Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sigh

  1. Do you think he would really do it? Or is it all empty threats?

    And if they didnt sign it that day, do you think Axl will find a way to still get the name eventually?

    This is not what happened.

    Rose got the right to take the name with him. And when he quit Guns N Roses existing partnership in 1995, he took the name with him and then invited Slash and Duff to join a new partnership with Rose. I don't know if the terms of the partnership changed much or if Rose just wanted to make sure Slash and Duff knew that he was in charge because he could do what he wanted since he owned the name.

    Per Duff, Rose refusing to take the stage in Spain was what caused he and Slash to sign the provision which allowed Rose to "own" the name. By that time, they had experienced the riot in St. Louis and a near riot in Europe when Rose walked off the stage, plus all the "bullshit" chants from fans as they waited for Rose to get to the arena and take the stage. So I doubt they considered it an idle threat.

  2. Axl doesn't want Slash earning money off the GNR name he hasn't worked to keep alive? Just as Slash wouldn't help Axl make money as GNR. So if he wants to stop that he can, or should be able to if Activision are on the level, which they aren't.

    Maybe it's in a way pay back for Slash suing Axl and blocking other things. Then there was the blu ray stuff. It goes back and forth.

    I guess to Axl, Slash has tried to ruin his career and for GNR to be left behind. So to Axl, he shouldn't the one to be the image of GNR.

    Bit petty, but so it suing Axl over the name.

    Rock n roll is high school with money.

    I just thought you should know that there is no evidence that Rose was ever sued by Slash or Duff over the name.

    reading opinions in this thread is giving me a headache. Honest question, how many of you have actually read all (or at least some) of the briefs?

    Regarding the statute of limitations issue, the argument Axl was making was promissory estoppel. It was a question of when does the clock start running when Activision continued to offer/promise/persuade Axl different things in order to NOT file suit. Axl also claimed Azoff and Doc kept delaying his filing of the suit by wanting to wait to see what Activision would give him.

    Another thing people here do not take into consideration is that there was an oral agreement between Activision and Beta. Beta was an agent on behalf of Axl. Beta asked Axl and Axl OK'd the deal after Activision orally told Beta there would be no Slash (Or Velvet Revolver) represented in the game. Then there was a follow-up 'confirmation' email by Activision to Beta but that email left out a lot of details which left a lot of room for argument in favor of Activision. In court, you HAVE to look at both the oral agreement and the follow-up email.

    One more thing to note, the summary judgment was argued and granted for something Beta had said. She basically contradicted herself. I don't remember what it was.

    Yeah, not many, including myself, have read the proper briefs so arguments are made on mostly speculation. Thanks for the insight.

    Once again we see this Beta relaying things to Rose which turn out to be inaccurate.

  3. Honestly prefer his contributions over Izzy's.

    Oh my.

    Tobias has never really played live, as explained during RIR3. To me with that few gigs on his belt, he did a great job. And especially he co-wrote some great tunes with Axl. So I have nothing bad to say about Tobias, and people that blame the break up o ol-GnR on Tobias are a bunch of idiots. But people use scapegoats.

    I don't think anyone blames Huge Tobias for forcing Huge Tobias on the band. It's not like he did it himself. Rose did that, once he owned the name and could do so.

    So people rightly blame Rose, not Huge Tobias, for Huge Tobias being forced on the band.

    I loved it when he did this to the Rocket Queen solo.

    Starts around 2:05



    Holy shit. Brutal. I've never heard that before. Huge Tobias and Rose should have been ashamed of that.

  4. http://www.rockol.it/news-590943/slash-rientro-duff-mckagan-guns-n-roses-non-mi-riguarda

    Again, be cautious of my Google translate but it seems somewhat reliable:

    "What Duff does is his business and does not concern me. The thing is, I don't care. The relationship between him and Axl is different than my relationship with Axl - I would never get a call like that to my address. No hard feelings, I'm not judging Duff, he's a nice guy. It's just that he has a more amicable relationship with Axl than me."

    Seems either bogus, or improperly translated.

  5. Funny, how it's common knowledge Slash "quit", yet the documented truth is Axl quit GNR and then went to start ANOTHER band with the same

    name as the band he had recently quit. He owned the name but the original GNR partnership is still in place as evidenced by many things.

    The Rose cultists, of which Del James is a proud member, believe in an alternate reality in which Rose is forever the victim and everyone else is out to get him.

