Slash calls Axl "fucking great"

[Scumcat Esq.]

[WhazUp]

[Tater Totts]

That made me lol!

[WhazUp]

Now he does.

I was there.

September 3rd, 2008 at the Guitar Center Sessions, I got my copys of Reckless Road and Slash's book signed by Marc, Slash, and Steven Adler. All 3 of them were extremely nice to the fans

[Ali]

I've read every book out there on GN'R, and I am convinced that the "sign the name over scenario" went down like this:

The band had done several legs of the Use Your Illusion tour, and had barely broke even (I won't go into why).

Slash and Duff, etc. wanted to add another leg onto the tour, as they had now broke about even, and adding another leg would actually earn them some money.

It was at this point that Axl refused to continue with the tour unless the others signed the name over.

It did not happen backstage as Slash has insinuated. Slash was disingenuous about this.

IMO, Axl was also disingenuous about the scenario when he referred to it in the chats.

So let’s start here… the whole Axl wouldn’t go on stage yada yada… is complete and utter crap.

Never happened, all made up, fallacy and fantasy. Not one single solitary thread of truth to it. Had that been the case I would’ve have been cremated years ago legally, could’ve 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.

With all due respect, JB, that would constitute duress as it is making a threat. I re-read a little of Slash's book last night and he specifically mentions that he and Duff had lawyers working out the details of the contract for them. There was no duress, then. The presence of lawyers negotiating the terms of that agreement on their behalf means they had legal representation, which to me, nullifies any argument that they signed the contract under duress.

Funny that Izzy and Duff says the exact same thing as Slash says...

what does izzy say? i would consider his account over duff / slash.

Izzy cannot have an opinion on the matter as he was no longer in the band by the time this contract was signed. And, I have never seen Duff comment on the situation one way or another.

Ali

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali

[WhazUp]

Now he does.

I was there.

September 3rd, 2008 at the Guitar Center Sessions, I got my copys of Reckless Road and Slash's book signed by Marc, Slash, and Steven Adler. All 3 of them were extremely nice to the fans

Damn you should have asked them both if it really happened...a missed opportunity!!

haha i know man!!! im pissed at myself for not asking lol

[Jackie Moon]

Izzy cannot have an opinion on the matter as he was no longer in the band by the time this contract was signed. And, I have never seen Duff comment on the situation one way or another.

Ali

i did some investigating after that claim and the only thing i could find was a question on the break up of gnr, he said "i cant really comment as i was not around at that time"

break up of the band isnt the same as ownership of the name, obviously, but its the closest i could come to a comment on the matter.

i sincerely hope that poster comes back with a quote.

[Ali]

Izzy cannot have an opinion on the matter as he was no longer in the band by the time this contract was signed. And, I have never seen Duff comment on the situation one way or another.

Ali

i did some investigating after that claim and the only thing i could find was a question on the break up of gnr, he said "i cant really comment as i was not around at that time"

break up of the band isnt the same as ownership of the name, obviously, but its the closest i could come to a comment on the matter.

i sincerely hope that poster comes back with a quote.

You're right, the breakup of the band isn't the same thing as the ownership of the name. But, even at the time Slash alleges Axl made his threat in order to get the contract signed giving him ownership of the band name, Izzy wasn't in the band (1992). I suggest that people who doubt that Slash has been at best inconsistent in describing what happened with the contract involving ownership of the band name, read pages 390 and 391 of his book (the hardcover edition), and then read the end of this story:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,389304,00.html

Ali

[AngelZ]

$

He was trying to sell his book.

this was well after the book came out, and who was he trying to sell it to? hardcore gnr fans, most of us who want it, have it, and we all know what it is anyways, pictures of the first 50 gigs with some random notes, marc stirring up controversy amongst us isnt going to sell more pictures of 86' gnr.

you act like it was a tell all. that i would agree with.

