This thread has been split from the "Eagles 3.0" thread, which was initially started when it was unclear whether or not Don Henley would go back on his word that he would not attempt to reform an "Eagles" without Glenn. That thread initially discussed the possibility of an Eagles without Glenn, then for a long time people went back and forth about why they did or did not support it.

Finally, it was obvious there was no "debating" going on, just a vicious cycle of recriminations. People had decided whether or not they supported it, and that was that. Those who did not support it needed a place where they could discuss their feelings without people haranguing them, scolding them, guilt-tripping them, mocking them, gloating about how successful the faux Eagles are without Glenn, etc.

This thread was created for that purpose.

So if you are gung-ho about this this new group of men calling themselves the Eagles, that's great. Go to the Tour threads and Review threads and you'll find like-minded people. Don't come into this thread.

If you want to argue, don't come to this thread. There's a place to debate here.

People who post in this thread essentially agree with the following statements by Don Henley made on November 28, 2016 in The Washington Post:
“I don’t see how we could go out and play without the guy who started the band [...] It would just seem like greed or something. It would seem like a desperate thing.”
Irving Azoff asked Best Classic Bands on November 16, 2017: "What's your definition of the Eagles? Glenn's gone."

Here's ours:

It's not the Eagles without Glenn Frey.