MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[Dariablue]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

Thanks for posting the whole document.

[Damn_Smooth]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

Thanks for posting the whole document.

Marc's a liar.

Glad to be of service.

[SoulMonster]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

Thanks for posting the whole document.

I wasn't aware Marc had much contact with Duff lately so I am vary of taking his words regarding Duff as gospel. That being said, I find the idea that Duff would beg to be back in GN'R as preposterous. It is what it is.

[Guest NGOG]

I'm not sure MSL ever claimed that Duff was "desperate" to get back into GNR. That notion appears to be the product of Chinese whispers.

What he said was that Duff privately expressed interest in such a possibility.

[saber_]

Well Duff is a proven liar.

*rimshot*

[IncitingChaos]

According to the leaked email files GNR were looking at the possibility of bringing Duff back on around 2011, correct? But no formal offer or negotiation was extended...it was simply an idea?

The emails were never confirmed to be real though...someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

[Damn_Smooth]

According to the leaked email files GNR were looking at the possibility of bringing Duff back on around 2011, correct? But no formal offer or negotiation was extended...it was simply an idea?

The emails were never confirmed to be real though...someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

You're right.

There were other things in the e-mails that definitely point to them being real though.

[SoulMonster]

According to the leaked email files GNR were looking at the possibility of bringing Duff back on around 2011, correct? But no formal offer or negotiation was extended...it was simply an idea?

The emails were never confirmed to be real though...someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

No, you are right, the emails were not confirmed to be real, especially not MSL's summary of their contents (which -- in my opinion -- he made as tabloid as possible in the hope he would succeed at attracting offers). Strange that such a widely talented and glorious intellect had to, apparently, scam and fence to earn his living.

I'm not sure MSL ever claimed that Duff was "desperate" to get back into GNR. That notion appears to be the product of Chinese whispers.

What he said was that Duff privately expressed interest in such a possibility.

MSL summarized the contents of some of the emails as "Duff wanting to get back in". I do believe I have read MSL saying that Duff was very eager to return to the fold, but I might be wrong.

[williambailey01]

These should be edited into the first page by OP, they're going to get lost in the thread.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024&p=1

http://s1334.photobu...ry/?view=recent

That's right don't forget that as of 2 days ago Alan Niven asked Doug Goldstein what he recalled of the signing over of the name incident. Doug's response was:

I was at home waiting for Jakes birth, but as I understand it he had Laurie Soriano draft an agreement in Barcelona relinquishing their rights in the name, before he would take the stage. The shitty thing is Slash and Duff were so fucked up that they think I gave them the ultimatum and that's why they don't speak to me today. It was Reese, I was halfway round the globe!!

That would be Barcelona 1993 that Doug is talking about. But hey don't listen to him, Slash and Duff. Instead listen to the narcissistic, self absorbed fool that is more interested in self promotion and his ego. He obviously knows more about something that happened 20 years ago compared to those who were directly involved.

[saber_]

These should be edited into the first page by OP, they're going to get lost in the thread.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024&p=1

http://s1334.photobu...ry/?view=recent

You need to fix the second link.

[Kapitch_77]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

don't know if he's a liar or not, but he's 100% dead wrong about the duff thing.

Shut up Meg.

[Sigh]

It's difficult to claim on one hand that the sig dates are crucial, and on the other that the date the memorandum was drawn up should be ignored. Especially if you're saying the name clause wasn't added later.

I'm not at all saying the clause wasn't added later. I'm saying we don't know. And I'm especially saying that Duff may be wrong, but he's not lying. (And Slash). Whatever the dates and the circumstances, it was signed under a general blanket of duress for those guys. For anybody remotely connected with GNR at the time, this is a no-brainer. Even the Axl supporters. Axl was calling the shots and he wasn't negotiating. His personal life was a mess, he was stressed and nobody wanted to argue with him. Right or wrong. Where would they be without Axl out there singing? That was what was holding everybody hostage. It was hard as hell getting him on stage on GOOD days. Bet your booties a band fight backstage would mean no Axl on stage. Everybody knew this. It wasn't a matter whether it was a legal right or not, it was a de facto right. Without him nothing could happen. That's why nobody argued it at the time, they just signed it, but resented the fuck out it once it once they were out of the band. So Duff and Slash are right, it was under duress when they were presented with the clause, no matter when it was. And Axl was right when he says he felt it was his name and had the right to add that clause. Nobody's lying.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

