(THREAD UPDATE: HE LIED) GNR Manager Fernando Confirms New Album Within 6 Months!!

[guitarpatch]

There’s prob multiple versions to the truth. 

Axl could have presented the idea that he didn’t want to deal with family members after deaths. Tells management find a way and get it done 

Management took directive and quickly made that document as a way to facilitate that request. They do it this way to also consolidate power as They are more in Axl’s favor 

Goldstein presents the documents and alludes to Axl not being happy and just maybe he won’t perform if they’re not signed. 

Everyone believes their version of the truth 

Edited October 4, 2019 by guitarpatch

[Blackstar]

3 minutes ago, MildlyArtistic said:

Could've fooled me with how the last 3 years have gone

The reunion has made a lot of money, but I don't think it's the main reason Axl did it. If it was for that, he could have done it years earlier, as the offers were always on the table.

[Sydney Fan]

9 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Why? Axl is not known for doing something for the money as primary motivation. He has done things for control and power, but not money.

Even Izzy has said that Axl is not about money.

Sorry blackstar i meant if he reconvened with duff and slash in 06. I think axl felt satisfied with the lineup in 06 as im sure i have read chats and interviews online where he felt the 06 lineup at the time better represented the "guns n roses" band name. If he was open to a reunion at that point it would have either have been a) for the money or b) to buy out slash and duff out of the original partnership or renogotiate the partnership then dissolve it,  on axls term for a reunion to be done. I agree axl hasnt done things for the money so i felt that if axl was happy with the 06 lineup he would have been willing for a reunion to be done if the original partnership could be dissolved which i felt from chats and interviews he wanted to do to move away from old gnr.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Sydney Fan

[Blackstar]

2 minutes ago, guitarpatch said:

There’s prob multiple versions to the truth. 

Axl could have presented the idea that he didn’t want to deal with family members after deaths. Tells management find a way and get it done 

Management took directive and quickly made that document as a way to facilitate that request. They do it this way to also consolidate power as They are more in Axl’s favor 

Goldstein presents the documents and alludes to Axl not being happy and just maybe he won’t perform if they’re not signed. 

Everyone believes their version of the truth 

If I'm not mistaken, Axl himself has never claimed the possibility of having to deal with dead members' heirs as one of the reasons he wanted the name signed over to him. I think this whole excuse was probably made up by management etc. Besides, there is a separate clause in the partnership agreement, unrelated to the name clause, dealing with that issue.

[megaguns1982]

I think Cd was held up by a lot of lawsuits from slash and duff vs Axl.  Ever notice how the classic bullet logo imagery (which slash designed) wasn't used at all until the reunion. I'm pretty sure slash and duffs lawyers were hell bent on fucking with Axl any way they could back then, including lawsuits about the name transfer being signed under duress. Anyone who has been through the legal system knows that it can eat away for years and years back and forth and at the end of the day the only winners are the lawyers.

Edited October 4, 2019 by megaguns1982

[double talkin jive mfkr]

axl not about the money!!!

funniest posts here ever!

the guys probably worth close to a billion but he certainly doesn't look it maybe thats what you meant to say 

[bassplayer1993]

1 hour ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

axl not about the money!!!

funniest posts here ever!

the guys probably worth close to a billion but he certainly doesn't look it maybe thats what you meant to say 

200 million IIRC which makes him something like the 10th richest rock musician of all time. Oddly Enough the rest ain't worth much... IIRC Duff is "only" worth 40 million $.

Axl is an artist to the extreme. If he was doing it for the money he'd be releasing the same thing every 2 years and it'd sound like a forced imitation of AFD.

 

I dunno. I think he's just happy to be playing with his old buddies again which is why the tour is going on and on. I think he secretly wanted this the entire time. Just for them to be a gang again.

[LovelessNL]

2 hours ago, bassplayer1993 said:

I dunno. I think he's just happy to be playing with his old buddies again which is why the tour is going on and on. I think he secretly wanted this the entire time. Just for them to be a gang again.

Sure If he just wanted to play with his buddies they wouldnt ask 100+ for a basic ticket. This is definitely about the money. Having plenty doesnt mean you dont want more, it's actually more the opposite. 

[Politania]

On 2.10.2019 at 5:08 PM, ChildOfTheMoon said:

We need so much an Axl’s autobiography! Imagine how cool it would be to understand his point of view, to know a few stories e clarify others, especially because everyone says he has such a great memory!

Also he is so vague in his interviews, I always end up with more questions, so to have someone helping him organize all those memories would be amazing.

me too!

[Nicklord]

5 hours ago, bassplayer1993 said:

200 million IIRC which makes him something like the 10th richest rock musician of all time. Oddly Enough the rest ain't worth much... IIRC Duff is "only" worth 40 million $.

