Jump to content

MSL discusses Guns n Roses


jimb0

Recommended Posts

It proves that we really don't know when that specific clause was dated, MSL.

Snooze, we know the exact day that they signed. The band was not on tour. It is literally impossible for their backstage under duress stories to be true. Literally impossible. We don't know the specific day that clause was ADDED, but we do know what day they signed off on the entire agreement and they were not on tour. The agreement was not signed backstage before a show. They didn't even sign on the same day.

Had their stories been true, they would have mentioned them in their lawsuit. Convenient that they make no mention of such things in a situation where lying would have serious consequences.

Don't you get it. Nobody disputes when the original document was drawn up. Every page has a foot note with the date it was drawn up on , i.e. 10/15/1992, Slash even signed it on that date. What your document and Snooze's has bought to light however is that it appears that the stuff about the name was added to that original document at a later date. It's all squished in there, in Snooze's it's in a different font, it's even typed over the page number on Snooze's and in both your version and Snoozes it goes below the actual page number, suggesting it was added at some later time to the original. If it was put in there in the original document then it simply would have been shunted to the next page rather than squished in there. In Snooze's copy it even has a wider margin compared to the rest of the document.

The question is when was it added. Was it one hour after the document was originally drawn up, one day later or one year later. I'm sure Slash, Duff and Goldstein will tell you it was in 1993. Myself I don't know, neither do you.

Don't confuse that footnote either of 10/15/1992 as being when the addition was initialled by Axl. That is on every page of the document including the last signature page. Probably why the date is almost illegible on your copy because that stuff was typed right over the top of it when it was added later.

Edited by williambailey01
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash hadn't as yet initialled the clause on my copy, but the dates are the same. So when DID he initial it? And if Slash could have initialled it post Oct. '92, doesn't that mean Duff could have as well?

Duff was wrong on a lot of things, including Doug even being there. Slash didn't even get his own birth info right in his book. Axl was wrong when he brings Alan Niven into the picture. I honestly think they ALL have wrong dates, wrong memories, wrong interpretations, etc, but the gist remains the same. Without Izzy and Alan, it was a dictatorship. Axl governed by the 'my way or the highway' rule. I think he was smart to include the clause, but at that point in the band's career, that was Axl's modus operandi. It wasn't a negotiation, it was ... Axl.

Slash and Duff let him get away with it, they weren't taking care of business and a decade later they're bitching and moaning. I'm sure it all seems bigger than it was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess would be that anything on those pages was signed in 1992. You can't add stuff in 93 with out mentioning it. The stuff about the name was there in 92 and they signed it in 92. Is Oct 92 before the tour?

So why has Axl initialled it then. If it was there at the beginning he would just need to sign the last page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snooze states the key difference.

Both contracts have the same dates of signature. Both have the added text. In one slash has initialed the addition, in the other not.

There's no way of knowing for sure not just when the addition was made, but also when slash acknowledged it. There's alot of uncertainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snooze states the key difference.

Both contracts have the same dates of signature. Both have the added text. In one slash has initialed the addition, in the other not.

There's no way of knowing for sure not just when the addition was made, but also when slash acknowledged it. There's alot of uncertainty.

But has Slash dated his initial in that one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess would be that anything on those pages was signed in 1992. You can't add stuff in 93 with out mentioning it. The stuff about the name was there in 92 and they signed it in 92. Is Oct 92 before the tour?

So why has Axl initialled it then. If it was there at the beginning he would just need to sign the last page.

He said in the chats he had that part added, so that's why it's initialed? But still the document was sign in Oct 92. It's not a legal doc if they signed it in Oct 92 then after Axl added the name part and initialed. It could be a photoshopped doc, if you want to go that far.

In Duff's book they play their last show with Metallica Oct 6, 1992. Then Nov 25 the kick off the SA tour. There's no mention of him signing this doc. Granted he's pretty fucked up at this point. I mean in this time his family did an intervention on him.