No, what they presented one 'a' binding partnership agreement, we don't know if it was 'the' agreement, as in the final date, because as I've said numerous times, the court didn't care if the opposing parties didn't care, and the opposing parties weren't arguing the name or dates. There could be an earlier agreement or a later one. The only ones arguing dates and contracts are the fans.

Agreed on Duff and Slash quite possibly being mistaken, although wouldn't say 'grossly'.

There are a few clauses pertaining to the name and control, there are quite a few draft agreements, it would be pretty easy to mistake specifics and dates. And who knows at what point Duff was sober enough to care about what he was signing. Not that it would have made a difference.

The support network - the label, GNR management, lawyers - also knew their hands were tied, the band need Axl. So yeah, they probably counselled in Axl's favor.

Slash really didn't care until other people (and the fans) started raggin' on him about it, and both he and Duff eventually realized they should have at least been compensated for it. It affected Duff so much, he went to business school.

Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, nobody is lying. It is what it is.

The flaw in your argument is that Slash and Duff would've cared if the agreement they presented was the final, binding agreement because they used it as evidence in their claim. Their argument was based off other issues in the agreement.

The notion that Slash and Duff wouldn't care if the evidence their legal teams are presenting is null and void.

A later agreement would render the 1992 agreement null and void.

Ali

A later agreement would only render an earlier agreement null and void if it expressly did so or if its terms were contradictory to the original to the point that the original, or parts thereof, would be impossible to perform.

Stop acting as if you have any understanding of contract law. You do not. You have your hopes.

[AndreCC]

These should be edited into the first page by OP, they're going to get lost in the thread.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=13024&p=1

http://s1334.photobu...ry/?view=recent

That's right don't forget that as of 2 days ago Alan Niven asked Doug Goldstein what he recalled of the signing over of the name incident. Doug's response was:

I was at home waiting for Jakes birth, but as I understand it he had Laurie Soriano draft an agreement in Barcelona relinquishing their rights in the name, before he would take the stage. The shitty thing is Slash and Duff were so fucked up that they think I gave them the ultimatum and that's why they don't speak to me today. It was Reese, I was halfway round the globe!!

That would be Barcelona 1993 that Doug is talking about. But hey don't listen to him, Slash and Duff. Instead listen to the narcissistic, self absorbed fool that is more interested in self promotion and his ego. He obviously knows more about something that happened 20 years ago compared to those who were directly involved.

With all due respect why are you quoting a man that Alan Niven himself told in various interviews that he was a double talking jive motherfucker and was in it for the money. Kept pressuring the band to go on tour so he could get a paycheck...? How is that guy even a reference.

If i had to trust someone in here MSL VS Doug Goldstein. I will go with MSL.

After all Niven said about Goldstein i'm pretty sure Doug doesn't have much credibility at this point.

As for MSL, well he brought us information that Axl confirmed which would in no way ever be revealed in press or wherever, he brought us songs, and everything he said until today has been confirmed to be real sooner or later.

[Sigh]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

don't know if he's a liar or not, but he's 100% dead wrong about the duff thing.

When and how often did Duff seek re-entry to Guns N Roses. Since apparently you were there for them.

[ohlovelyrita]

I wasn't aware Marc had much contact with Duff lately so I am vary of taking his words regarding Duff as gospel. That being said, I find the idea that Duff would beg to be back in GN'R as preposterous. It is what it is.

I don't believe he was begging to be back in either because wasn't it just a coincidence that landed him onstage

at the O2? Did Duff say anything like this prior to 2012?

“Yeah, we left and that’s it.” It’s not easy for me to talk about because it’s tricky, but we left." -Duff McKagan

http://www.vindy.com/news/2012/apr/10/duff-mckagan-looks-back-on-gnr/?print

@MSL: How in the world did those documents get out? Or rather which side did they come from?

