MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[ARBeast]

Guns N' Roses News ‏@GunsNRosesNews

The scan indicates that contrary to their public stance, Slash and Duff signed over the GNR name separately. #GNR pic.twitter.com/xE9eTlWxNw

M.SL claim to have proof that Slash and Duff lied about signing over the GNR name: http://mistersaintlaurent.proboards.com/thread/10998/proof-slash-duff-lied-signing …

PROOF THAT SLASH & DUFF LIED ABOUT SIGNING OVER THE GNR NAME

On pages 221 and 222 of his autobiography It's So Easy and Other Lies, Duff McKagan claimed that he signed the GNR partnership agreement on July 5, 1993 under duress backstage at a Guns N' Roses

Wow, interesting find. No doubt to me they knew what they were signing up. But I've never found any excuse in signing the rights to the name over to Axl, it just fucked everything up anyways.

[Sigh]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

[Coma16]

Guns N' Roses News ‏@GunsNRosesNews

The scan indicates that contrary to their public stance, Slash and Duff signed over the GNR name separately. #GNR pic.twitter.com/xE9eTlWxNw

M.SL claim to have proof that Slash and Duff lied about signing over the GNR name: http://mistersaintlaurent.proboards.com/thread/10998/proof-slash-duff-lied-signing …

PROOF THAT SLASH & DUFF LIED ABOUT SIGNING OVER THE GNR NAME

On pages 221 and 222 of his autobiography It's So Easy and Other Lies, Duff McKagan claimed that he signed the GNR partnership agreement on July 5, 1993 under duress backstage at a Guns N' Roses

Wow, interesting find. No doubt to me they knew what they were signing up. But I've never found any excuse in signing the rights to the name over to Axl, it just fucked everything up anyways.

Doesn't NGOG manage that account?

Edited December 4, 2013 by Coma16

[DieselDaisy]

The one thing we can all agree on is the signing occured lateish (c. sept/oct) 1992 and in the United States. All except Duff who was so drunk he missed a whole chronological period, from about November 1992 until 5th July 1993. He must have had one bad hangover on that date.

[Coma16]

It is one thing to mess up a date but another to say that it happened backstage under duress versus while not even on tour.

[DieselDaisy]

It is one thing to mess up a date but another to say that it happened backstage under duress versus while not even on tour.

If you believe MSL's spin. I do not.

[SoulMonster]

It is one thing to mess up a date but another to say that it happened backstage under duress versus while not even on tour.

If you believe MSL's spin. I do not.

Out of curiosity, how do you explain the dates on those documents, then?

[cooker]

I've come to the conclusion that this Forum is filled with people who a crazier than Axl. At least we have some grounded members here. I'm looking at you Grogan.

[saber_]

If edit/pasting the same walls of text, almost literally, that often have nothing to do with the topic is your definition of "grounded", then by all means, let's prepare for another essay from Grogin.

I just would like to hear a line of reasoning which defines what, exactly, MSL is spinning. Sorry that bothers you so much.

[D-GenerationX]

If edit/pasting the same walls of text, almost literally, that often have nothing to do with the topic is your definition of "grounded", then by all means, let's prepare for another essay from Grogin.

I just would like to hear a line of reasoning which defines what, exactly, MSL is spinning. Sorry that bothers you so much.

I don't know he's spinning, but the entire Karsdashian clan could take some pointers from him on the concept of self promotion.

I think that's why people give him a hard time. He got his 15 minutes of fame back in 2007 or whatever, and has been trying to hold on to that spotlight like grim death ever since. Look how many times he has to insert himself into the narrative.

[SoulMonster]

If edit/pasting the same walls of text, almost literally, that often have nothing to do with the topic is your definition of "grounded", then by all means, let's prepare for another essay from Grogin.

I just would like to hear a line of reasoning which defines what, exactly, MSL is spinning. Sorry that bothers you so much.

Come on, cut him some slack, he just doesn't understand why Axl, his favourite singer, doesn't want to share his music with his fans.

