1. So what's the "backup plan"? Not very nice to tease us with that and then say nothing.
  2. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  3. Or it’s just a little something to tease and might not even result in anything.
  4. I would think a back up plan wouldn’t be anything massive in terms of a product to sell or workload for the band. If a new album is pushed back to early next year that’s still only a 4 or 5 month delay and there would likely be a single in that time. My money is on the live films etc going to a streaming site which is quite a big deal but not something that’s going to distract the band much or take much promoting from them. Theres also these remastered singles which they could pause once they get to the end of pop or sweetest thing and see if a new album will be ready, they’ll probably have to know in the next month or so to be able to get the release out in time for the end of the year. If they don’t think it will be ready they could just stretch out these single releases til nearer the end of the year.
  5. I share what I'm able to share. If I'm not sharing something it's often because I've been specifically asked not to, and those who share inside information with me do know what I'm sharing and where. Sometimes I don't share because details are a bit vague, and I don't know what to say about it anyway, and the amount of crap tossed our way makes me very cautious about what I say. I still hear how we got the release date for "Songs of Surrender" wrong, by people who ignore the fact that I shared detail on the album name, formats, and more a year before the album came out. They only focus on what is wrong, or in this case appears wrong, the (c) 2022 on the back suggests it was pushed back. And I learned with "Songs of Surrender" if I reveal information I'm only going to have to listen to it being questioned up until the release. Going into the Fall of 2022, there were 3-4 fans who were on a mission to mock the site on every message board and Facebook group out there because 'Songs of Surrender' was something we made up. Did my best to ignore and just keep reporting on it as information was sent my way, but it can get really frustrating.

    I've also been doing this for 30 years, it's made abundantly clear when I cross a line, so I do my best to be respectful of the people who do share information with me. I've worked with the band on projects. I have a second book that I am putting together, and have started interviews for that project with hopes to put it out for U2's 50th anniversary. The website only exists because Universal allows it, and I'm not going to put any of that at risk or burn bridges that make my next book not happen etc. (And please don't reach out by DM and try to get information out of me that I've been asked not to share...)

    The focus of the band is on getting the album done for this fall. The work has been going well, and the band is happy with progress at the moment from what I've been told, they took a little break after the LA sessions in February and March, and are due to be back at it soon. So it's likely they won't even need a back up plan.
  6. You said on your site that the album would need to be ready by july for a November release date. Do you think you’ll have some more definitive information to share by then? I also note you told us the release date of SOE almost six months prior in the June of that year.
  7. Originally posted by u2wanderer1:I share what I'm able to share. If I'm not sharing something it's often because I've been specifically asked not to, and those who share inside information with me do know what I'm sharing and where. Sometimes I don't share because details are a bit vague, and I don't know what to say about it anyway, and the amount of crap tossed our way makes me very cautious about what I say. I still hear how we got the release date for "Songs of Surrender" wrong, by people who ignore the fact that I shared detail on the album name, formats, and more a year before the album came out. They only focus on what is wrong, or in this case appears wrong, the (c) 2022 on the back suggests it was pushed back. And I learned with "Songs of Surrender" if I reveal information I'm only going to have to listen to it being questioned up until the release. Going into the Fall of 2022, there were 3-4 fans who were on a mission to mock the site on every message board and Facebook group out there because 'Songs of Surrender' was something we made up. Did my best to ignore and just keep reporting on it as information was sent my way, but it can get really frustrating.

    I've also been doing this for 30 years, it's made abundantly clear when I cross a line, so I do my best to be respectful of the people who do share information with me. I've worked with the band on projects. I have a second book that I am putting together, and have started interviews for that project with hopes to put it out for U2's 50th anniversary. The website only exists because Universal allows it, and I'm not going to put any of that at risk or burn bridges that make my next book not happen etc. (And please don't reach out by DM and try to get information out of me that I've been asked not to share...)

    The focus of the band is on getting the album done for this fall. The work has been going well, and the band is happy with progress at the moment from what I've been told, they took a little break after the LA sessions in February and March, and are due to be back at it soon. So it's likely they won't even need a back up plan.
    It’s actually embarrassing that you have to spell this out for people.
  8. Sure it was the same in 2019 with the rumours of the tour then. Six months between Berlin 3 and it being leaked on Ticketmaster.au meant people had plenty of time to say the rumours were false.
  9. Even after it was leaked on Ticketmaster people were still saying the rumours were false. One well known site called us “speculative fiction” even after that leak. And there were crazy stories that someone had hacked Ticketmaster and put up fake events.