I've tried to be subtle about it, but I guess I'll make it a little clearer,
since there is such huge resistance to the idea that Tina Turner is
almost certain to have concurred with both the initial replacing and
the final firing of Chanel.

A huge blind spot, y'all, and its understandable, since Tina Turner is
highly and rightly revered for her music

But, to repeat, the article strongly implies that Tina Turner makes every
decision about who plays Tina. You dont have to accept that as a certainty,
but you do have to accept that as a possibility, since it makes perfect
business sense to get rid of someone who is beginning to outshine the
musical itself, which is a PROPERTY. Tina Turner's property, which she
seems to have protected by getting rid of Chanel.

The last thing you want if you own the property is for people to start
saying "only go see the show when Chanel is performing, she's way better
than everybody else in the role." Especially when you want to tour this
thing all over the globe, and so you need multiple somewhat generic
Tinas, not just one outstanding one.

This is Introductory Showbiz. Broadway 101.

But you say: It shouldn't be this way ! 

I agree. And apparently so does Mick. or at least he felt moved
enough by Chanel's talent and plight to give her career a little boost

via IORR/ByeByeJohnny

Chanel's instagram yesterday