I dont think it matters much how long the book was out, doesnt mean you stop trying to hock it to anyone who would pay attention or be even remotely interested in a book about a band from 25 years ago.

where else would he go to try and drum up some extra sales, a P Diddy forum? A tell all book gets hype automatically. Slash didn't come on here trying to pawn his, he didn't need to.

Izzy apperently isn't entitled to any opinion on the subject, whether or not he even offered one, since he was no longer in the band.........

guess that leaves us all out of the discussion as well, since none of us were ever in the band, yet opinions still fly, dont they. Slash was still in the band though, but some peoples opinions (even though they werent in the bad just like Izzy wasnt, right?) are that his version are lies, looks like that just leaves Axls version. ohh, I see where this is going. So glad we cleared it up.

[Jackie Moon]

I dont think it matters much how long the book was out, doesnt mean you stop trying to hock it to anyone who would pay attention or be even remotely interested in a book about a band from 25 years ago.

where else would he go to try and drum up some extra sales, a P Diddy forum? A tell all book gets hype automatically. Slash didn't come on here trying to pawn his, he didn't need to.

Izzy apperently isn't entitled to any opinion on the subject, whether or not he even offered one, since he was no longer in the band.........

guess that leaves us all out of the discussion as well, since none of us were ever in the band, yet opinions still fly, dont they. Slash was still in the band though, but some peoples opinions (even though they werent in the bad just like Izzy wasnt, right?) are that his version are lies, looks like that just leaves Axls version. ohh, I see where this is going. So glad we cleared it up.

izzy is entitled to an opinion, which im still waiting for. if youve got quotes please post them.

i dont think marc would come here and say shit that wasnt true about his BFF and book partner :

(i still dont know why he did it in the first place, but i dont think he would come here and spread lies about slash. what he said - i believe it was true, whether you want to believe it or not)

Edited March 22, 2010 by Jackie Moon

[Ali]

$

He was trying to sell his book.

this was well after the book came out, and who was he trying to sell it to? hardcore gnr fans, most of us who want it, have it, and we all know what it is anyways, pictures of the first 50 gigs with some random notes, marc stirring up controversy amongst us isnt going to sell more pictures of 86' gnr.

you act like it was a tell all. that i would agree with.

I dont think it matters much how long the book was out, doesnt mean you stop trying to hock it to anyone who would pay attention or be even remotely interested in a book about a band from 25 years ago.

where else would he go to try and drum up some extra sales, a P Diddy forum? A tell all book gets hype automatically. Slash didn't come on here trying to pawn his, he didn't need to.

Izzy apperently isn't entitled to any opinion on the subject, whether or not he even offered one, since he was no longer in the band.........

guess that leaves us all out of the discussion as well, since none of us were ever in the band, yet opinions still fly, dont they. Slash was still in the band though, but some peoples opinions (even though they werent in the bad just like Izzy wasnt, right?) are that his version are lies, looks like that just leaves Axls version. ohh, I see where this is going. So glad we cleared it up.

Izzy can speculate as much as he wants and have an opinion in that sense, like the rest of us. But, he was not in the band, so he cannot give his side of the story as to what happened. Opinion was the wrong word to use. He cannot have a version of events since he wasn't in the band at the time.

Ali

[realpoti]

Not again...

[Ali]

No offense, but it is naive to think that with the army of lawyers surrounding Guns that any sort of illegality in regards to the contracts would not have been caught. Steven didn't win back his rights to the band name, if that is what you're saying. Axl and Axl alone owns the rights to the band's name. That isn't because of any bullshit "blackmail" theory. If that were the case, the contract would've been rendered null and void by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of contract law. Also, I've read Slash's book multiple times and he never, not once, does he even hint at this blackmail scenario where Axl forced him and Duff to sign over the band name. In fact, he mentions that he and Duff both had lawyers working through the contracts with them. If such a blackmail event had occurred, as important as it was to Slash's career and the history of GN'R, he would've mentioned it in the book. He obviously had no problem mentioning it in interviews. It just never happened, plain and simple. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw.

Ali

How do you know that Steven didn't win his rights back? If Adler's contract was invalid at the time, wouldn't everything he had signed away been restored? According to Axl, describing when Slash signed away the name: "In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions." As far as I know, Adler received a financial settlement--I have never read anywhere that he officially signed away any rights he had to the band name. He may very well have agreed to part ways with name of the band for a financial settlement. I'd like to know how it was addressed, if it ever was.

Despite the "duress under the circumstances" rumor, I still don't see myself how Axl's contract is enforceable. (1) The triggering event for Axl to gain control of the name was in the event of a break up, whatever definition that is, doesn't make much sense in a partnership with a going concern. (2) It makes even less sense when the event is exercisable by the other parties (what if they never "left")? (3) The other thing that comes to mind is the fact that Adler could have had his interest in the partnership retroactively restored, and technically could have (should have?) been there to sign off on what Slash and Duff had been signing off on--don't modifying agreements like this have to be unanimous? I don't have any real hard facts and am piecing together the puzzle of information. I can think of even more aspects that don't make sense in divesting an asset like the name in a partnership. Where there's a will there's a way. Axl said that the statute of limitations ran out years ago but I don't see how that would matter if the contract wasn't enforceable or was invalid to begin with. LexisNexis here I come.

If anyone still has the scanned 2006 Lawsuit pdf document, please pm me. I deleted it.

Are you seriously questioning whether or not Steven Adler has any rights to the band name? The mere fact that there is a GN'R concert going on in South America tonight with only Axl from the AFD lineup around is irrefutable proof that Axl is the only one with rights to the band name. Steven and Izzy both lost any rights they had to the band name when they were fired and quit, respectively. You're overly complicating things.

Ali

[Jackie Moon]

lol

[Ali]

No offense, but it is naive to think that with the army of lawyers surrounding Guns that any sort of illegality in regards to the contracts would not have been caught. Steven didn't win back his rights to the band name, if that is what you're saying. Axl and Axl alone owns the rights to the band's name. That isn't because of any bullshit "blackmail" theory. If that were the case, the contract would've been rendered null and void by anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of contract law. Also, I've read Slash's book multiple times and he never, not once, does he even hint at this blackmail scenario where Axl forced him and Duff to sign over the band name. In fact, he mentions that he and Duff both had lawyers working through the contracts with them. If such a blackmail event had occurred, as important as it was to Slash's career and the history of GN'R, he would've mentioned it in the book. He obviously had no problem mentioning it in interviews. It just never happened, plain and simple. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw.

Ali

How do you know that Steven didn't win his rights back? If Adler's contract was invalid at the time, wouldn't everything he had signed away been restored? According to Axl, describing when Slash signed away the name: "In fact the time that was mentioned the attorneys were all in Europe with us dealing with Adler depositions." As far as I know, Adler received a financial settlement--I have never read anywhere that he officially signed away any rights he had to the band name. He may very well have agreed to part ways with name of the band for a financial settlement. I'd like to know how it was addressed, if it ever was.

Despite the "duress under the circumstances" rumor, I still don't see myself how Axl's contract is enforceable. (1) The triggering event for Axl to gain control of the name was in the event of a break up, whatever definition that is, doesn't make much sense in a partnership with a going concern. (2) It makes even less sense when the event is exercisable by the other parties (what if they never "left")? (3) The other thing that comes to mind is the fact that Adler could have had his interest in the partnership retroactively restored, and technically could have (should have?) been there to sign off on what Slash and Duff had been signing off on--don't modifying agreements like this have to be unanimous? I don't have any real hard facts and am piecing together the puzzle of information. I can think of even more aspects that don't make sense in divesting an asset like the name in a partnership. Where there's a will there's a way. Axl said that the statute of limitations ran out years ago but I don't see how that would matter if the contract wasn't enforceable or was invalid to begin with. LexisNexis here I come.

If anyone still has the scanned 2006 Lawsuit pdf document, please pm me. I deleted it.