Axl is an artist to the extreme. If he was doing it for the money he'd be releasing the same thing every 2 years and it'd sound like a forced imitation of AFD.

 

I dunno. I think he's just happy to be playing with his old buddies again which is why the tour is going on and on. I think he secretly wanted this the entire time. Just for them to be a gang again.

Those net worth predictions aren't trustworthy at all. We don't exactly know what they did with the money. If they own 300 McDonald's or they just keep in the bank or if they tried something riskier. Maybe they all got 300 Ferraris and have no money left, who knows  

 

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Nicklord

[shotsfired cro]

14 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

They claimed they were in effect held hostage right before a show with Axl threatening not to go on if they didn't sign over the rights to the band name. They said they did so under distress and threat that fans would riot if Axl didn't take the stage. All of that is false. 

!?!?

Please continue.  Now that is something we had never heard anyone deny in the last 25 years.   You have first hand info?

[shotsfired cro]

13 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Why? Axl is not known for doing something for the money as primary motivation. He has done things for control and power, but not money.

Even Izzy has said that Axl is not about money.

when was the last time you spoke to Iz, 1975?

do the terms 'loot' and 'PM Money' ring a bell?

[MaskingApathy]

14 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

when was the last time you spoke to Iz, 1975?

do the terms 'loot' and 'PM Money' ring a bell?

FP Money 

[Blackstar]

23 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

when was the last time you spoke to Iz, 1975?

do the terms 'loot' and 'PM Money' ring a bell?

I haven't spoken to him. But I guess you have imaginary conversations with him all the time, since you call him "Iz" 

[adamsapple]

10 hours ago, bassplayer1993 said:

If he was doing it for the money he'd be releasing the same thing every 2 years and it'd sound like a forced imitation of AFD.

That's basically what he's doing night after night. Money is in tickets today and your description of the sound pretty much sums up the band today - safe, forced, unnatural, predictable, corporate mainstream nostalgia, catering the same setlist every night plus absolutely pointless covers to people who don't give to shits about the bands magnificient deep cuts. The most boring band in the world with an awesome lead singer and songwriter and one hell of a guitarist going through the motions night after night.

[GnR Chris]

1 hour ago, shotsfired cro said:

!?!?

Please continue.  Now that is something we had never heard anyone deny in the last 25 years.   You have first hand info?

There were photos of documents posted over a year or two ago that showed the actual date and time that Slash and Duff turned over the GNR name and it didn't coincide with any tour date they would have been on. I can try to find them.

[GnR Chris]

July 5, 1993 (Barcelona, Spain):

Duff's book, It's So Easy:

Quote

 

“With the crowd outside already getting rowdy, the guy then implied Axl wouldn’t go onstage that night unless we signed the documents.”

“I pictured people getting hurt if a riot started–at least that was my fear. And I was so fucking exhausted–it felt as though I’d been dragging a house around behind me for the last two years. Besides, at the time I never thought GN’R could possibly exist without us. The idea seemed ridiculous. and in that case, maybe the documents didn’t need to be fixed?”

“Fuck it. I signed. So did Slash.”

 

In 2002, Slash told Entertainment Weekly:

Quote

“Before a gig one night in ’92, [Axl] hands us a contract saying that if the band breaks up, he’s taking the name. Unfortunately, we signed it. I didn’t think he’d go on stage otherwise.”

Same story, different time. OK, maybe one of them flubbed the year, right?

The problem with this story, as Axl pointed out in the past, is that if it were true, it wouldn't be a legally binding document because it means Slash and Duff would have signed over the name under duress (the threat of Axl not going on stage and an ensuing riot).

Slash signed the agreement on October 15, 1992.
Duff signed the agreement on October 21, 1992.

Not only were GNR not on tour at the time, but Slash and Duff didn't even sign the doc on the same date, as they both claimed. Clearly they were putting media spin on this to make it look like Axl forced them into signing. 

[Blackstar]

34 minutes ago, GnR Chris said:

There were photos of documents posted over a year or two ago that showed the actual date and time that Slash and Duff turned over the GNR name and it didn't coincide with any tour date they would have been on. I can try to find them.

This is the document (partnership agreement), images and transcript:

http://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

But it's not impossible that the name clause was added later to the signed document, as in this particular copy it's been typed over and exceeds the limit of the page.

On the other hand, like I said earlier, as far as Duff's account is concerned about it taking place in Barcelona 1993, I doubt that he was in position at that time to have perception of what was going on and then remember it the details years later.

