MSL discusses Guns n Roses

[wasted]

Any contract in Sept Oct is off the Road and not in July 93. Need one from July 6 barcelona 93.

But any time they sign they didnt want to and felt pushed into it.

[GUNNER PT]

Gunner are you blaming the fans for Axl's lack of output? Every time I hear a fan say this it leaves me amazed at how far the termites have spread in the guns world.

You're putting words in my mouth, bro ...

[Ali]

I have the full thing. Like I said, if folks want it, just let me know an easy way to upload a pdf. I'm tech stupid in a number of ways.

Try this

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.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

Link to where it's stated that there's only 1 document?

Weren't you already told the difference the types of documents?

Rusty

Apparently you did not read the "FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION" section of Slash and Duff's lawsuit.

In it, it states that the 1992 partnership agreement that Axl, Slash and Duff entered into included the provision about the name. That same partnership agreement with the signatures in 10/1992 was entered into evidence as exhibit A.

Ali

[Rustycage]

You answered neither question.

Rusty

[snooze72]

It's difficult to claim on one hand that the sig dates are crucial, and on the other that the date the memorandum was drawn up should be ignored. Especially if you're saying the name clause wasn't added later.

I'm not at all saying the clause wasn't added later. I'm saying we don't know. And I'm especially saying that Duff may be wrong, but he's not lying. (And Slash). Whatever the dates and the circumstances, it was signed under a general blanket of duress for those guys. For anybody remotely connected with GNR at the time, this is a no-brainer. Even the Axl supporters. Axl was calling the shots and he wasn't negotiating. His personal life was a mess, he was stressed and nobody wanted to argue with him. Right or wrong. Where would they be without Axl out there singing? That was what was holding everybody hostage. It was hard as hell getting him on stage on GOOD days. Bet your booties a band fight backstage would mean no Axl on stage. Everybody knew this. It wasn't a matter whether it was a legal right or not, it was a de facto right. Without him nothing could happen. That's why nobody argued it at the time, they just signed it, but resented the fuck out it once it once they were out of the band. So Duff and Slash are right, it was under duress when they were presented with the clause, no matter when it was. And Axl was right when he says he felt it was his name and had the right to add that clause. Nobody's lying.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

No, what they presented one 'a' binding partnership agreement, we don't know if it was 'the' agreement, as in the final date, because as I've said numerous times, the court didn't care if the opposing parties didn't care, and the opposing parties weren't arguing the name or dates. There could be an earlier agreement or a later one. The only ones arguing dates and contracts are the fans.

Agreed on Duff and Slash quite possibly being mistaken, although wouldn't say 'grossly'.

There are a few clauses pertaining to the name and control, there are quite a few draft agreements, it would be pretty easy to mistake specifics and dates. And who knows at what point Duff was sober enough to care about what he was signing. Not that it would have made a difference.

The support network - the label, GNR management, lawyers - also knew their hands were tied, the band need Axl. So yeah, they probably counselled in Axl's favor.

Slash really didn't care until other people (and the fans) started raggin' on him about it, and both he and Duff eventually realized they should have at least been compensated for it. It affected Duff so much, he went to business school.

Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, nobody is lying. It is what it is.

[HubbaBubba]

Gunner are you blaming the fans for Axl's lack of output? Every time I hear a fan say this it leaves me amazed at how far the termites have spread in the guns world.

You're putting words in my mouth, bro ...

Ok sorry. You're not saying this then? Just looking for clarification.

[Ali]

You answered neither question.

Rusty

Actually, I did. Only the standing, binding agreement, that included several clauses including ownership of the band name would have legal weight to be used to argue Slash and Duff's claims about Axl incorrectly rejecting licensing opportunities.

Ali

[Rustycage]

In what world does a multi-million dollar business only have 1 contract?

Rusty

[smoke]

So is this a private discussion for tribe members only or can someone tell me who snooze is and why he's any different than any other fake insider?

Edited December 7, 2013 by smoke

[Ali]

It's difficult to claim on one hand that the sig dates are crucial, and on the other that the date the memorandum was drawn up should be ignored. Especially if you're saying the name clause wasn't added later.

I'm not at all saying the clause wasn't added later. I'm saying we don't know. And I'm especially saying that Duff may be wrong, but he's not lying. (And Slash). Whatever the dates and the circumstances, it was signed under a general blanket of duress for those guys. For anybody remotely connected with GNR at the time, this is a no-brainer. Even the Axl supporters. Axl was calling the shots and he wasn't negotiating. His personal life was a mess, he was stressed and nobody wanted to argue with him. Right or wrong. Where would they be without Axl out there singing? That was what was holding everybody hostage. It was hard as hell getting him on stage on GOOD days. Bet your booties a band fight backstage would mean no Axl on stage. Everybody knew this. It wasn't a matter whether it was a legal right or not, it was a de facto right. Without him nothing could happen. That's why nobody argued it at the time, they just signed it, but resented the fuck out it once it once they were out of the band. So Duff and Slash are right, it was under duress when they were presented with the clause, no matter when it was. And Axl was right when he says he felt it was his name and had the right to add that clause. Nobody's lying.

Because it was in the partnership agreement. It was one aspect of the agreement. What Slash and Duff presented into evidence in 2004 was the standing, binding partnership agreement from 1992.

Ali

No, what they presented one 'a' binding partnership agreement, we don't know if it was 'the' agreement, as in the final date, because as I've said numerous times, the court didn't care if the opposing parties didn't care, and the opposing parties weren't arguing the name or dates. There could be an earlier agreement or a later one. The only ones arguing dates and contracts are the fans.

Agreed on Duff and Slash quite possibly being mistaken, although wouldn't say 'grossly'.

There are a few clauses pertaining to the name and control, there are quite a few draft agreements, it would be pretty easy to mistake specifics and dates. And who knows at what point Duff was sober enough to care about what he was signing. Not that it would have made a difference.

The support network - the label, GNR management, lawyers - also knew their hands were tied, the band need Axl. So yeah, they probably counselled in Axl's favor.

Slash really didn't care until other people (and the fans) started raggin' on him about it, and both he and Duff eventually realized they should have at least been compensated for it. It affected Duff so much, he went to business school.

Nobody is right, nobody is wrong, nobody is lying. It is what it is.

The flaw in your argument is that Slash and Duff would've cared if the agreement they presented was the final, binding agreement because they used it as evidence in their claim. Their argument was based off other issues in the agreement.

The notion that Slash and Duff wouldn't care if the evidence their legal teams are presenting is null and void.

A later agreement would render the 1992 agreement null and void.

Ali

[magisme]

I'll try to put it up in like 30.

[GUNNER PT]

Gunner are you blaming the fans for Axl's lack of output? Every time I hear a fan say this it leaves me amazed at how far the termites have spread in the guns world.

You're putting words in my mouth, bro ...

Ok sorry. You're not saying this then? Just looking for clarification.

Nop.

Axl's lack of output is his own fault, but the consequences of this story didn't help.

[HubbaBubba]

So is this a private discussion for tribe members only or can someone tell me who snooze is and why he's any different than any other fake insider?

Snooze has access to and has posted several full pages of the agreement, including page 1.

[smoke]

Yeah I got that. It just seems like he's put it out there that he was "there" somehow and that at least some others in this thread are aware of in what capacity.

[Amir]

There are a few clauses pertaining to the name and control, there are quite a few draft agreements, it would be pretty easy to mistake specifics and dates. And who knows at what point Duff was sober enough to care about what he was signing. Not that it would have made a difference.

Slash really didn't care until other people (and the fans) started raggin' on him about it, and both he and Duff eventually realized they should have at least been compensated for it. It affected Duff so much, he went to business school.

Axl said this himself in the chat:

"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."

So I see where Snooze is coming from. Axl might not be lying, and the "duress and extenuating circumstances" of Axl being, well, Axl, probably aren't concrete enough to hold up in court.

The e-mail from Doug Goldstein that Aussie posted on GNREvo seals it in my mind that there was something that happened backstage at a gig, otherwise, Doug could have denied the whole thing ever happened, rather than shift the blame to someone else. Also ties in with what Marc said about Doug wanting to apologise to Slash and Duff, because even though he didn't hand over the papers personally, at the end of the day he was responsible for a great part of it.

Re: Duff choosing July '93, he admits that most of that tour was a blur to him. There were times he'd only known he played a gig in a country because he had the stamp in his passport. He mixed up the dates.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Amir

[Ali]

In what world does a multi-million dollar business only have 1 contract?

Rusty

Why would one partnership require more than one partnership agreement?

There are a few clauses pertaining to the name and control, there are quite a few draft agreements, it would be pretty easy to mistake specifics and dates. And who knows at what point Duff was sober enough to care about what he was signing. Not that it would have made a difference.

Slash really didn't care until other people (and the fans) started raggin' on him about it, and both he and Duff eventually realized they should have at least been compensated for it. It affected Duff so much, he went to business school.

Axl said this himself in the chat:

"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."

So I see where Snooze is coming from. Axl might not be lying, and the "duress and extenuating circumstances" of Axl being, well, Axl, probably aren't concrete enough to hold up in court.

The e-mail from Doug Goldstein that Aussie posted on GNREvo seals it in my mind that there was something that happened backstage at a gig, otherwise, Doug could have denied the whole thing ever happened, rather than shift the blame to someone else. Also ties in with what Marc said about Doug wanting to apologise to Slash and Duff, because even though he didn't hand over the papers personally, at the end of the day he was responsible for a great part of it.

Re: Duff choosing July '93, he admits that most of that tour was a blur to him. There were times he'd only known he played a gig in a country because he had the stamp in his passport. He mixed up the dates.

The same email in which Doug Goldstein admits he was halfway around the world when the alleged event took place? With all due respect, if he was halfway around the world, he can speak with any degree of accuracy as to what transpired in Barcelona on July 5, 1993, IF anything at all?

Ali

Edited December 7, 2013 by Ali

[magisme]

If this doesn't work, I'm dishing this off to someone else. Apologies for all the MLS logos.

http://s1334.photobucket.com/user/magisme/library/?view=recent

[Sigh]

So you're claiming expertise in the workings of contracts, meaning that you would obviously be aware that any contract should be considered in its entirety, not in bits and pieces, and yet you're not posting the whole thing.

How is that not taking the piss? Serious question. If you really understand contacts like you claim (and I believe you) then you're talking about both sides of your mouth.

I don't really care either way, just pointing it out that to other people who also understand how contracts work your position is dodgy.

It doesn't matter what the contract says. The focus of my story was when it was signed. I posted the portion in regards to the name simply to show that I did have access to the agreement and wasn't posting a random signature page. If someone wants to track down the agreement and post it, I can't stop them. It's public record. But my article had nothing to do with whether the contract was fair or unfair. It simply had to do with when it was signed and whether Slash and Duff lied about it being signed backstage under duress.

Common sense has always indicated that their story was bullshit, but I figured some people would still be curious to see their actual dated signatures.

But I do think it's hilarious that some of you think somehow I'm hiding something that would contradict my story. Meanwhile, Snooze has tried everything possible to contradict my story, has the full agreement, and yet doesn't post it because he knows doing so would bolster my story. Interesting.

Yours is not a story. It is a statement of fact. You stated that Slash and Duff lied.

And you did so without knowing if they lied or not.

Oh, wait, that's right. You KNOW that Duff did not sign any contract on July 5, 1993. Ostensibly because you were there.

[HubbaBubba]

Looks good, thanks for posting!

Page 1 has the sept date switch too. Christ knows what it means, but there you go.

[Sigh]

seems to be some confusion here about how legal documents work.

some of you seem to be under the impression that an added section that's been initialed indicates it was something put into the document after it had been originally signed.

that's not how it works. contracts evolve over time during negotiations before putting pen to paper to sign the final agreement. clauses may have been added since the first time the agreement was read, so it's important to have parties acknowledge they are aware of the changes so they don't claim something was snuck into the agreement in between it first being drafted and eventually being signed.

that is why you have the parties initial where the changes took place, so they can't later claim they were unaware of the revisions.

to suggest that somehow these clauses were added after october 21, 1992 shows a tremendous amount of ignorance. not only is that not how contracts work, but slash and duff's lawsuit makes no mention whatsoever of any later agreement. it is complete fiction on the part of snooze to suggest that perhaps these clauses were added later on after execution of the agreement.

also, it's hilarious that i've been given so much shit for not posting all 9 pages as if i'm hiding something that would hurt my argument, yet snooze is given a pass for not posting all 9 pages. believe me, if i was hiding something that would hurt my argument, snooze would be very eager to post it. he doesn't want to post all 9 pages because doing so would only bolster my position.

i haven't posted all 9 pages because i have no interest in smoking gun style document leaks. i posted what was needed for the analysis of my article and don't care to put the inner workings of the old band on display. slash and duff made the signing date fair game by lying publicly about signing over the name backstage before a show under duress.

as axl has insisted, that never happened. axl was telling the truth. those in denial will remain in denial and that is fine. i love you all.

Why would Slash and Duff's lawsuit in 2004 reference a 1993 addendum about the name, when the 2004 lawsuit concedes that Rose has ownership of the name?

It's the question you keep ignoring, but it just doesn't go away.

Maybe you have to hope that there was no July 5, 1993 contract or addendum, because if there is, then you have published a defamatory statement about Slash and Duff.

Unless you happened to be there on July 5, 1993, which I doubt.

[magisme]

Unfortunately, the full document isn't going to change this argument at all. At least not based on my quick read. Oh well.

But "phonorecord" is hilarious.

Edited December 7, 2013 by magisme

[bacardimayne]

Can someone give me the tl;dr on this argument?

Edited December 7, 2013 by bacardimayne

[magisme]

Can someone give me the tl;dr on this argument?

Slash & Duff signed off on different dates in 92 that Axl would get the name. Did they lie? Did they misremember? Were there other contracts in addition to this one that corroborate their stories? Does it fucking matter?

Fight!

[Sigh]

for those who didn't click the link:

This is more like it.

Now I am wondering if the portion of the contract with the asterisk was added after the original contract was signed in October, 1992, and was presented to Duff and Slash in, say, July, 1993.

Because, logic dictates that the typed in language was not included at the time the original was signed. After all, if you were going to add that language, you would have just added it to the original document before the document was signed.

Or maybe all of that language was in the original 1992 contract, and there exists a 1993 contract or addendum which also addresses the name.

Good stuff. I sure would like to KNOW what all happened with the partnership agreement. Alas, all I can do is speculate.

To have been there would have been great.

[HubbaBubba]

Unfortunately, the full document isn't going to change this argument at all. At least not based on my quick read. Oh well.

But "phonorecord" is hilarious.

True. There's just too much ambiguity to be sure of anything.

Why would they draw up a written agreement on 10/15 and then go to the trouble of back-dating it to 9/1, only to sign it in late October?