The reformation of Oasis is a hot topic nowhere but Britain right now, so let's sort out a few things.
Noel Gallagher just released a killer album. It is already a commercial and artistic success. Even Paul Weller likes it. So, Noel is now able to work one year and take three years off between projects. Why would he give that up?
Oasis does not exist anymore, and it won't exist if Liam Gallagher finds two guitarists, a bass player and a drummer. He shares a management company with Noel and so there are commercial reasons to reform Oasis. There may be, in fact, an agreement to do so in conjunction with a significant touring offer.
But, why? They haven't been gone long enough. And all of the power is in the hands of Noel, not Liam, because there's no reunion if one of them decides against it. Oasis is a two man outfit with a cast of rotating characters. People are going to pay to see them whether or not Bonehead is on stage with them or not; they are not going to go back to the 1995 lineup and bring back McGuigan and White so why bother wondering which configuration is the "real" band. Good luck with your bet on Tony McCarroll coming back into the fold.
If someone puts a ridiculous amount of money on the table, like they did with the Stone Roses, then the Gallaghers will play together as Oasis. They can bring back Gem Archer and Andy Bell, but that's not as likely as folding Liam in with the High Flying Birds band that is already successfully touring and playing Oasis songs.
But, again, why would Noel do that when he could take the next three years off and come back and put out an album and do another mini-tour and not have to deal with any of the headaches? He has complained about having to finance himself--that's legitimate. No one should have to. But why would he tempt fate?
If you think people are willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money to see Oasis now, wait five years and see what they'll pay then.