[Ali]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

[Guest cbgnr666]

When you eliminate the impossible your left with the truth.And we're all grateful that the light has been shone on the truth,and the liars exposed for the world too see and condemn.

[AndreCC]

I honestly hope that some major news website gets this, so the rest of the World gets to know the truth.

[magisme]

Someone has lost all fuckin' perspective.

[Sigh]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

[HubbaBubba]

I honestly hope that some major news website gets this, so the rest of the World gets to know the truth.

The wording of this post is almost cult-ish.

It's a dry legal memorandum from a band that effectively broke up in 1993. The world doesn't give a fuck.

What is with this fanatical conversion? You understand msl will still love you even if you don't blindly support his every move?

Level with me. Do you have any doubts at all about this document? Given how Axl behaved for years, is the duress story really so implausible?

[Chunder Monkey]

So summing up:

1. The MOA is not the same thing as the actual contract making it's dates irrelevant to any stories told by ex members.

2. Any ethical reading of the situation would acknowledge that whenever Doug threatened that Axl would cancel the tour it was a threat that had to be taken seriously by Slash/Duff considering Axl's prior history of conduct against his own best interests (rage/arrests/riots/stage incidents etc).

3. The arguments in this thread are premised on the idea that if Slash/Duff lied they would be devils, yet, there's no ethical problem with Axl taking the name contract he got signed amidst the insanity of that period, quitting the partnership that made him famous, creating a new business under the same name, and offering his former co partners jobs as paid employees . I ask you which is ethically worse for people that lived together on the streets?

4. The source of this is MSL who persists in an anti-old members campaign after he publicly blackmailed the band a while back and since then has wildly changed his stance on all things GNR. Draw your own conclusions on why that is.

[HubbaBubba]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

Sigh, it sounds like you're pretty well-informed.

It sounds like msl has been advised that publicly calling slash and duff 'liars' does not put him at risk of legal action. Do you think he's been poorly advised, or is he perhaps just playing the odds (that slash and duff will just ignore all this)?

[Damn_Smooth]

bands create partnership agreements to govern the band. nobody is hiring anybody. nobody is buying or selling anything. you're establishing the terms of your partnership. MOAs are typically used to create a band's partnership agreement because you are establishing the terms of your working relationship, not agreeing to a specific business transaction.

a band signs a contract with a record label. a band signs a partnership agreement with each other.

And sometimes addenda are signed after a contract has been entered.

And sometimes no consideration is given for a particular contract provision and it may be void or voidable for same.

Sometimes there is concern about allowing parties to a contract to have their own individual attorneys review it, especially if an attorney supposedly acting for a collective drafts the contract and it contains provisions beneficial to one party at the expense of the others. See, e.g., Steven Adler's lawsuit against Guns N Roses.

But I would think one would want to be certain that no July 1993 contract exists before publicly saying that someone else lied about such a contract, or what it contained. Or when it was presented, and what was said when it was presented.

If you insist on believing that there was some more formal contract signed later on, as opposed to this Memorandum of Agreement being the partnership agreement, then looking at Duff's story, IMO he indicates that backstage before a show was the first time he saw any documentation drawn up on the issue of who would own the band name if the band partnership dissolved. He even commented that upon reading it, there was no wording discussing what would happen if he or Slash died. But, unless the portions of the document MSL shared are some spectacular forgery, Duff could not have been blindsided by this issue and never have seen any documentation drawn up on this topic until they were on tour. His signature is dated in October 1992 when the band was not on tour.

So, the issue of later, more formal contract is a distinction without a difference, IMO.

Ali

You seem to be confused about what a contract is. A contract is a contract. It doesn't matter if it is called an Agreement, or a Memorandum of Agreement, or a Contract, or nothing at all. If a promise is made, and consideration is given, a contract exists. I won't bore you with the details of the Statute of Frauds, but suffice it to say, that when dealing with issues of this monetary value (any GnR related contract), such an agreement must be in writing.

And, apparently, MSL has obtained some pages of a September or October, 1992 contract between Slash and Duff and Axl Rose. Okay. And that might be the only such contract that existed beyond that date.