Are you seriously questioning whether or not Steven Adler has any rights to the band name? The mere fact that there is a GN'R concert going on in South America tonight with only Axl from the AFD lineup around is irrefutable proof that Axl is the only one with rights to the band name. Steven and Izzy both lost any rights they had to the band name when they were fired and quit, respectively. You're overly complicating things.

Ali

Come on Ali, you are usually better at arguments than that. This is no fun. I'll discuss this with someone else then.

It was the paragraph of yours that I cited above that imply that Steven Adler had rights to the name in the past. You are just dismissing my argument without any facts. And you don't seem to have all the facts either, neither do I but your comments aren't accurate.

You can't lose rights to an entity you own just because you leave or get forced out. The Guns N' Roses name wasn't a company car that the employees lost rights to when they left, these people equalled the company.

Izzy left the band twice, once back during the Illusions and the second time in 1997.

http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?id=3390

Izzy was formally out of the GNR partnership in all its forms.

"When I left the group my lawyers negotiated a deal which said that I was to be given a certain percent on everything the group earned until November 1997." (Izzy, Expressen, 03/20/98)

All I am saying is that it wasn't Slash words that got me to think the contract was unenforceable or invalid, it was Axl's. What he said didn't make sense to me. The fact that Axl said the statute of limitations ran out years ago resonates in my mind because that doesn't make sense if the contract was unenforceable or invalid; which I believe is what Slash and Duff had been arguing about. Whether or not Axl is playing in South America has no impact on a mysterious contract made in the early 90s. I am still curious to see what it says.

I wasn't implying that Steven Adler had rights to the band name. I'm saying if he did, it seems very clear that he lost them, most likely when he left the band. Same thing for Izzy. I don't see how else it can be explained that the only parties involved in litigating the ownership of the band name were the only remaining original members in the band.

No facts? How about the fact that when the contract awarding Axl the name of the band should they ever break up was negotiated the only parties involved were the remaining original members, i.e. Axl, Slash and Duff? Slash confirmed this in his book and Axl did so in his "my homework assignment" open letter. If someone else had rights to the band name, they would have to be involved in that discussion. And, no offense, but it is ludicrous to think that if someone else had any say in the use of the GN'R name, we'd be having the new GN'R lineup with only Axl remaining from the original band. The bottom line is this: Axl, Slash and Duff signed an agreement that if they band broke up, Axl would retain the rights to use the band name. There is ZERO indication from anyone involved that Steven Adler was a part of this agreement and discussion, so there is ZERO reason to think that at that point, he had any controlling stake in the band's name. Same goes for Izzy. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion one can draw, in so far as I can tell, is that their departures from the band resulted in their loss in any controlling stake in the band name. As far as Axl's statement goes, all it means to me is that even if Slash and Duff wanted to contest the terms of the contract, it would be too late to do so by now. That's not the same thing as saying they have a case. It means that unfortunately, it does not matter if they have a case. It's too late to make one, regardless. Axl's point overall, to me, is that because the statute of limitations ran out and Slash couldn't formally contest the contract anymore, he opted instead to try and save face publicly by lying about what happened. That's what I gather from Axl's comments.

Oh, and the fact that Axl is touring with a new GN'R lineup as the sole original member is a direct result of the contract made in the early 90's. Of course, it doesn't retroactively impact the contract. It is proof positive that he and he alone has the rights to use the band name. That was my point.

Ali

Edited March 24, 2010 by Ali

[jthunders13]

is this thread really still going on?

[karlossacanell]

is this thread really still going on?

It seems so ...

[danmak]

guys, have anyone of you ever seen the contracts which are connected with the subject you talk about? until you do, the whole talk is only about what anyone heard, what anyone said or wrote in any kind of media.

(p.s.: when you speak about the legal knowledge... many semesters of law, almost laywer )

[plonker88]

This thread was almost dead, why did you have to go and post in it!

[danmak]

This thread was almost dead, why did you have to go and post in it!

lol. why do you think i wrote what i wrote? to end it ;-)