MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[scans n' copies]

I don't think it would be huge by any means, but I do think there are probably a few non-forum peeps who would be interested to find out that the story Slash and Duff have been saying for years may be false.

One thing I bet ya it would do is get a response from those 2. It could be very interesting to hear that!

[HubbaBubba]

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question.

My guess is it's a issue with legality.

Msl is publicly goosing one of his board members into distributing it instead of doing it himself. This is presumably so that he can be seen not to be responsible for passing around the whole doc.

Although they're publicly available, there's bound to be restrictions on posting whole contracts online, if only so the courts can make money from the fees.

My guess is msl wants the whole contract to get out because it'll reinforce his case. He's just trying to get that to happen through a back door to cover his ass.

[cooker]

I submitted a request to the smokinggun.com to post any documents pertaining to GnR contracts. They might be interested. They have a few GnR-related things on there.

I don't think this would become a huge story outside of the forum members.

Uh, ok. I never said anything about it being a big story. Not really sure how that relates to my post whatsoever. Thanks though.

I'm just curious to know how many people outside the forums would actually care.

[Howard2k]

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question.

My guess is it's a issue with legality.

Msl is publicly goosing one of his board members into distributing it instead of doing it himself. This is presumably so that he can be seen not to be responsible for passing around the whole doc.

Although they're publicly available, there's bound to be restrictions on posting whole contracts online, if only so the courts can make money from the fees.

My guess is msl wants the whole contract to get out because it'll reinforce his case. He's just trying to get that to happen through a back door to cover his ass.

No. If they're public record they're public record.

[saber_]

I submitted a request to the smokinggun.com to post any documents pertaining to GnR contracts. They might be interested. They have a few GnR-related things on there.

I don't think this would become a huge story outside of the forum members.

Uh, ok. I never said anything about it being a big story. Not really sure how that relates to my post whatsoever. Thanks though.

I'm just curious to know how many people outside the forums would actually care.

Well like I said before, thesmokinggun has several stories on GnR already. It's completely within the realm of possibility that they would post the entire MOA and other legal documents, as they are known for doing such things. And that was my point, to get the whole thing posted, along with any other documents. And just so you know, the other GnR stuff TSG's posted is of equal or lesser "interestingness" than the contract and the circumstances which gave Axl control of GnR's name.

[Guest NGOG]

Brainsaber, you posted the link yesterday did you not? I know you did.

[saber_]

Brainsaber, you posted the link yesterday did you not? I know you did.

I posted a link to Slash's and Duff's 2004 Lawsuit.

[cooker]

I submitted a request to the smokinggun.com to post any documents pertaining to GnR contracts. They might be interested. They have a few GnR-related things on there.

I don't think this would become a huge story outside of the forum members.

Uh, ok. I never said anything about it being a big story. Not really sure how that relates to my post whatsoever. Thanks though.

I'm just curious to know how many people outside the forums would actually care.

Well like I said before, thesmokinggun has several stories on GnR already. It's completely within the realm of possibility that they would post the entire MOA and other legal documents, as they are known for doing such things. And that was my point, to get the whole thing posted, along with any other documents. And just so you know, the other GnR stuff TSG's posted is of equal or lesser "interestingness" than the contract and the circumstances which gave Axl control of GnR's name.

No biggie Saber. I was just asking... So many of you go off on these rants so easily. Don't be so emotionally involved with this band. You'll live a happier life.

[Guest NGOG]

Brainsaber, you posted the link yesterday did you not? I know you did.

I posted a link to Slash's and Duff's 2004 Lawsuit.

What are we discussing now then?

[saber_]

Brainsaber, you posted the link yesterday did you not? I know you did.

I posted a link to Slash's and Duff's 2004 Lawsuit.

What are we discussing now then?

The full content of the 1992 memorandum of agreement, and whether there are any other relevant documentation pertaining to Axl obtaining the name "Guns n Roses."

No biggie Saber. I was just asking... So many of you go off on these rants so easily. Don't be so emotionally involved with this band. You'll live a happier life.

Huh? That wasn't a rant. That was me explaining to you why thesmokinggun might be interested in posting the full content of the MOA, among other things. Sorry to disappoint you.

Edited December 6, 2013 by metaforcesaber

[Padme]

Brainsaber, you posted the link yesterday did you not? I know you did.

I posted a link to Slash's and Duff's 2004 Lawsuit.