Then again, it may not. I provided some examples of why there might be additional contracts, or addenda to the 1992 contract, such as lack of consideration or the issue of allowing others to have outside counsel review the proposed contract (and cited the Adler lawsuit as an example of why GnR would be sensitive to such issues).

What I would suggest to you, or to anyone commenting on it, is to refrain from calling someone a liar without all of the facts. Such could be construed as defamatory, even to public figures. You don't know if Duff made up the existence of a July 5, 1993 contract, signed while on tour, in Spain, presented by Doug Goldstein, followed up by an angry conversation the next day. He may have. That's a very specific story he told, though, and I suspect that such a contract, or addendum to a contract, does in fact exist. I suspect that because it seems implausible to me that Duff would make up such a fabrication out of whole cloth. An invented contract on such a specific date, location, presentation, etc. The notion that he just made all of that up and published it in his autobiography seems hard to believe.

Then again, he may have made it all up. But I wouldn't go around claiming he was a liar just because a previous contract was signed. The previous contract really proves nothing about whether a subsequent contract or addendum exists.

Now, you say it proves that Duff could not have been blindsided in July, 1993. Maybe, but even that is tenuous at best. Did someone object to the September/October 1992 agreement, due to a lack of consideration, or lack of capacity, or lack of opportunity to have it reviewed by independent counsel? Had the September/October 1992 contract been deemed void, or voidable, or had certain portions of it been deemed void or voidable? Was there a need to clarify some of the language in the 1992 contract?

It appears you have staked out the position that Duff and Slash have lied about Axl, or Doug Goldstein (who may have been acting without sanction from Axl) presenting them a contract before a show with the implied threat that if they did not sign, Axl would not perform. They may have, but I'd be careful if I were you in saying so publicly. Because you just don't have all the facts, and there is really no way for you to get them.

That applies to anyone else who wasn't in Spain on July 5, 1993, before the GnR show on that date.

Sigh, it sounds like you're pretty well-informed.

It sounds like msl has been advised that publicly calling slash and duff 'liars' does not put him at risk of legal action. Do you think he's been poorly advised, or is he perhaps just playing the odds (that slash and duff will just ignore all this)?

Maybe neither, maybe he's just counting on Slash and Duff knowing that they're liars.

[HubbaBubba]

Yeah, that's as fair a call as anything else.

[ARBeast]

Someone has lost all fuckin' perspective.

One person? Lol there's a few "fans" in here who have lost perspective as well as basic logic a long time ago...

[Sigh]

It would be impossible to say if MSL has been advised about making such public factual assertions. I would warn against anyone, including MSL, making such factual assertions. And before this devolves into a lecture about public figures and actual malice, it only makes sense not to call anyone a liar unless one has all of the facts.

I don't know if MSL was around Guns N Roses in 1992 or 1993, or if he was in Spain in July, 1993, and back stage with Duff prior to the concert referenced in Duff's book, but he would need to be before he called him a liar.

Even if he is relying on someone he trusts that no such July 1993 contract exists, it is still MSL who is making the factual assertion. He might have a defense of detrimental reliance, or the ability to third party in the person he relied upon, but why even risk getting to that point?

[DieselDaisy]

It is one thing to mess up a date but another to say that it happened backstage under duress versus while not even on tour.

If you believe MSL's spin. I do not.

Out of curiosity, how do you explain the dates on those documents, then?

It is a jpeg of an incomplete deal memo with MSL's ego slapped ontop of it. This is not proof that the, refusing to play incident (for lack of a better description), did not take place, an incident reported by Slash, Duff and Zutaut.

[Mysteron]

In theory, if I said, 'I owe UK Subs 50 Monopoly Pounds' and signed it, that is a legally binding document

If I did not pay it, UK Subs could sue me, and I would be liable for the 50 Monopoly Pounds, interest as set by the court, loss of earnings and UK Subs expenses (court and travel expenses,, not hairdresser fees or his gem encrusted onesies from Regent Street)