williambailey01

Not really enticing for me. They have the price listed as $999 AUD, but then I would have to pay shipping from the US plus 10% GST as well when it arrives.

So I go to the Aussie version of the GNR merch store which offers free shipping for orders over $50 and that still has the box set at the original price of $1,450 AUD.

According to this post on Pinside about 3 months ago Stu was looking for a used GNR playfield for the CAD file development not a NOS one.

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/guns-n-roses-playfield

I'm sure they will find (if they haven't already) someone to send them a used one and in return receive it back rescreened and clear coated once CPR have have finished with it.

Maybe put it one eBay then if you are just looking for offers.

My suggestion would be to do it soon though since Classic Playfield Reproductions now have a new, wider drum sander. So wide body playfield reproductions can now be done by them and my guess is this one would be high on their list to do.

Nice, how much are you wanting for the playfield?

One of the problems is Axl really trusted the adviser.

Are you referring to Yoda?

The point I make is that until that agreement was signed, there was no way that Axl could have ever been voted out of the band, since there was no agreement with terms to vote under. So Axl could have happily never signed a partnership agreement and never been voted out. He could have maintained the status quo.

So to use the new agreement as justification for having to add the clause in is somewhat misleading. I would suggest the only reason the new agreement was signed was because it was part of his plan all along to gain control of the name. It's like the chicken or the egg thing, the clause only needed to be in there because there was finally an agreement signed, but there was only an agreement signed because he intended to use it to get control of the name.

That clause being in there wasn't just another clause for a bit of extra protection, it was likely the main reason for ever drawing up another agreement in the first place.

William -

The partnership agreement had arrangements in place for voting on various decisions, including removing members. How the voting worked depended on the situation and every possible scenario was outlined in great detail.

You appear to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Had Axl signed the '92 partnership agreement without having the clause in question added, he would have ended up with nothing if Slash and Duff voted him out 2-1 (which they could have done at any time for any reason).

You say there wasn't an agreement in place to remove Axl and keep the name, yet you're complaining that Axl wasn't willing to sign an agreement that would have allowed just that!

On a separate note how do you know the partnership agreement Niven had drawn up allowed that - you don't. You can put whatever you bloody want in an agreement, so you have no idea what was and wasn't in there..

I have to laugh at MSL continually trying to use the line that Axl had to protect himself because he could be voted out of the band two to one and Slash and Duff keep the name of the band that HE created. That talk is garbage, it implies that there was some type of existing partnership agreement in place which had an arrangements for voting on decisions such as removing members etc etc. There wasn't!

If Slash and Duff said they didn't want to work with Axl and wanted to carry on as GNR then they probably could of ( most likely unsuccessfully), but at the same time there was nothing stopping Axl forming a new band and calling it GNR. In fact we have seen this exact situation play out with other bands.

So this two to one stuff is a red herring. He might have wanted to keep the name all to himself, but that is a different agenda, nothing to do with this shit about being able to be out voted two one.

Alan Niven had the bands lawyer Peter Paterno draw up a partnership agreement during his tenure, yet Axl refused to sign it so it sat in a draw. There was no agreement originally so how could Axl be out voted? It's hardly surprising that after Niven was sacked Axl then put forward a partnership agreement which was essentially favourable to him only which secured him the name. One might suggest it was his agenda all along.

I'm not saying he wasn't entitled to the name nor making a call on whether what he did was right or wrong. But there is a shameless self promoter using a false justification for Axl's actions.

http://rocktelegraph.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/alan-niven-without-me-guns-n-roses-were.html

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.

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?

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.

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.

Interesting that Doug Goldstein's version of events seems to largely jive with Duffs. Goldstein as of 2 days ago confirmed that a draft agreement was prepared in Barcelona relinquishing their rights to the name before Axl would take the stage. Although he lays the blame at the feet of John Reese the Tour Manager for delivering the ultimatum.

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

Well no, they lifted it from here, http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=11795 which predates your post here, but I'd guess is still you anyway!

Yep that's my username over there.

Hisroyalsweetness said someone posted some rumors about her on this site, which is what I showed in the link above. Yet Sailaway tried to claim posting it.

i thought it was beta checking the vibes at trunk's interview. yoda died within the last few years. somebody posted some rumors here that her husband tried to replace her with a new guru, but axl didn't take the bait. the dude since remarried, and continues to post weird shit on the internet every once in a while.

That was me, I found an article saying Elliot was supposedly trying to replace Sharon with an equally oriental spiritual, will see if I can spy it out again.

Check out the Arcos Cielios website, those people are obscenely wealthy from a non profit business.

Guy graduated from some " Tree" university.

Here is the article HRS

**************

Apparently much land in Canada was bought with

GNR $$'s, but her husband Eliott eventually had to sell

a lot of it after Yoda's death in an effort to support

other interests.

Apparently after her death Elliot offered up a Yoda

substitute in an attempt to keep the $$'s rolling in

"Yoda" style. She was also oriental and coached no

doubt.

I also heard that Axl got taken for seven figures by

these charlatans in Sedona. I suppose with exorcisms

at the discount price of $75,000 and weekend confabs

at $25,000 per head it wouldn't take long for the $$'s

to rack up.

Apparently certain staff members around Axl were

also required to pay a monthly retainer to Yoda of

$10,000. I'm sure it was money well spent Dougie.

Even funnier I have heard that the Maynards

themselves would occasionally let their loose lips

disparage and mock Axl. Lovely way to have treated

your cash cow!

You clown you never posted that, you lifted that quote verbatim from a post I made on this site months ago:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?/topic/196546-beta-doug-goldstein/page-4#entry3331173

Mr Bubbles

His whole life has taken on MJ'esque similarities, so why not.

Great deals there williambailey01! I also noticed that your picture was used by Slash on instagram! Nice!