Maybe you're right, about something anyway. But from what we are looking at it seems they weren't on the road when they signed this doc posted above, if it's real.

What about if it was drawn up in Oct 92 with those dates by the signatures written, but then only shown to Duff on tour in 93? To me that's a possible scenario.

But the tour finishes and then Duff goes out on his solo tour. But Axl calls him warning him not to go out again, he's worried about him. This doesn't seem like someone hoping to inherit GNR. Given that Izzy had quit and gone solo, maybe Axl was think Duff would too, all this plays into Axl wanting the name.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snooze states the key difference.

Both contracts have the same dates of signature. Both have the added text. In one slash has initialed the addition, in the other not.

There's no way of knowing for sure not just when the addition was made, but also when slash acknowledged it. There's alot of uncertainty.

But has Slash dated his initial in that one?

The S for slash is only in msl's copy. None of the initials are specifically dated.

The doubt is caused by the small date stamp at the bottom (10/15). It's on every page, although msl's sig page conveniently cuts it out.

The fact that the key text about the name is added AROUND this date stamp strongly suggests it was added later. As snooze says, it could've been 1 hour later or 2 months later. We don't know, but the point is that simply saying 'slash and duff definitely lied' is stretching it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it could be a copy that was initialled but they didn't include the new last page. Or somebody could have stuck the changed pages in a file copy without changing the last page. Maybe they were drafting up a final and figured the whole thing would be signed soon anyway. Who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slash hadn't as yet initialled the clause on my copy, but the dates are the same. So when DID he initial it? And if Slash could have initialled it post Oct. '92, doesn't that mean Duff could have as well?

Duff was wrong on a lot of things, including Doug even being there. Slash didn't even get his own birth info right in his book. Axl was wrong when he brings Alan Niven into the picture. I honestly think they ALL have wrong dates, wrong memories, wrong interpretations, etc, but the gist remains the same. Without Izzy and Alan, it was a dictatorship. Axl governed by the 'my way or the highway' rule. I think he was smart to include the clause, but at that point in the band's career, that was Axl's modus operandi. It wasn't a negotiation, it was ... Axl.

Slash and Duff let him get away with it, they weren't taking care of business and a decade later they're bitching and moaning. I'm sure it all seems bigger than it was.

Sure, but if Duff had already initialed it and Slash hadn't, how does that not prove that they signed it on different dates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Goldstein wasn't there according to Duff. I think Slash says Dougie gave it to him. Which supports the two different dates. And doesn't contradict Duff's version as he doesn't say Slash was there with, just that he signed it.

Reality is even in their versions there's no duress, it's all in their minds. Given the context it's understandable. Then if there was, they waited too long to complain.

Where's the July 93 contract?

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Goldstein wasn't there according to Duff. I think Slash says Dougie gave it to him. Which supports the two different dates. And doesn't contradict Duff's version as he doesn't say Slash was there with, just that he signed it.

Reality is even in their versions there's no duress, it's all in their minds. Given the context it's understandable. Then if there was, they waited too long to complain.

Where's the July 93 contract?

Duff clearly said in his book they were in Barcelona. The manger (probably Reese) asked them to have a meeting. According to Duff book when Reese asked them to sign the papers, Reese first told them it was to prevent lawsuit from their relatives if either Duff or Slash die. Duff says he read the papers and there was no mention of anyone´s death. So they refused to sign. That´s when Reese brings up that Axl won´t go to the stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Goldstein wasn't there according to Duff. I think Slash says Dougie gave it to him. Which supports the two different dates. And doesn't contradict Duff's version as he doesn't say Slash was there with, just that he signed it.

Reality is even in their versions there's no duress, it's all in their minds. Given the context it's understandable. Then if there was, they waited too long to complain.

Where's the July 93 contract?

Duff clearly said in his book they were in Barcelona. The manger (probably Reese) asked them to have a meeting. According to Duff book when Reese asked them to sign the papers, Reese first told them it was to prevent lawsuit from their relatives if either Duff or Slash die. Duff says he read the papers and there was no mention of anyone´s death. So they refused to sign. That´s when Reese brings up that Axl won´t go to the stage.

So Duff signed and they sat there playing the Jeopardy theme song while Slash tried to figure out how to write his initials. After the 50th repeat, they decided fuck it and sent Slash home to practice. 2 weeks later (Guessing here, because I don't know the exact amount of time.) they drew up a new one because Slash had mastered the S and both he and Duff signed again even though Duff was pouting because he signed it the first time.

It all makes sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Goldstein wasn't there according to Duff. I think Slash says Dougie gave it to him. Which supports the two different dates. And doesn't contradict Duff's version as he doesn't say Slash was there with, just that he signed it.

Reality is even in their versions there's no duress, it's all in their minds. Given the context it's understandable. Then if there was, they waited too long to complain.

Where's the July 93 contract?

Duff clearly said in his book they were in Barcelona. The manger (probably Reese) asked them to have a meeting. According to Duff book when Reese asked them to sign the papers, Reese first told them it was to prevent lawsuit from their relatives if either Duff or Slash die. Duff says he read the papers and there was no mention of anyone´s death. So they refused to sign. That´s when Reese brings up that Axl won´t go to the stage.

So Duff signed and they sat there playing the Jeopardy theme song while Slash tried to figure out how to write his initials. After the 50th repeat, they decided fuck it and sent Slash home to practice. 2 weeks later (Guessing here, because I don't know the exact amount of time.) they drew up a new one because Slash had mastered the S and both he and Duff signed again even though Duff was pouting because he signed it the first time.

It all makes sense now.

Duff says both signed the papers there. He doesn´t say anything about initials. Duff later says he complaint about the whole thing to Goldstein. And Goldstein´s answered was. "He manages Guns N´Roses" But feel free to make all the jokes you want. The whole thing one way or another is a really bad joke. :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the MOA posted proves is that it was amended on 10/15/92, not that it was first presented to Slash and Duff on 10/15/92.

K, thanks.

no, it proves when slash and duff signed, which was when the band was not on tour.

making their claims of signing under duress backstage literally impossible.

could they have signed a back dated contract?

Also possible I guess. We need Goldstein.

Goldstein wasn't there according to Duff. I think Slash says Dougie gave it to him. Which supports the two different dates. And doesn't contradict Duff's version as he doesn't say Slash was there with, just that he signed it.

Reality is even in their versions there's no duress, it's all in their minds. Given the context it's understandable. Then if there was, they waited too long to complain.

Where's the July 93 contract?

Duff clearly said in his book they were in Barcelona. The manger (probably Reese) asked them to have a meeting. According to Duff book when Reese asked them to sign the papers, Reese first told them it was to prevent lawsuit from their relatives if either Duff or Slash die. Duff says he read the papers and there was no mention of anyone´s death. So they refused to sign. That´s when Reese brings up that Axl won´t go to the stage.

So Duff signed and they sat there playing the Jeopardy theme song while Slash tried to figure out how to write his initials. After the 50th repeat, they decided fuck it and sent Slash home to practice. 2 weeks later (Guessing here, because I don't know the exact amount of time.) they drew up a new one because Slash had mastered the S and both he and Duff signed again even though Duff was pouting because he signed it the first time.

It all makes sense now.

Duff says both signed the papers there. He doesn´t say anything about initials. Duff later says he complaint about the whole thing to Goldstein. And Goldstein´s answered was. "He manages Guns N´Roses" But feel free to make all the jokes you want. The whole thing one way or another is a really bad joke. :shrugs:

We know for a fact that they didn't sign the papers there because the signatures are dated. Knowing that Slash and Duff would never ever lie about anything, surely he meant initialled. He just omitted Slash's inability to draw an S because dammit, he tried, and the public doesn't need to know about that when it doesn't change anything anyway. Slight ommisions aren't lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...