[Patience 4 Axl]

seems to be some confusion here about how legal documents work.

some of you seem to be under the impression that an added section that's been initialed indicates it was something put into the document after it had been originally signed.

that's not how it works. contracts evolve over time during negotiations before putting pen to paper to sign the final agreement. clauses may have been added since the first time the agreement was read, so it's important to have parties acknowledge they are aware of the changes so they don't claim something was snuck into the agreement in between it first being drafted and eventually being signed.

that is why you have the parties initial where the changes took place, so they can't later claim they were unaware of the revisions.

to suggest that somehow these clauses were added after october 21, 1992 shows a tremendous amount of ignorance. not only is that not how contracts work, but slash and duff's lawsuit makes no mention whatsoever of any later agreement. it is complete fiction on the part of snooze to suggest that perhaps these clauses were added later on after execution of the agreement.

This post is hysterical. Please tell us more about our ignorance, especially the part where you obviously have no idea about how contracts work. Are you actually trying to say that contracts can't be modified after they're signed? Funny stuff.

I take it back, I think you do actually know a little, but you probably didn't count on snooze for example, and you're just trying to see how far you can go with this and save face.

Not everyone is as ignorant on the topic as the 3 or 4 people who choose to believe what you're shoveling.

[Chunder Monkey]

If i had to trust someone in here MSL VS Doug Goldstein. I will go with MSL.

I don't mean this offensively to you or MSL but really, that's such a bizarre thing to say.

MSL is a professional wrestler who was approximately 9 or 10 years old when these papers were signed, and who has obtained them more than 20 years after their creation.

His interest in GNR has historically centered around trading in leaks, and he has a history of both pulling off elaborate deceptions to obtain such leaks, and publicly threatening a form of blackmail against the band. He missed his own deadline for information release in the latter incident, and, much like jarmo before him, subsequently mysteriously changed his posting to an anti-slash position of the kind that seems to suit team brazil and all associated with GNR.

You are saying this person, who was a child when these events happened, and at the time in no way associated with GNR, knows more about what actually happened than the former lead guitarist of the band, the former bass player, and the former manager of Axl and the band, a person who was instrumental in everything associated with the UYI tour and the band's business dealings.

It just doesn't make sense.

The best case is that MSL genuinely believes he knows something because he has some paper work that appears to support a certain version of events, but that he is mistaken about that paperworks actual relevance and position in the chain of events. Alternatively he may have some agenda of his own. I'm going to assume he's just a fan and wrong.

But lets get this in perspective, just because he was able to con some songs out of some people in south america doesn't mean that he's an expert on events that happened when he was a child, and there's no chance in hell he knows more about the secrets of GNR's backstage dealings than Doug or the band themselves.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Chunder Monkey

[ARBeast]

I'm just waiting for someone to call Marc a liar.

don't know if he's a liar or not, but he's 100% dead wrong about the duff thing.

Can't say I can believe you on that one..you always full of shit?

[magisme]

Do we have any connections with Slash or his camp such that we could pose questions about this? I know there was a forum interview a while back.

[HubbaBubba]

Do we have any connections with Slash or his camp such that we could pose questions about this? I know there was a forum interview a while back.

Up until now the story has been a guns nerds only affair. I think msl is counting on a response from either slash or duff to give the accusation legitimacy and increase the chances it'll be picked up by mainstream media.

Given that this thread has revealed the story to be dubious at best, we shouldn't try too hard to embarrass guns fans by going to slash & duff for answers.

[bran]

i just think we will never know what really happened. a lot of time has passed a lot of he said she said shit going on and the two people who would know were so fucked up on alcohol and junk they probably do not even know the whole story to be perfectly honest.

Edited December 7, 2013 by bran

[Rauschen]

Ali, MSL, My Fellow Americans,

There is one problem I have with your ongoing discussion. I hope you may be able to address this as you have shot down others with the same issue using your contractual knowledge and the evidence being provided.