Yeah it was pretty funny when I saw that Slash posted it!

My mate who is doing the creepy photobomb in the background has been getting lots of shit from us about it. His peeping face now shared around the world thanks to Slash. haha

I got that UYI Bible Pack for about $13. The seller listed it on eBay wrong and I stumbled upon it.

Of course the Red Hand CD that I stumbled across with a buy it now of $9.99 USD. I resold that a few months later for $1,000 AUD which was about $1,130 USD

there cant possibly be only 3 ! axl's jacket has his name stitched in red writting on the left hand side , hard rock cafe has one as does troccolli and this one which makes 4 !! the one troccolli bought i saw the description and that seller stated it was one of 3 but cant be !! heres the link to tims http://troccolitm.com/WhiteJack.html

the one on ebay right now is the only white one I've seen (other than hard rock and PC vid) with the cross logo embroidered

One final follow up posted a couple of days ago by Dropping The Needle:

http://droppingtheneedle.com/alan-niven-one-time-only-answers-your-comments/

Attacking him for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK is contrary to his ownership rights of "Guns n' Roses".

Doesn't matter how many times you type it - it won't magically become valid.

It doesn't require *magic* to become valid ... unlike the *magic powers* you need to see that Slash was only joking when he dissed Izzy's guitar playing and Scott Weiland's song-writing skills! LMAO

It just requires a brain capable of understanding and accepting the rights a person has to their property. The constitution of every democratic society has laws that clearly state and protect a person's rights to their properties.

Axl founded GnR and maintained LEGAL OWNERSHIP of his corporation (band) throughout GnR's entire life. He can do whatever he pleases with GnR. If you don't like it, tough poop!

So just like if you owned a home or business, you have every right to do whatever you want with it (within the law) and nobody else can tell you what to do or take it away from you. I can't come into your house and do whatever I please. If you tell me to leave, I must comply. If I want to work for your business, as long as the work conditions you provide are lawful, I must fulfill the duties you are paying me for. If I don't ... you as the owner of your business can fire me.

It's that simple.

Attacking Axl for being SUPER CONTROLLING = CONTROL FREAK over a property that he owns ... is contrary to his ownership rights.

So no matter how many times you try to deny Axl's right to operate his corporation - his property - the way he sees fit ... the unbiased and objective LAW ... clearly says you are in the wrong. Your magic powers can't erase this truth.

Clearly your brain isn't capable of checking any facts first, instead you simply sprout garbage and claim them as facts.

Axl did not maintain ownership of GN'R throughout his entire life. Until Axl had the others sign over their rights in the name, GN'R was a California sub Chapter S Corporation and they were all recorded as equal members of that corporation by the State. That is a matter of public record, it was never exclusively Axl's.

The partnership agreement that Niven referred to was drawn up to refine that Corporations by laws and give Axl a larger share of the composing royalties, so as Adler could get a smaller share, the other 3 had 20% each. This is also a matter of public record, go and look at the Adler court case.

In addition it's worth remembering Niven signed a Management Agreement that made him responsible to each band member EQUALLY. As much as the Axl nutswingers think he should have just pandered to Axl at the expense of the others, this would have caused him to be in breach of that agreement. Again this is a matter of public record, in fact the actual signed management agreement was sold on ebay not that long ago. Someone from Peter Paterno's office had obviously decided to make some dollars by selling off some old stuff. Here is the original auction link for it, the pics are broken but I still have them saved.

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350476234907&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

How come this thread is kept in the main section and the Niven interview with thousands more views is moved to obscurity!

Axl was responding Nivens interviews he did a few years ago. Around time of slsh book.

People definitely interested in these anecdotes. I think Axl has been to right to keep the control of band and not let them be just puppets to some managers. As weve seen from CD they barely need management to sell some records n tour.

Edi found the interview, Niven was responding to shit Axl said about him:

http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/exclusive-former-gnr-manager-counters-axls-claims/

You do realise that it's Axl that keeps brining him up not the other way around right? If someone 20 years later was throwing shit at you would you not possibly respond and call them out?

I see this thread has been buried again. Yet inane, childish topics about garbage remain in the main section. Lol

This is what people like Alan's M.O. is. To start controversy and pit people against each other. This isn't about Slash and Axl. This is about Alan trying to stay in the spotlight by smearing Axl twenty plus years later. It's truly pathetic.

Have you noticed how he only responded after Axl said those things about him in the Adelaide article. Same with the other times Axl has blamed him for shit in the past, he's given an interview to set the record straight. Seems Axl is the one that is still living in the past and blaming shit and smearing people from 20+ years ago.

http://droppingtheneedle.com/some-additional-guns-n-roses-comments-from-alan-niven/

Alan Niven followed up with Dropping The Needle with some additional comments (dont shoot the messenger, lol).

I have been made aware of some of the comments made on various GnR sites. Some are clearly of a prejudiced nature, and there are many who dont seem to actually listen to what was actually said but such is the nature of forums.

The one comment I would respond to is the statement that there were obviously no meaningful [heart to heart] conversations between Axl and myself, or him and the others for that matter. That could not be further from the truth;

There were countless such conversations and phone calls -

one of the last ones I had with Axl, I was trying to explain to him the dynamic he was engendering that he tended to intimidate people that his method made people defensive and alienated, that he came off like a bit of a dick - even if that was not his intent and purpose and I suggested he think thru how he talked to people and for him to consider how fearful people were of him . whether that was his fault or not I tried to empower his communication skills by illuminating his understanding the very next call I had from him, was his call to say he wouldnt work with me anymore so maybe that was his intent after all.

When Izzy travelled to LA to try to talk Axl into attending the Hall Of Fame event, Axl failed to show for the pre-arranged meeting. Les plus sont changes les moins sont changes.