I guess there's no way for us to know, and we'll never know.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Blackstar

[guitarpatch]

Whatever happened, it does shine a light in how management probably leveraged things using the dynamics of the band. Doug was most likely pulling this type of stuff left and right on a lesser scale and they probably felt he favored one member’s interests over the rest...and they were probably right. Doug’s ride was attached to Axl 

[shotsfired cro]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

This is the document (partnership agreement), images and transcript:

http://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

But it's not impossible that the name clause was added later to the signed document, as in this particular copy it's been typed over and exceeds the limit of the page.

On the other hand, like I said earlier, as far as Duff's account is concerned about it taking place in Barcelona 1993, I doubt that he was in position at that time to have perception of what was going on and then remember it the details years later.

I guess there's no way for us to know, and we'll never know.

now we are getting smw

[shotsfired cro]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

This is the document (partnership agreement), images and transcript:

http://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

But it's not impossible that the name clause was added later to the signed document, as in this particular copy it's been typed over and exceeds the limit of the page.

On the other hand, like I said earlier, as far as Duff's account is concerned about it taking place in Barcelona 1993, I doubt that he was in position at that time to have perception of what was going on and then remember it the details years later.

I guess there's no way for us to know, and we'll never know.

...on the sidenote...that contract does not mean anything legally.  For all I know, the contracts should be signed by Saul Hudson, Willam Bailey and Michael McKagan.   If they signed it as Axl, Slash and Duff McKagan all these years that document was not worthy much.  Or is law different in California than eg. Roman law, Germanic law...

Edited October 4, 2019 by shotsfired cro

[Blackstar]

44 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

...on the sidenote...that contract does not mean anything legally.  For all I know, the contracts should be signed by Saul Hudson, Willam Bailey and Michael McKagan.   If they signed it as Axl, Slash and Duff McKagan all these years that document was not worthy much.  Or is law different in California than eg. Roman law, Germanic law...

Lol, the contract is perfectly valid in regards to signatures. Their legal names and aliases are stated in the beginning (btw, Axl's legal name is W. Axl Rose, not William Bailey).

Besides, the signature is just a mark representing the individual who signs it, and doesn't have to be a legible real name (most signatures are stylized anyway, and you can't make someone's name just by seeing the signature). For centuries there were contracts signed just with a cross or an "x" (due to illiteracy) and they were totally valid.

51 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

now we are getting smw

Thanks for yet another insightful post. Make sure to tell us more the next time you talk to "Iz", "Ax", "Gilb" and all your other friends.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Blackstar

[janrichmond]

24 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Thanks for yet another insightful post. Make sure to tell us more the next time you talk to "Iz", "Ax", "Gilb" and all your other friends.

Hey Bla, if i talk to Sla i'll tell him that Shofir didn't mention him 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

3 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

July 5, 1993 (Barcelona, Spain):

Duff's book, It's So Easy:

In 2002, Slash told Entertainment Weekly:

Same story, different time. OK, maybe one of them flubbed the year, right?

The problem with this story, as Axl pointed out in the past, is that if it were true, it wouldn't be a legally binding document because it means Slash and Duff would have signed over the name under duress (the threat of Axl not going on stage and an ensuing riot).

Slash signed the agreement on October 15, 1992.
Duff signed the agreement on October 21, 1992.

Not only were GNR not on tour at the time, but Slash and Duff didn't even sign the doc on the same date, as they both claimed. Clearly they were putting media spin on this to make it look like Axl forced them into signing. 

Damn I never saw it laid out like that. No wonder Axl was so pissed at all the media reports and books coming out at the time.

[double talkin jive mfkr]

17 hours ago, bassplayer1993 said:

200 million IIRC which makes him something like the 10th richest rock musician of all time. Oddly Enough the rest ain't worth much... IIRC Duff is "only" worth 40 million $.

Axl is an artist to the extreme. If he was doing it for the money he'd be releasing the same thing every 2 years and it'd sound like a forced imitation of AFD.

 

I dunno. I think he's just happy to be playing with his old buddies again which is why the tour is going on and on. I think he secretly wanted this the entire time. Just for them to be a gang again.

yeah i see what u did there

he's not about the money b/c he milks his hits over and over relentlessly until the whole world is exhausted by paradise city and sweet child - artist to the extreme and no cash grabbing with no new music for decades - what an artist - he was one up until 94 now he's a pear and a rich one at that too bad hes been taken hostage by a bunch of crazy brazilians which doesn't help the artist in him flourish i wonder if thats a coincidence...

 

guarantee fernando made that quasi release statement to promote himself as the man in the know when really uncle axl has no intention of releasing anything because he simply won't put lyrics to music he prefers to dictate musicians endlessly and tire out producers while stifling his confidence - its sad really 

Edited October 4, 2019 by double talkin jive mfkr