MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[Chunder Monkey]

Alright Ali....so even if it is the contract, it doesn't change the fact that the others signed it under the impression (from Doug) that failure to do so would cause Axl to refuse to perform with them again.

Given the damage this would do to their business, it doesn't really matter if he was going to carry out that threat that night or next month. Either way if they don't conform Axl will have one of his meltdowns and they've had several years of the consequences of them to know that it's not a half hearted threat.

It also doesn't change the fact that once Axl took control of the name he started a new business under the old name and offered his former partners - the people who helped him build the band - jobs as employee's with no say. The consequences of which haunt the band to this day as after assuming a postion of sole authority in the band Axl's public creative output has suffered considerably for whatever reason.

It's just obfuscation to focus on if someone "lied" to the media by summarising months worth of psychological pressure into a neatly packaged but slightly inaccurate summary. It doesn't change anything even if it was a lie. Even under your version - Doug still blackmailed them into signing the band name over - just at their homes not backstage - And Axl still used it to exit the band and disrespectfully try and convert them into employees.

People don't dislike Axl because Slash "lied" about the signing over the name at a show - they hate him because his rep forced Slash to sign over the name whenever it was - and since then GNR has been dysfunctional and delivers almost none of the things it promises. But you know - rather than address those issues - people go on a pointless quest to try and make Slash look bad - when the best way for Axl to fix his reputation would be to go back doing what he actually used to do - front a band that is a vital creative force.

[dalsh327]

I think the names Doug mentioned were the names involved in handling the paperwork. Do I think he's passing the buck along? Maybe.

[jmapelian]

Alright Ali....so even if it is the contract, it doesn't change the fact that the others signed it under the impression (from Doug) that failure to do so would cause Axl to refuse to perform with them again.

Given the damage this would do to their business, it doesn't really matter if he was going to carry out that threat that night or next month. Either way if they don't conform Axl will have one of his meltdowns and they've had several years of the consequences of them to know that it's not a half hearted threat.

It also doesn't change the fact that once Axl took control of the name he started a new business under the old name and offered his former partners - the people who helped him build the band - jobs as employee's with no say. The consequences of which haunt the band to this day as after assuming a postion of sole authority in the band Axl's public creative output has suffered considerably for whatever reason.

It's just obfuscation to focus on if someone "lied" to the media by summarising months worth of psychological pressure into a neatly packaged but slightly inaccurate summary. It doesn't change anything even if it was a lie. Even under your version - Doug still blackmailed them into signing the band name over - just at their homes not backstage - And Axl still used it to exit the band and disrespectfully try and convert them into employees.

People don't dislike Axl because Slash "lied" about the signing over the name at a show - they hate him because his rep forced Slash to sign over the name whenever it was - and since then GNR has been dysfunctional and delivers almost none of the things it promises. But you know - rather than address those issues - people go on a pointless quest to try and make Slash look bad - when the best way for Axl to fix his reputation would be to go back doing what he actually used to do - front a band that is a vital creative force.

I've beensaying the same exact thing!

[Nosaj Thing]

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!!

This is surprising!

[Chris 55]

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

It's funny when dumb people put "no copyright infringement intended" in their videos WHILE the infringing on the copyright.

Edited December 5, 2013 by Chris 55

[wasted]

Has MSl done a deal to become team Brazil's official leaker?

msl is an fbi informant for the mob.

[Padme]

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

Interesting finding. However I´d like to know how those guys from Revolution are able to cantact Goldstein. How do we know for sure they are not making it up? Sorry, I have to ask with so much BS going on everywhere. Don´t get me wrong. I believe what Duff and Slash have said on the matter. I just want to make sure it is a real email from Goldstein

[Sigh]

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

Interesting finding. However I´d like to know how those guys from Revolution are able to cantact Goldstein. How do we know for sure they are not making it up? Sorry, I have to ask with so much BS going on everywhere. Don´t get me wrong. I believe what Duff and Slash have said on the matter. I just want to make sure it is a real email from Goldstein

Good point. Cut up contracts. Supposedly copied and pasted emails. All good examples of not flying off the handle and making factual assertions without all the facts.

[axlsalinger]

Has MSl done a deal to become team Brazil's official leaker?

msl is an fbi informant for the mob.

Yes to both.

[The Black]

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

The bassist and guitarist were songwriters in the band, without them Axl would not have the gravy train he is riding today. They were in the band when they got the record deal, that to me is the band Guns N' Roses.

I can understand that he wanted protection, but when he turned into the boss and treating his equals in a manner which lead to all members quitting he should have given up the name. All he has since done is use it for financial gain.

[Padme]

Hubba Bubba & In This Grave -

Slash and Duff's complaint outlines the timeline for the changes to GNR's business arrangements and enters into evidence the documents that changed the business arrangements.

