Topics

I didn't remotely claim he did. This thread is titled "Slash's Blues Album..." so I was commenting on that.

What I'm seeing from what @Blackstar posted is that Axl had a slight more percentage in profit than Slash and Duff.  It's probably based on owning the GNR name since this came up:  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event that Axl shall be the Terminated Partner or in the event that Slash and Duff shall be Terminated Partners, Axl shall own and shall have the right to use the Group Name, and thereafter neither the Partnership nor the Partners other than Axl shall have any right to use the Group Name."  Taken a look at this, one can concur that Axl is the majority partner while Slash and Duff are minority. However, if you look at it slightly deeper in detail Slash and Duff can override Axl's decision.  My honest take based off of this is that technically there is no equal partners. However, there is an override so I would lean towards them being EQUAL  partners. This isn't the case of Bloomberg LP where Mike Bloomberg owns roughly 88% of the company. 

It is available because it was attached as exhibit in lawsuits between Axl, Slash and Duff: https://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

Who said that? People only argue if someone says they’re employees.

May I ask if the original agreement is publicly available? I would be surprised that it would be considering GNR is a private entity.  In business, there's always some type of equity involved. The provisions  granted to Axl and Slash  is backed by some type of equity. We know that Axl has the naming rights while Slash has the rights to the logo. That is a  form of equity. As an example, Ford used its blue oval logo during the Great Recession as collateral for the loan they received. The logo has equity value and is considered an asset.   The rights provided indicates they are not equal partners if this is publicly available.