stella Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesYou're not paying attention to a word I'm writing or even attempting to think about this critically or objectively, so there's no point in continuing this debate. As I said, you have your opinion, I have mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesYou're not paying attention to a word I'm writing or even attempting to think about this critically or objectively, so there's no point in continuing this debate. As I said, you have your opinion, I have mine.I've responded to everything you've written. Apparently you're incapable of understanding that. My bad? I am looking at this critically, objectively but most of all, LOGICALLY...LOGIC is something Axl Rose fans don't seem to understand, nor does Axl Rose.My "opinion" just happens to be the LOGICAL opinion full of crtique and subjectivity.But now I'm gonna go get waystedz and highz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laparka Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesI'm with you regarding all of the above, but showing up to gigs high on heroin, cocaine and inebriated is far from "acting professionally" in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I guess the label, everyone, thought Slash, Duff could die, basically ending the band. So pick the guy less likely to die. Axl, he was in therapy on the road.It was a small comfort to the label and Axl felt more secure knowing he could continue with the name. Whether it was a power play from Axl to take over the band is hard to prove given they were still working together on the next record after the tour. It wasn't a good thing for the band anyway. Causing a lot of mistrust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesI'm with you regarding all of the above, but showing up to gigs high on heroin, cocaine and inebriated is far from "acting professionally" in my book.They're musicians, not doctors. Find me completely sober musicians and I'll show you musicians that write boring shit. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I think it was more drinking and using enough to die. Which of course they nearly did. Slash dies and that's the end of the band for the label. But if Axl has the name the label felt more happy. Because Axl was happy too. Short term they wanted to sell UYI. Get Axl and Slash out on the road. Axl is the temperamental one so give him what he wants. The guys in the band were partying like fuck. Is it fair or right no but there it is. Keep the singer happy everyone makes a shot load of money. Piss him off and it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intercourse Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Considering half the record label guys were also high on coke and booze back in the day means that this naive bullshit about labels preferring Axl because he was sober must stop.Slash never walked off. Duff never walked off.Duff & Slash wanted to work the band like a normal band. (Record, Tour, Record, Tour, Repeat etc)That's money in the bank for the labels, they could give two fucks whose high and who isn't unless it affects $$$$$ which wasn't the case with Duff & Slash back in the day. Edited October 30, 2014 by Intercourse 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Considering half the record label guys were also high on coke and booze back in the day means that this naive bullshit about labels preferring Axl because he was sober must stop.Slash never walked off. Duff never walked off.Duff & Slash wanted to work the band like a normal band. (Record, Tour, Record, Tour, Repeat etc)That's money in the bank for the labels, they could give two fucks whose high and who isn't unless it affects $$$$$ which wasn't the case with Duff & Slash back in the day.But, but.... you're making too much sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post recklessroad Posted October 30, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't even think that it was done right before a gig. They may have not even been on tour at the time or maybe it was done during a break. However I do believe that Slash and Duff felt that if they didn't sign it that Axl wouldn't tour anymore until it was signed. I also believe that gigs had already been book at the time they signed but not 100% sure. It was management that sold it to Slash and Duff that way sign or it's over not Axl. I also don't think that Slash or Duff even remember exactly when it was done. They were not in the best shape at the time. So if their stories are a bit different, what does it really matter. The point is they would have never signed that paper if they didn't both believe what the outcome would be. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Thanks for the insight Marc. Yeah, it sounds like there's a real disconnect. Like everyone else here, I have no knowledge of the event(s) myself, but it sounds as though what both Duff and Slash happened in some form, but how much Axl knew about it is another matter. Perhaps neither Duff or Slash were of sound mind at the time and perceived things different than as they actually were. We'll never know, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intercourse Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't even think that it was done right before a gig. They may have not even been on tour at the time or maybe it was done during a break. However I do believe that Slash and Duff felt that if they didn't sign it that Axl wouldn't tour anymore until it was signed. I also believe that gigs had already been book at the time they signed but not 100% sure. It was management that sold it to Slash and Duff that way sign or it's over not Axl. I also don't think that Slash or Duff even remember exactly when it was done. They were not in the best shape at the time. So if their stories are a bit different, what does it really matter. The point is they would have never signed that paper if they didn't both believe what the outcome would be.This explains why Slash says he still hates Doug Goldstein to this day.He was the Angel of GNR Death who brought the document to them with the verbal threat to expedite the signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kanudo19 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 wasn't it already proved that they both lied and they both signed the name in different dates and while on tour break ? Besides, they signed the name because they had a verbal agreement since day 1 that the band name belonged to axl. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rustycage Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 No, that wasn't proven. Someone posted initials on 1 page or so of the contract and tried to claim it was the only contract and that the initials were NOT amendments.It was a grasp by some wrassler. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It was MSL who refused to give us the whole document for reasons unexplained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCBarcelona Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) nothing was signed under duress or even during a concert.Duff, Slash, and Doug Goldstein all attested to the duress. Axl in his chats with us alleged he would have been cremated but failed to mention the statute of limitations running out would have already worked in his favor.the name was signed over in between tours in 1992.edit - I have the full document.You have a document. There were various documents that were signed.Lots of people have the document snooze72 posted months ago. There was a much longer thread on this months ago.Your timing also conflicts with Axl own wordsNever happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I wouldve have been cremated years ago legally, couldve cleaned me out for the name and damages. It's called under duress with extenuating circumstances. In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions.The statute of limitations in California is short. Given that Slash and Duff continued to work with Axl through 1996 (Duff in 1997) then Slash and Duff would be left with no recourse once the statute of limitations ran out (even with duress). The statute of limitations is something that Axl conveniently omitted in his description but was an important factor in the 2004-2005 lawsuit he had with Slash and Duff.Section 337 of California's Code of Civil Procedure establishes a four-year statute of limitations for most written contracts. It requires a plaintiff to file a lawsuit within four years of the alleged breach, or similar event, of a written contract. This section, however, specifies that a two-year statute of limitations applies to certain written contracts involving real-estate titles and title insurance.http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htmhttp://smallbusiness.chron.com/california-contract-law-statute-limitations-15480.html Edited October 30, 2014 by FCBarcelona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 FCBacelona is the only one posting anything relevant.Someone should also dig out the Goldstein apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maynard Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Great post Barcelona. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNNER PT Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 People doesn't want to see the truth even if the truth is in front of their eyes ...LIES. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Look, they signed over the name, Axl did nothing illegal and they didn't want to stay and make a record with Axl. So, it's not like some nice idealistic situation but that's life. Maybe Marty will get in the DeLorean and warn Slash & Duff not to sign in Back to the Future Redux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake-Pit Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Well, if they kicked Axl out, history would have been different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laparka Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesI'm with you regarding all of the above, but showing up to gigs high on heroin, cocaine and inebriated is far from "acting professionally" in my book.They're musicians, not doctors. Find me completely sober musicians and I'll show you musicians that write boring shit.So?You think that keeping such a lifestyle does not impact the way your band works?I'm not saying that Axl (or the management) took the best decision by making those documents, but something should have been done years earlier to stop Duff & Slash in their self-destructive lifestyles. Those lifestyles were jeopardizing the band's future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intercourse Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 (edited) No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesI'm with you regarding all of the above, but showing up to gigs high on heroin, cocaine and inebriated is far from "acting professionally" in my book.They're musicians, not doctors. Find me completely sober musicians and I'll show you musicians that write boring shit.So?You think that keeping such a lifestyle does not impact the way your band works?I'm not saying that Axl (or the management) took the best decision by making those documents, but something should have been done years earlier to stop Duff & Slash in their self-destructive lifestyles. Those lifestyles were jeopardizing the band's future.Yeah, look at how it all turned out. Your theory is soooo correct.Duff & Slash died of drug and alcohol overdoses and Axl went on to make GNR an even bigger, more