    Slash didn't quit Guns N Roses. Slash quit the Axl Rose dictatorship. That Axl owned the name is undisputed. But it had ceased being a band by the time Slash quit.

    Slash was yanked off the road by Geffen because Rose said he was ready to write and record for Guns. This "flop", as James called it, sold over a million albums worldwide. This is evidence of the revision of history so common to cults.

    Certainly Slash was negative about Huge being forced on the "band" , but that was just more evidence to everyone that Rose was the one in charge and everyone else had to accept his way, or leave. Slash left. Duff felt the same way about Huge Ono and quit soon thereafter. Slash and I suspect Duff were also bitter about the way Rose became the dictator and wielded his dictatorial powers.

    But that's not the history the Rose cultists accept. They prefer the other one in which Rose was ever the victim and everyone else was out to get him.

    That Rose surrounded himself with these sycophants for so long is the primary reason for the current state of the band.

  6. I'm still not convinced this is real. I have read on this very message board that Duff is a liar and that Rose is a paragon of virtue. And if Rose is that paragon of virtue, then why would he take the stage with a liar like Duff?

    After all, while Slash was vague in his book about the circumstances and timing of Rose securing the name, Duff was very specific as to date, location and circumstances.

    I'm also not sure why Rose is willing to take the stage with someone who, per Rose, called him an idiot and ruined his confidence and ability to write music for what was apparently years.

    So I remain skeptical that any of this is real. I think all these photos just might be photo shopped.

  7. I think people often over think the reasons behind the absence of new music from Rose.

    Of course, I don't think he had any intent to release Chinese Democracy when it was released. I think the leaks and the label forced his hand.

    I think he is basically going to follow the advice of Alan Niven, who opined that the Chinese Democracy album could never match the hype after so many years and that Rose should have released a song here and there rather than a full album. I suspect going forward, that is what we will see from Rose vis a vis new music, the occasional release of "new" music ("new" meaning unreleased rather than actual new recordings). That's not to say that he got that idea from Niven, but I don't see a new album release in Rose's future.

    I'm still of the opinion that he was bitter about the release of Chinese Democracy, and was disappointed in the reception, at least in so far as album sales and radio airplay are concerned. I imagine he doesn't want even worse album sales with the release of a new album. Better to release a song or two and then play them live.

    When I look at the 2006 Rock Am Ring show, and see how into the performance Rose was, and then compare that to everything which has happened after the release of Chinese Democracy, I'm convinced that it was the release of Chinese Democracy which soured Rose on both performing and in releasing a new album. He'll still tour, as it pays the bills, but he's not going to make money releasing new music, and I'm not aware of any post-release show which comes close to the Rock Am Ring show.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.


    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.


    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.

  10. 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.

    also, it's hilarious that i've been given so much shit for not posting all 9 pages as if i'm hiding something that would hurt my argument, yet snooze is given a pass for not posting all 9 pages. believe me, if i was hiding something that would hurt my argument, snooze would be very eager to post it. he doesn't want to post all 9 pages because doing so would only bolster my position.

    i haven't posted all 9 pages because i have no interest in smoking gun style document leaks. i posted what was needed for the analysis of my article and don't care to put the inner workings of the old band on display. slash and duff made the signing date fair game by lying publicly about signing over the name backstage before a show under duress.

    as axl has insisted, that never happened. axl was telling the truth. those in denial will remain in denial and that is fine. i love you all.

    You don't know what you are talking about, and with each post, it shows more and more.

    Addenda are added to contracts all the time. Sometimes, new pieces of paper are used. But not always. And it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Your suggestion that the partners could not use a copy of the existing contract to make an addendum is just ridiculous nonsense.

    Now, any addenda should be dated, and be signed on the new date, and if a party wanted to make an issue of that not being done, they could certainly do so.

    If they cared to. Apparently, neither Slash nor Duff cared to make an issue of the name, ever, despite Rose's claims that Slash was using the name for purposes of suing him.

    Which makes me wonder where the lawsuit was filed in which Slash (or Duff) sued Axl over the name. Or if any such lawsuit ever existed.

    • Like 1
  11. 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.

    Once again, you just don't know what you are talking about.

    You don't know when the typed in language was added, whether it was before or after the original document was signed.

    Which means you don't know what the phrase "literally impossible" means.

    You also don't know if the typed in language was added after the original document was signed and presented while the band was on tour.

    And, once again, why make an issue of the name in a 2004 lawsuit which wasn't even about the name?

  • Create New...