That is why the 1992 partnership agreement and 1995 withdrawal letter (exhibits A & B) are public record.

This supposed mythical contract from 1993 does not exist. Any changes to the '92 agreement would have been mentioned in the lawsuit and entered into evidence. The '95 withdrawal letter also only makes mention of the '92 agreement.

Had GNR's operations been governed in any way by some additional 1993 agreement, it would have been mentioned in Axl's '95 letter and mentioned in Slash and Duff's '04 lawsuit (not to mention entered into evidence with the other exhibits).

The lengths some in this thread have gone to grasp at straws is really quite extraordinary.

What many of you are missing is this:

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

You´re hilarious!!!! You were not in Barcelona in 1993. You don´t know jack shit what went on there. Just because you don´t have a copy of the 1993 contract it doesn´t mean that contract doesn´t exist!!! Hey! I wasn´t there either but I´m not the one making claims about contracts. And I´m not accussing Slash and Duff of being liers.

Yes Axl came up with the name. But he never was a solo artist. There were 5 people who contributed to make GN´R a great band not just Axl. All of them wrote songs, all of them agreed to sign with Geffen, all of the decided that Niven was going to be their manager and Mike Clink their producer.

[Sigh]

Hubba Bubba & In This Grave -

Slash and Duff's complaint outlines the timeline for the changes to GNR's business arrangements and enters into evidence the documents that changed the business arrangements.

That is why the 1992 partnership agreement and 1995 withdrawal letter (exhibits A & B) are public record.

This supposed mythical contract from 1993 does not exist. Any changes to the '92 agreement would have been mentioned in the lawsuit and entered into evidence. The '95 withdrawal letter also only makes mention of the '92 agreement.

Had GNR's operations been governed in any way by some additional 1993 agreement, it would have been mentioned in Axl's '95 letter and mentioned in Slash and Duff's '04 lawsuit (not to mention entered into evidence with the other exhibits).

The lengths some in this thread have gone to grasp at straws is really quite extraordinary.

What many of you are missing is this:

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

The "mythical" contract of 1993 does not exist? Do tell. Were you there? If not, who told you that it does not exist, and why do you trust them to such a great extent?

While you are at it, please post the entire 1992 agreement and the 1995 letter, if you have it.

And once again explain for me why a 1993 addendum dealing with the name would be necessary to a 2004 lawsuit that had, according to the original complaint, nothing to do with the band name? I would also ask how you know that a 1993 addendum was not provided in discovery in the 2004 lawsuit, but since you know that there is no such contract or addendum, I guess I will have to make due with your response to my earlier request.

Couldn't Izzy have joined with Duff and Slash to oust Axl? Why did Izzy's departure have such a significant impact on who owned the name?

The "replacement" bass guitarist and lead guitarist? Really? The ones who collaborated on all those classic songs, relegated to "replacements" by the Rose sycophants.

Indeed.

Before you go off the deep end about Rose being the "primary" songwriter, you might want to consider the music GnR created when the band was Axl/Slash/Izzy/Duff/Steven versus Axl and Huge and Pittman and Finck, etc. Because it very much appears that collaboration with the classic line up was the key to all those great GnR songs. Not "primarily" Rose.

[HubbaBubba]

Msl you talk a lot about 'bitter ex-fans', but I honestly think gnr has a bigger problem with what you might call 'bitter current fans'.

Only a deeply embittered guns fan would call slash and duff replacements. In fact, it sadly sounds like something Axl would say these days. And while strictly speaking it may be factual, when it's used with malice and with the intention of diminishing their contribution to guns' success, it says more about the fan saying it than about whatever 'facts' are at hand.

And of course, some of what you're saying above about Axl protecting himself stands to reason. But it doesn't follow that slash and duff 'definitely lied'.

The unfortunate truth is, some people don't believe it simply because someone like you is saying it. You just seem to have too much of an axe to grind to produce a fair and unbiased piece of 'investigative journalism' on this topic.

So, it's a waste of time to come here and play lawyer. If Jarmo had written this story the reaction would be similar, if not more cynical. If high voltage or ER wrote it, we'd be knocked on our asses. It's a question of trust and reputation. You've chosen the direction your board is now headed in, and the reputation, along with the doubt, then follows naturally.

One suggestion might be this - if there's one thing that keeps coming up, it's the request to see the whole document. This might make your piece seem like less of a hatchet job. Why not post it?

[ITG]

The lengths some in this thread have gone to grasp at straws is really quite extraordinary.

What many of you are missing is this:

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

No. Nice assumption to make but where exactly is that said in the docs? Do you have this info? Please post the docs. Are you just assuming things again? Don't tell us what we are not getting. You are already one to have made a fool of yourself. Don't try to give us any more learnin' Grandpa. If you need help understanding what happens to intellectual property like trademarks when a partnership ends, you can PM me. Why don't you go look it up on-line? Everyone else can use Google and do the same. They don't need you as an oracle.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

If you have this info written down then please post the docs. Otherwise, you are just continuing to make a fool of yourself. I think you are trying your best to save face here by changing the subject. I don't think you have anything else to add to this thread other than posting the docs. Your opinions and thoughts on the matter are superfluous.

[DieselDaisy]

Until MSL posts the entire document, this whole thing means nothing.

From my understanding a Memo of Understanding is not legally binding: it is little more than a gentleman's agreement. So in other words, this is not the legally binding text which gave absolute power of GN'R to Axl Rose. There has to be another, contractual, legally binding, document, otherwise, Slash and Duff could have contested the name. They could still do so, as, If this is the only document giving Axl power, then there is nothing stopping Slash and Duff hitting the road today under 'Guns N' Roses' (Axl would obviously contest it legally but the legal battle would be, a level playing field so to speak). A MOU can be invalidated that easily. And as we know Axl has absolute power, we also know there must be a much stronger (legally speaking) document than this which appeared later.

Here is my theory...

Oct 1992, Slash and Duff sign Memorandum of Understanding

5 July 1993, Slash and Duff under duress sign contractual Partnership Agreement (as confirmed by both Duff and Goldstein).

Slash also meant the latter but made a mistake in the dating.

Edited December 5, 2013 by DieselDaisy

[SoulMonster]

My understanding on Memo of Understanding's and Intention Agreements: They say that the parties intend or want to do some collaboration or make some agreement in the future on a specific issue, but doesn't typically provide provisions in regards to what should happen if one party changes opinion and doesn't want on a later date to go ahead with the collaboration. Such Memo's have little value for the involved parties themselves because they already agree, but are useful to demonstrate intent to third parties, like Boards, shareholders and even management further up in large organizations. This is just how it is in my industry, it could very well be different other places.

[AndreCC]

Hubba nobody is criticizing any era in particular of GNR. Everybody knows that the Classic Band put GNR on the map and had the most success, but it's also wrong to take down the new band just because the old band members aren't there anymore.

Like Axl said all people that left, left by their own choice and the band evolved since then. If we're GNR fans that we will like and respect both eras.

If there were inconsistencies in Slash's and Duff's statements, then it's obvious that sooner or later someone will notice it and point it out. MSL provided proof of what he said once again. He's not making Axl a saint here. Nobody is a saint, but if there's clearly inconsistencies in Slash and Duff's version, why should we eat the shit they threw at us in their books.

Most rock stars books are revisionist bullshit. Nikki Sixx lies in his book as well... Tommy Lee Lies in his book, Mick Jagger lies in his book. It's a common thing for rockstars wanting to be painted as the heroes and saving their face publicly.

The lengths some in this thread have gone to grasp at straws is really quite extraordinary.

What many of you are missing is this:

With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses.

No. Nice assumption to make but where exactly is that said in the docs? Do you have this info? Please post the docs. Are you just assuming things again? Don't tell us what we are not getting. You are already one to have made a fool of yourself. Don't try to give us any more learnin' Grandpa. If you need help understanding what happens to intellectual property like trademarks when a partnership ends, you can PM me. Why don't you go look it up on-line? Everyone else can use Google and do the same. They don't need you as an oracle.

Even though Axl founded the band, named the band, fronted the band and was the primary songwriter, the fucking replacement bassist & guitarist that joined Axl's existing band could have kicked him out of his band and ended up with it.

Why in a million years should Axl have agreed to carry on with Guns once Izzy departs if it meant Slash and Duff could just get rid of him at any point, he'd have no protection whatsoever, and two dudes that joined the band he founded would get to keep the name?

FUCK THAT. You'd have to be CRAZY to put yourself in that situation.

If you have this info written down then please post the docs. Otherwise, you are just continuing to make a fool of yourself. I think you are trying your best to save face here by changing the subject. I don't think you have anything else to add to this thread other than posting the docs. Your opinions and thoughts on the matter are superfluous.

In this Grave:

"With Izzy gone, if Axl did not have that clause protecting him, Slash & Duff could have voted him out of the band 2-1 and ended up with sole ownership of Guns N' Roses."

This is true!

The departion of a partner would necessitate new terms for the remaining partners.

[ITG]

If MSL claimed that Slash & Duff were lying when they didn't then that is a priori evidence showing MSL has committed libel.

[IncitingChaos]

I don't know a whole lot about MSL but his last post makes sense. I mean we all sit here and speculate how things went down but none of us were there. I could see Axl feeling like it was him vs duff and slash though.

Idk why everyone seems to hate MSL so much, he's just saying that at the moment when all the cards are laid on the table slash and duff presented a then 12 year old contract between the members. The contract simply confirmed what Axl came here and told us about the rights to the name. Basically they can say whatever they want in their books but when it was time to present evidence to the court slash and duff could only lay out what was in contract and true.

The rest MSL seems to just be connecting the dots on, so I guess some people are mad that he says things as a fact. I personally like his theory of how it went down, but like I said we are all just speculating. Some stories are better than others.

[ITG]

They should really sue him for damages but he's so unimportant that his words will be forgotten with time and no one will really care.

[ITG]

MSL is more than connecting the dots. He's making naive leaps of faith feigning a knowledge in partnership and contract law. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He should just post the docs and go away. He doesn't have anything to add to his own thread.

[ITG]

This is the best response to what MSL has been saying. People are absorbing what he is saying and regurgitating concepts that are wrong.

[saber_]

Axl says they're lying too.

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.

Couldn't talk sooner as it could have jeopardized whatever nonsense was going on.

When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it. It had more to do with management than the band as our then manager was always tryin’ to convince someone they should fire me. As I had stopped speaking with him he sensed his days were numbered and was bending any ear he could along with attempting to sell our renegotiation out for a personal payday from Geffen.

It was added to the contract and everyone signed off on it. It wasn’t hidden in fine print etc as you had to initial the section verifying you had acknowledged it.

Now at that time I didn’t know or think about brand names or corporate value etc. All I knew is that I came in with the name and from day one everyone had agreed to it being mine should we break up and now it was in writing.

I still didn’t grasp any other issues until long after I’d left and formed a new partnership which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it.

In my opinion the reality of the shift and the public embarrassment and ridicule by others (which included a lot of not so on the level business types he was associating with at the time) for not contesting the rights to the brand name, were more than Slash could openly face. Also we aren’t lawyers or formally business educated so it was just a matter of all of us being naïve and doing what we thought was right at the time. Slash was imo being on the up and up in agreeing I had the rights and I wasn’t trying to be some snake in the grass pulling a fast one. The others could’ve cared less.

But when the reality of the breakup hit and the strategy to have me crawl back was put into play Slash had to save face and get business team and public support. Painting me as the one who held a crowd hostage forcing the others to sign over the name worked out pretty well in that regard. I’m the bad guy and Duff, the fans and most importantly himself were the victims. Oh and they had actually made the sacrifice for the crowd, the people, the fans at the show. But again…. IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Media and others ignorantly, wrongly and falsely harped on about it at mine and the fans expense for years and Slash has hoped to use all that to continually sue and have some sort of legal nonsense going on behind the scenes in an effort to reverse things. He wouldn’t have been able to get the support and action on the part of his various team members over the years to do so if the truth were out there especially when the statute of limitations had run out years ago.

Why keep the name? I’m literally the last man standing. Not bragging, not proud. It’s been a fucking nightmare but I didn’t leave Guns and I didn’t drive others out. With Slash it’s been nothing more than pure strategy and saving face while manipulating the public like he used to me. I earned the right to protect my efforts and to be able to take advantage of our contract I’d worked hard for where Slash’s exact words were that he didn’t care. I get that some like a different version or lineup the same way some like a specific team line up or a particular year of a specific car but because you and I are getting played I’m supposed to throw the baby out with the bath water?

Are we allowed to use Axl as a reference, or no?

[AndreCC]

MSL is more than connecting the dots. He's making naive leaps of faith feigning a knowledge in partnership and contract law. He doesn't know what he is talking about. He should just post the docs and go away. He doesn't have anything to add to his own thread.

InThisGrave, your negative attitude is completely ruining this thread.

Whether you believe MSL or not, even though proof has been presented, you're getting out of line here when you start promoting lawsuits and going personal with this.

[DieselDaisy]

My understanding on Memo of Understanding's and Intention Agreements: They say that the parties intend or want to do some collaboration or make some agreement in the future on a specific issue, but doesn't typically provide provisions in regards to what should happen if one party changes opinion and doesn't want on a later date to go ahead with the collaboration. Such Memo's have little value for the involved parties themselves because they already agree, but are useful to demonstrate intent to third parties, like Boards, shareholders and even management further up in large organizations. This is just how it is in my industry, it could very well be different other places.

But do you agree that such a document as a MoU could not constitute a legal basis for Axl's ownership of Guns N' Roses? There has to be a subsequent document. If this Memo is all Axl has, it is a fair bet that Slash, possessing knowledge that he would have a halfway decent chance of claiming ownership of the name or at least stopping Axl's incarnation of Guns N’ Roses, would have dragged Axl through the courts on it. (We may have ended up with a LA Guns or Queensrÿche type situation!). This is a fair guess as we know Slash and Duff were suing Axl over just about everything in 2004-05, from film licenses to errant money.