"Duff and Slash lied about a certain situation. Here is the evidence. Think of it what you will. I believe this should give fans a moment of pause when judging Axl or believing everything Slash and Duff say to be gospel. Maybe, Axl has more of a right to the name than many have given him credit for but the evidence speaks for itself and you decide."

This is a reasonable statement that you could have presented along with the evidence and you would not be met with the resistance you have been. This thread would be half as long as it is, the arguments would have been lessened, and most reasonable people would have believed you and take it at face value.

That is not what either of you did. Instead you presented a fact and attached your agenda to it. You attacked members intelligence and blatantly ignored their rightful issues with your agenda by saying they do not understand the evidence. Any meaningful conversation is hidden as you repeat and quote the evidence over and over again.

MSL/Ali - YOU DO NOT ACCEPT MY AGENDA so therefore you must not understand a contract, you must be ignoring reality, this date and that date show this.. blah blah blah..

You and your evidence have not proven that Duff and Slash did not sign the document under duress, only that they were not on tour when they signed it. You have proven they lied about the event in which they signed the rights to the name away but not WHY they signed the contract. We now have the correct dates but will never have the reasons or the why, the dates DO NOT GIVE THAT STORY.

Your agenda to bury Slash and Duff and show them to be liars about the entire signing issue is pathetic and not supported by the doc (the doc shows they only lied about the dates and being on tour). You both feebly attempt to discredit why they signed and what the circumstances were that dictated that decision.

You can quote the evidence all you want but it does not say what was going on in Duff and Slash's mind or what happened in that time..

or what things were implied to them by management or Axl if they didn't sign.

or how the consequences of not signing would play out for them and the band.

or that they didn't try to protect the fans ( they did it to save the audience part of their story) from further riots by signing, so Axl didn't have a hissy fit and cause shit on the next tour.

Most of Slash's and Duff's time spent in the band was under fucking duress. Real world evidence supports it was Axl's way or he would not let the band function. Please try harder but without quoting something that doesn't support your opinion.

Mr. I Take This Shit Too Seriously

Edited December 7, 2013 by Rauschen

[Rustycage]

If i had to trust someone in here MSL VS Doug Goldstein. I will go with MSL.

MSL is a professional wrestler

Just to clarify. The dude was an amateur wrestler. He was wrestling in basements and shit. Just because there were belts doesn't make him a pro. I doubt the money he got from the dances was enough to pay rent.

[snooze72]

With all due respect why are you quoting a man that Alan Niven himself told in various interviews that he was a double talking jive motherfucker and was in it for the money. Kept pressuring the band to go on tour so he could get a paycheck...? How is that guy even a reference.

If i had to trust someone in here MSL VS Doug Goldstein. I will go with MSL.

After all Niven said about Goldstein i'm pretty sure Doug doesn't have much credibility at this point.

As for MSL, well he brought us information that Axl confirmed which would in no way ever be revealed in press or wherever, he brought us songs, and everything he said until today has been confirmed to be real sooner or later.

So if Doug Goldstein came on this board and was cool and funny and talked shit about Alan Niven, would you then totally dismiss everything Niven said? I guess that's why politicians shake hands and kiss babies, that 'personal' connection wins them votes. Integrity and policies take a back seat. (And that's not a slight against Niven).

With all due respect, you have a guy who feels that he was pushed out of his job by another guy, you're not going to see hearts and flowers when guy #2 is under discussion, but is that really a reason for a stranger reading a fan forum to believe everything guy #1 says about guy #2?

The Niven/Goldstein thing is no different than the Slash/Axl thing. Just another grudgefest. Nobody's right or wrong, good or bad, it's just two guys who don't agree.

Don't get sucked into that vortex. And stay away from cults, you'd be a goner.

[snooze72]

Duff might not do a 'reunion' without Slash, but its not out of the realm of possibility that Duff was up for touring with the band (much like Izzy returned to do), co-writing or whatever. The interpretation doesn't have to be 'rejoining GNR'. Marc doesn't talk to Duff often enough to know every discussion, proposal or plan.