I quoted from this document as well. It got posted here last month among a list of several lawsuit where Axl was involved. The thing is Slash and Duff introduced the 1992 Memorandum as Exibite A.

[Rustycage]

the 2004 lawsuit was over song rights, not the name rights. Why would they introduce documents pertaining to name rights when that's not even their case?

It's like you're arguing over something completely irrelevant.

[Mysteron]

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question

Hi Russ, It is not getting passed about. MSL was just being courteous to me because of what I posted, that is all.

People get offered a circle with a line through it with the line being the subject of conversation. However, everyone wants to talk about and see the circle because they have no interest in the line.

It is one of those kind of scenarios

Edited December 6, 2013 by Mysteron

[Padme]

the 2004 lawsuit was over song rights, not the name rights. Why would they introduce documents pertaining to name rights when that's not even their case?

It's like you're arguing over something completely irrelevant.

Song rights according to their partnership agreement in the Memorandum. If you look at that lawsuit document you can see the Memoradum is from September 1992. And they also introduced a letter Axl wrote to them back in 1995. In that letter Axl tells them he is withdrawing the partnership in Dicember that year. And he is taking the name with him. However they do mentioned Axl got the name playing some legal trick. But they don´t give details about it

[snooze72]

I've been an unflagging supporter of MSL, for him to take my questioning of his conclusions as an attack brings up the question of what else he's misinterpreting.

My position is simply that we don't know how many versions are out there and what they say, thus we can't peg the date, period. Because the date was never an issue in the court case, you can't say this is a final contract or any date is confirmed, only that all parties accept the terms stated in the document for purposes of the court. I suspect there's a crisp clean copy in the Geffen system somewhere, although getting this band together to sign things was always quite the process, so maybe they ended up relying on the draft, too, who knows.

I'm not agreeing with Duff's Barcelona story, either, it may well have been '92 in Germany, which was his first version, or maybe he's transposing other events or similar partnership clauses. (I'd like to see everybody here reach back 20 years and remember all the details from a specific day that was just one part of an ongoing process). Point is, you guys are the only people who care about the date, no real sources have questioned it in court or anywhere else, and this includes SPIN, Rolling Stone and the New York Times, who all had the same document and the same story from the players. Its a bit of a stretch to think MSL has some inside knowledge or revelations when these sources did their research via DIRECT contact with the players and managers. Whether the details were right or wrong, they came to the conclusion the general gist is correct.

It's possible Duff and Slash jumped the gun re: Axl threatening to cancel, because it was an established pattern, or maybe it was Reese saying, 'if you want Axl to go on stage, better sign off on this.' The point is that was how GNR business was being conducted at that time. They knew he WOULD NOT play the show. You're mistaking a specific hostage hour with an ongoing hostage climate. Its also just as likely that Axl would have been distracted and obsessing over the unsigned document and wouldn't have been in the head space to perform and still wouldn't have gone on stage. To Slash/Duff, it was still duress.

When these nuances get boiled down to single sentences and even paragraphs, the shading is lost. Axl is correct when HE says he it didn't happen the way Duff and Slash said it did, and Duff and Slash are correct when THEY way they were under duress to sign off on the additional clause.

But nobody is lying. That's my point.

And this is an insane waste of time.

I will add that I was there -- not when the contract was signed, but pretty close re: the aftermath. My involvement was peripheral, but it was dealing pretty equally with the Slash, Duff and Axl camps. I was hearing these developments in real time for 10 years or more. I still don't take sides. I see everybody's point, I see how they interpret each other.

Trust me, this is a red herring.

MSL, I'll ask again as a point of interest for us to compare the two docs. What does your have for a date on page 1 (mind has October crossed out and November added) and for amendments on the bottom of page 2 and did Slash initial that one on yours?

Edited December 6, 2013 by snooze72

[Mysteron]

I've been an unflagging supporter of MSL, for him to take my questioning of his conclusions as an attack brings up the question of what else he's misinterpreting.

My position is simply that we don't know how many versions are out there and what they say, thus we can't peg the date, period. Because the date was never an issue in the court case, you can't say this is a final contract or any date is confirmed, only that all parties accept the terms stated in the document for purposes of the court. I suspect there's a crisp clean copy in the Geffen system somewhere, although getting this band together to sign things was always quite the process, so maybe they ended up relying on the draft, too, who knows.

I'm not agreeing with Duff's Barcelona story, either, it may well have been '92 in Germany, which was his first version, or maybe he's transposing other events or similar partnership clauses. (I'd like to see everybody here reach back 20 years and remember all the details from a specific day that was just one part of an ongoing process). Point is, you guys are the only people who care about the date, no real sources have questioned it in court or anywhere else, and this includes SPIN, Rolling Stone and the New York Times, who all had the same document and the same story from the players. Its a bit of a stretch to think MSL has some inside knowledge or revelations when these sources did their research via DIRECT contact with the players and managers. Whether the details were right or wrong, they came to the conclusion the general gist is correct.

It's possible Duff and Slash jumped the gun re: Axl threatening to cancel, because it was an established pattern, or maybe it was Reese saying, 'if you want Axl to go on stage, better sign off on this.' The point is that was how GNR business was being conducted at that time. They knew he WOULD NOT play the show. You're mistaking a specific hostage hour with an ongoing hostage climate. Its also just as likely that Axl would have been distracted and obsessing over the unsigned document and wouldn't have been in the head space to perform and still wouldn't have gone on stage. To Slash/Duff, it was still duress.

When these nuances get boiled down to single sentences and even paragraphs, the shading is lost. Axl is correct when HE says he it didn't happen the way Duff and Slash said it did, and Duff and Slash are correct when THEY way they were under duress to sign off on the additional clause.

But nobody is lying. That's my point.

And this is an insane waste of time.

I will add that I was there -- not when the contract was signed, but pretty close re: the aftermath. My involvement was peripheral, but it was dealing pretty equally with the Slash, Duff and Axl camps. I was hearing these developments in real time for 10 years or more. I still don't take sides. I see everybody's point, I see how they interpret each other.

Trust me, this is a red herring.

MSL, I'll ask again as a point of interest for us to compare the two docs. What does your have for a date on page 1 (mind has October crossed out and November added) and for amendments on the bottom of page 2 and did Slash initial that one on yours?

Snooze, you are posting a big bag of daftee fluff.

The rest of the document is irrelevant, and also publically available if you know where to look

[HubbaBubba]

Mysteron, how could you possibly say that when we've already seen two different versions of the doc, with differing signatures in the same places at key paragraphs, posted in this very thread?

[Padme]

Snooze you claim to have a copy with a November date, amedments and initials. Then post yours, and forget about MSL

[Nick85]

This....this thread is what happens when we become absolutely starved for new music and real news. Truly embarrassing.

Team Brazil, so hard do you suck. So hard.

[snooze72]

Mysteron, where did I say the rest of the document was relevant? Its not. I said it was simply a point of interest. I'm not even sure it's been established which of our two docs were filed with the court. I don't know where mine came from, it may have come directly from management or in boxes of files sent to me by others, or it may be from the court, I don't know. Doesn't really matter. Curious, though.

[gavgnr]

Man do we need new music!

[HubbaBubba]

This....this thread is what happens when we become absolutely starved for new music and real news. Truly embarrassing.

Team Brazil, so hard do you suck. So hard.

Hehe. Careful - if he bans you there'll only be 5 regular posters.

[Mysteron]

Mysteron, where did I say the rest of the document was relevant? Its not. I said it was simply a point of interest. I'm not even sure it's been established which of our two docs were filed with the court. I don't know where mine came from, it may have come directly from management or in boxes of files sent to me by others, or it may be from the court, I don't know. Doesn't really matter. Curious, though

Thie point is, MSL is questioning Duff and Slash's integrity.

If they signed two documents, that makes it even worse, because it then becomes a considered decision over a period of time

[Guest NGOG]

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question

Hi Russ, It is not getting passed about. MSL was just being courteous to me because of what I posted, that is all.

Stop being coy. Clearly you're desperate to maintain some sort of "insider" reputation.

MSL has already said that members of his board are privy to this document. What they're trying to do is hold MyGNR to ransom through withholding the document.

[Chris1989]

Is there some reason why it's being passed around in PMs and not just posted? Honest question

Hi Russ, It is not getting passed about. MSL was just being courteous to me because of what I posted, that is all.

Stop being coy. Clearly you're desperate to maintain some sort of "insider" reputation.

MSL has already said that members of his board are privy to this document. What they're trying to do is hold MyGNR to ransom through withholding the document.

Win a copy by placing money in escrow and playing him at tennis.