successful recording band.The fact that the absolute opposite is actually the case should be enough for you to take yourself back to the back of the class and try working on your theories again. Edited October 31, 2014 by Intercourse 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intercourse Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 Duff, Slash, and Doug Goldstein all attested to the duress. This statement should be the end of this argument.As ProstituteComa said, Barcelona is the only one posting relevant information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laparka Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 No, I'd rather go with the guy who shows up hours late continually, costing the band and management infinite amounts of money in overtime fees--basically throwing money down the toilet.I'd rather go with the guy that shows up hours late continually and puts everyone in the arena's safety at risk and destroys the band's reputation and future in being able to tour.I'd rather go with the guy who storms off stage like a 3 year old, again putting everyone at risk and yes, you guessed it, costing more money, sullying their reputation some more.I'd rather go with the guy who bad mouths the people he fucking works with daily...that swell guy, that mentally stable guy.I'd rather go with the guy that's cause multiple riots.On second thought, I'd rather go with Slash n Duff, the guys that showed up to work everyday and acted professionally.That goes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong way, in my book and also in multi million dollar enterprises eyesI'm with you regarding all of the above, but showing up to gigs high on heroin, cocaine and inebriated is far from "acting professionally" in my book.They're musicians, not doctors. Find me completely sober musicians and I'll show you musicians that write boring shit.So?You think that keeping such a lifestyle does not impact the way your band works?I'm not saying that Axl (or the management) took the best decision by making those documents, but something should have been done years earlier to stop Duff & Slash in their self-destructive lifestyles. Those lifestyles were jeopardizing the band's future.Yeah, look at how it all turned out. Your theory is soooo correct.Duff & Slash died of drug and alcohol overdoses and Axl went on to make GNR an even bigger, more successful recording band.The fact that the absolute opposite is actually the case should be enough for you to take yourself back to the back of the class and try working on your theories again.When did I say it was the best move or that they were right?After all, Duff & Slash acted (or their family) in order to make them go sober and/or clean.Of course, nobody will deny the fact that Axl has miserably failed and Slash is the big winner when it comes to productivity and media exposure.I still think that in the mid 90's, the label and the band needed to act in order to help Slash and Duff to fight their addictions which were leading them to death. They both agree on the self-destructive nature of their lifestyles.Was signing the name over to Axl the best option to prevent them from killing themselves? Of course not. They did something at least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Intercourse Posted October 31, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 31, 2014 I still think that in the mid 90's, the label and the band needed to act in order to help Slash and Duff to fight their addictions which were leading them to death. They both agree on the self-destructive nature of their lifestyles.Was signing the name over to Axl the best option to prevent them from killing themselves? Of course not. They did something at least...The signing over of the name was demanded with a threat of an Axl walk off, as Barcelona said, Goldstein confirmed the threat and he's on Axl's side.Where is there any proof that this was done out of concern for the band, as in the men not the brand?Axl still wanted them to stay on as employees.Izzy on the other hand, left GNR partly because because he couldn't watch his friends kill themselves. Look at the difference in approach here: Axl saw their sickness as a business opportunity while Izzy saw old friends going down the drain.If Axl was so worried about their health why didn't he do something about that rather than legally take their band from them? Why didn't he threaten to walk if they didn't clean up before Goldstein's proposal? Why did he have the whole idea of a new GNR fully legally described and ready to go so soon after this train of events started? This has always been about Axl having total control over his situation.There's tons of proof that this is all Axl desires and pursues regardless of the consequences. - He tried to get full control of the press output when they were on the UYI Tour - His ex's talk about his attempts to control who they saw and what they did. - He wanted full control of GNR as the "power rewards of my vision". - His only in-dept interview was with Del James, a failed musician and writer and paid lackey. - His fan pages, especially HTGTH manage the flow of fan opinion like the North Korean government manages its citizens. - Axl removes those from his life that he perceives have wrong him in any way. The list is now huge: from band members to managers to photographers, journalists, girlfriends and old friends. - The Activision suit and his attempts to keep VR out of the game.There is probably a very sad story about why Axl is this way (child abuse being the major one) but in my opinion Axl has always indulged his injured child persona far too much. I guess he's had the cash and power to do so for a long time (ditto Michael Jackson). 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts