DaNutz Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 GNR facebook today:"Fly those G N' R banners HIGH! We're calling it Flag Day everywhere, especially in the USA! #HappyFlagDay" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUCOULDBEMINE. Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 how the fuck is this good news, Guns HAS to tour now. like axl was kinda forced to come out in 2002 when he didn't want to tour.this is gonna get ugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ITW 2012 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 GNR facebook today:"Fly those G N' R banners HIGH! We're calling it Flag Day everywhere, especially in the USA! #HappyFlagDay"It really is Flag Day in the US. I just looked it up on wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonebird Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Well i see this as good news - GNR touring in any shape or form is good news and it could be great for the US fans if they finally get a full tour! Lots of rumours of tours, remixes, re-releases, new album... things are definitely happening - I can't wait to see what's coming next for GNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmygod Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Is it remotely possible Axl settled to, uh... avoid having to pay out of his own pocket?! He agreed to play these shows and Azoff is collecting a percentage of the profits. This is the same settlement Axl agreed to when he was fighting Clear Channel after the 2002 tour debacle. Merck Mercuriadis, a longtime former manager, revealed that Axl only toured in 2006 because he needed the funds to cover the Clear Channel suit and finish recording Chinese Democracy. What's the point of getting sued, wrestling in court for months, only to settle? Is that how you would "further the agenda" of your band? This isn't some Jedi holistic mission, my young padawan. It's just an effective way to ensure his bank account doesn't take a massive hit. Azoff won, because he's ultimately getting paid. And Axl, who absolutely despises him, must perform these shows so that he gets paid.. Who's your daddy, Axl? Who's your daddy?-KickingthehabitUmmm. Wrong. Take note that Azoff sued Axl. Thus if Azoff's suit was so cut n dry, no settlement would have been reached. He would simply have told his attorneys to not budge, and considering his funds, Azoff can afford to take this through trial without having to worry about attorneys fees and what not. The fact they settled pretty much shows GNR did have legal standing that would have prevented the Plaintiffs case from prevailing.So really Axl wins. He gets sued, the case doesn't even go to trial, and as stated, "They settled to the mutual satisfaction of the parties." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 how the fuck is this good news, Guns HAS to tour now. like axl was kinda forced to come out in 2002 when he didn't want to tour.this is gonna get uglyHe gonna sing like Mickey Mouse again in protest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loaded Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 how the fuck is this good news, Guns HAS to tour now. like axl was kinda forced to come out in 2002 when he didn't want to tour.this is gonna get uglyHe gonna sing like Mickey Mouse again in protest? :rofl-lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlas Shrugged Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) god, some of you people are stupid. there is no such a settlement as a court ordered tour..."I hereby sentence you, Axl Rose, to 3 years hard touring until the debt you owe to Azoff is paid."yeah, ok moron.if Axl was in an untenable position and lost, he would have simply had to pay the fees Azoff claimed he was owed. Edited June 15, 2011 by Atlas Shrugged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 god, some of you people are stupid. there is no such a settlement as a court ordered tour..."I hereby sentence you, Axl Rose, to 3 years hard touring until the debt you owe to Azoff is paid."yeah, ok moron.if Axl was in an untenable position and lost, he would have simply had to pay the fees Azoff claimed he was owed.Aerosmith, Hawaii, Lawsuit, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOLNo. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.AliWrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Aerosmith, Hawaii, Lawsuit, anyone?The Hawai dispute was between Aerosmith and Hawaian Aerosmith fans (therefore "playing to pay" was a legitimate, satisfactory settlement for all parties) - why would Azoff, supposedly in a positon of power, accept a mechanism of payment which would directly advantage Guns N' Roses? Edited June 15, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOUCOULDBEMINE. Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 how the fuck is this good news, Guns HAS to tour now. like axl was kinda forced to come out in 2002 when he didn't want to tour.this is gonna get uglyHe gonna sing like Mickey Mouse again in protest?it will be boring, that's all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 There are two possibilities; either Axl's edged this and gained a concession, or there was a balance in strength and both parties have agreed upon a mutually satisfactory settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOLNo. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.AliWrong.No, right. Your Aerosmith example has been explained away. Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Thanks for posting, have linked to newswire.http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showtopic=177615I am very happy with this news, this is VERY good news indeed Yeah, it ranks right up there with a release date for CD II. So basically Axl has been given the optiion to pay Azoff the money he owes him by playing some shows? Looks to be another banner year. LOLNo. Explained and answered already. Payment can be stipulated, but not the mechanism for such payments.AliWrong.No, right. Your Aerosmith example has been explained away. AliThat isn't why your wrong. Mechanism for payments CAN be stipulated in legal agreements. The god damn government does it all the time. 1000 hours of community service by such and such date or pay $500 dollars.Aerosmith, Hawaii, Lawsuit, anyone?The Hawai dispute was between Aerosmith and Hawaian Aerosmith fans (therefore "playing to pay" was a legitimate, satisfactory settlement for all parties) - why would Azoff, supposedly in a positon of power, accept a mechanism of payment which would directly advantage Guns N' Roses?I don't know why Azoff would do that nor do I care, I was simply pointing out that there is a such thing as a court ordered tour and that in legal disputes involving money, cash isn't the only remedy. Edited June 15, 2011 by SunnyDRE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I don't know why Azoff would do that nor do I care, I was simply pointing out that there is a such thing as a court ordered tour and that in legal disputes involving money, cash isn't the only remedy.The legal system didn't order a tour to compensate for the money supposedly lost in travel expense. Aerosmith proposed the idea with the Aerosmith fans (who put forward and perpetuated the case) accepting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDRE Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I don't know why Azoff would do that nor do I care, I was simply pointing out that there is a such thing as a court ordered tour and that in legal disputes involving money, cash isn't the only remedy.The legal system didn't order a tour to compensate for the money supposedly lost in travel expense. Aerosmith proposed the idea with the Aerosmith fans (who put forward and perpetuated the case) accepting.Aerosmith and the jilted fans presented the courts with an settlement that they both agreed upon. The courts ORDERED both parties to abide by those agreements or else.You can be wrong sometimes NewGNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Community service isn't meant as a way to work in order to generate X amount of money you owe. And he Aerosmith example is an apples and oranges comparison. As mentioned, it was a class action suit over a canceled concert. The Azoff dispute was over owed commissions - money. Do you honestly not see the difference there?Ali Edited June 15, 2011 by Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Azoff sued Axl for unpaid commissions. The case gets settled, by which Azoff will get those commissions in the form of upcoming shows. How is this a "total victory" for Axl in court?Breaking it down even simpler, Azoff sued for money he's owed, and now will get the money he's owed.Don't get me wrong, Axl and co. playing shows is a good thing, I just don't understand the thought process of some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Aerosmith and the jilted fans presented the courts with an settlement that they both agreed upon. The courts ORDERED both parties to abide by those agreements or else.The point is though the court didn't order the tour (they'd have obligated Aerosmith to pay the expense money); Aerosmith made the proposal to which the fans accepted (all the legal system had to do was acknowledge this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Azoff sued Axl for unpaid commissions. The case gets settled, by which Azoff will get those commissions in the form of upcoming shows. Azoff getting "his commissions" in their entirety would mean his argument was insurmountable (therefore why'd Azoff opt to settle?). Axl counter-sued and obviously there wasn't a clear possibility of either party having short term success (hence the "comprehensive" settlement). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bards Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Azoff sued Axl for unpaid commissions. The case gets settled, by which Azoff will get those commissions in the form of upcoming shows. Azoff getting "his commissions" in their entirety would mean his argument was insurmountable (therefore why'd Azoff opt to settle?). Axl counter-sued and obviously there wasn't a clear possibility of either party having short term success (hence the "comprehensive" settlement).The "if Azoff was in the right then why'd he choose to settle?" argument is a red herring. People settle cases that are way more cut and dry than this all the time. Saves time and court costs and if you get what you wanted to begin with then there's no reason to go through the exercise. No offense dude, but you're talking above your head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) Azoff sued Axl for unpaid commissions. The case gets settled, by which Azoff will get those commissions in the form of upcoming shows. How is this a "total victory" for Axl in court?Breaking it down even simpler, Azoff sued for money he's owed, and now will get the money he's owed.Don't get me wrong, Axl and co. playing shows is a good thing, I just don't understand the thought process of some people.Where does it say in the article that came out yesterday that Azoff will reap managerial commissions from a future show?Aerosmith and the jilted fans presented the courts with an settlement that they both agreed upon. The courts ORDERED both parties to abide by those agreements or else.The point is though the court didn't order the tour (they'd have obligated Aerosmith to pay the expense money); Aerosmith made the proposal to which the fans accepted (all the legal system had to do was acknowledge this).Exactly. The court orders the terms of ANY settlement to be respected. It had nothing to do with this make-up show in particular.It's a complete apples and oranges comparison to begin with, anyway.Ali Edited June 15, 2011 by Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 The "if Azoff was in the right then why'd he choose to settle?" argument is a red herring. The so called "clear legitimacy" to Azoff's arguement wouldn't have agreed on a mechanism that will not only pay any obligatory fee but directly advantage the "guilty" party (it's clear this is a very mutual thing that doesn't explicitly align to the agenda of either party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 What does this all mean?That the legal battle is over. GN'R have a touring agreement in place with Azoff (Live Nation Entertainment). Since Live Nation operates some 75 venues in the US and only 40 something in the rest of the world, it's fair to say that the agreement could cover a US tour (at least in part).Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts