement that they are working on it (as little as it is) is welcoming. Most of us fans are patient in Australia. I have come to the conclusion that if we wait long enough, tour dates might come. We are waiting and we now have official confirmation that they are still in the rescheduling process.

 

[fly so high!]

It should have been out of common courtesy of keeping people informed; especially months after the dates are imminent announcement. The new announcement that they are working on it (as little as it is) is welcoming. Most of us fans are patient in Australia. I have come to the conclusion that if we wait long enough, tour dates might come. We are waiting and we now have official confirmation that they are still in the rescheduling process.

Yeah i know!!!!! I got my hopes up again!!!! We are still at sqaure 1!!!!

 

[silvrlvr]

My complete sympathy goes out to those of you who are out money and who are trying to schedule your holidays and rearrange your lives to accomodate the tour. You're totally within your rights to be unhappy with how you've been strung along.

If I can be so bold, here's what the band could have added to the statement.

"When we postponed the tour, it was a snap decision made on emotion, and we didn't realize just how tough it would be to reschedule these dates. We know one of us (that's you, Bono) gave the impression that the dates were about to be announced. But that was the wrong impression to give, and we're sorry to have misled you."

"We fully expect to finish the Vertigo tour in 2006, or early 2007 at the latest, so those of you who have tickets, please understand that you will get a show. We're nailing down details now and we promise you that as soon as we can release the dates, we will. But you should be assured we respect the fact that you have made financial sacrifices on our behalf and that we've inconvenienced you. Believe us, it wasn't intentional. And given your response, we know we need to go better if this ever happens again."

Would that satisfy people?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

There are a lot of things U2 should probably be sued for, but not this. If I were less tired I'd happily make a list, starting with either Yahweh or Larry Mullens mullet.

I think not making a statement earlier was a bad PR move, but nothing more. I think you'll find they are treating this in the same way the organisation of any tour is treated - so they won't announce a single thing until absolutely everything is 100% nailed down. That might be a mistake communication/PR wise, but they probably feel that it lessens the risk of larger PR cock ups, eg Bono's "maybe dates tomorrow" which most likely came from a misunderstanding or over enthusiasm at good early news of a potential window to reschedule. You don't want that happening 10 times over 4 months. The natives would revolt.

But I do agree, from a simple PR angle, the "don't stress, we're working on it" message could/should have come earlier, however I don't blame them for otherwise adopting the "say nothing till we know everything" stance.

 

[Blue Room]

If I can be so bold, here's what the band could have added to the statement.

"When we postponed the tour, it was a snap decision made on emotion, and we didn't realize just how tough it would be to reschedule these dates. We know one of us (that's you, Bono) gave the impression that the dates were about to be announced. But that was the wrong impression to give, and we're sorry to have misled you."

"We fully expect to finish the Vertigo tour in 2006, or early 2007 at the latest, so those of you who have tickets, please understand that you will get a show. We're nailing down details now and we promise you that as soon as we can release the dates, we will. But you should be assured we respect the fact that you have made financial sacrifices on our behalf and that we've inconvenienced you. Believe us, it wasn't intentional. And given your response, we know we need to go better if this ever happens again."

Would that satisfy people?

Couple of things. Your first paragraph. It was not snap decision. To me that makes it sound like they screwed up by doing it and regret it. I dont think thats the case at all. Someone was/is ill in one of the band members family. I dont think that is a snap emotional decision only. I think its the common sense one given the circumstances.

Your second paragraph. If the band said that and then found they couldnt do it it would really be bad. Your statement basically says the shows are going to happen. I dont think they know for sure yet, thats why they dont say that. Its that simple. Also, nothing short of dates announced are going to satisfy most that are ticked about this. Even then, someone is going to complain about something. IE "These dates arent as convenient for me!", "What, no additional dates???!! BASTARDS!", "Why didnt they lower the ticket prices because of our hassle with the rescheduling???!!!", "What took so long to announced these dates, now I dont have time to plan my trip!", etc, etc, etc.........

I think everyone feels bad for those that had tickets for these shows. It would and does stink and everyone can understand being disappointed. Given the circumstances though what happened is understandable and there certainly was nothing malicious about it by U2. Its also and has been quite clear that the band "tentatively" are planning to go forward with the shows. What I dont understand is why this new statement even changes anything. Isnt this exactly what everyone that has been looking at this rationally has been saying??!! Also there have been reports from Rocko and some of the venues that the dates were being nailed down which I would consider very reliable. What made this statement by U2.com stating the obvious make you feel better? Its the same info.

The whole "SUE" the band over this isnt even really worth commenting on. Others on this thread have summed that up pretty well already anyway.

 

[silvrlvr]

Calling off those dates when crew and others had already flown to Australia was a snap decision. Clearly, it wasn't anticipated in advance, or they could have made an announcement immediately after B.A. and not sent the sets, roadies ahead to set up. Of course it was given consideration, but that doesn't mean it wasn't sudden.

And by emotion, well, family devotion is emotion. I don't mean anything perjorative by that, I only mean it was motivated out of love and concern, not out of any business calculation.

Anyway, it was just an attempt to write a statement that would provide the answers to satisfy everyone. And if people want to talk about whether it's realistic to sue the band, they have a perfect right to do so, whether or not it could actually happen. It got somebody's attention, anyway, because all the handwringing before this did not.

 

[trabantland]

Here I'll quote myself:

What's not simple about that?

Errr, you nuff-nuff. That quote wasn't in your post that I quoted you from.

 

[Liesje]

Couple of things. Your first paragraph. It was not snap decision. To me that makes it sound like they screwed up by doing it and regret it. I dont think thats the case at all. Someone was/is ill in one of the band members family. I dont think that is a snap emotional decision only. I think its the common sense one given the circumstances.

Yeah, I agree. I'm sure with a band as huge as U2 and a tour as huge as Vertigo, they have plenty of contingency plans. I'd bet that BEFORE the tour even began, they all agreed that if anything serious happened to any member of family, there would be no questioning a postponement/cancellation. That's the type of decision you don't wait to make until it actually happens. A "snap decision" is something you do spontaneously. If you've already decided to do X in the event of Y, and then Y happens so you do X, that's not a "snap decision". Also, "snap decision" is too much of an idiomatic expression that basically implies a lack of consideration of consequences or alternatives and usually carries a regretful tone. Even if that's how they truly feel, it would be unprofessional and not very relieving to hear.