Contracts

[Coma16]

When they signed with Geffen, there were five partners.

When they signed the new partnership agreement in 1992, there were only three partners. With Izzy gone, it was now possible for Slash and Duff to simply have a 2-1 vote and now they would own all of GNR.

Axl would have been a complete idiot to remain in the band under those conditions. I'm curious to see if Marc thinks it would have been wise for Axl to proceed with GNR in a situation where Slash and Duff at any time could seize complete ownership of the band.

MSL, you can argue that the sky is blue on a sunny day and people here will attack you. Just ignore them and wait to see what Mark has to say.

[Lim666]

"the band Axl founded, named, fronted"

eh, Slash played with Axl already like 1 year before in HR (all proved from Marc in Reckless Road), they did know each other for long! they weren't any real replacements, they were the ones in combination who only could succeed with that band. and "fronting" the band? watch the 1/18/1986 Roxy-video! Slash is on stage everywhere! add that he made Guns look more "cool", like a real rockband little later! he was Guns 24/7, so obsessed that he sold everything just to get that band growin more and more, drawing flyers, selling tickets, rehearsing(!!), doing interviews day in/day out. oh, and didnt he wrote smth. like SCOM solo? aint he one of the top 10 guitarists worldwide being copied by others because of his awesome guitar sound?
in the end the name was tricked out by Axl, that was the evil intention in the 1st place - coming directly from Axl's brain, not from any management or in-between-people. and we've already heard and seen that Axl's love for $$$ to secure his expensive lifestyle has been one of the main intentions doing that. so far for artistic integrity, bah!
rightefully Axl will always have this weight on his shoulders being compared to the Slash days with any of his post 1996 line-ups.

[recklessroad]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

[recklessroad]

At the same time I do understand why Axl wanted control of the band.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Marc, without that clause, Slash and Duff could have voted Axl out of the band 2-1.

The band that Axl founded and named. Axl's band that already existed before Slash and Duff joined as replacement members. Slash and Duff would have owned it outright and Axl would have been left out in the cold.

In what universe should Axl have been willing to proceed under those conditions?

The common sense aspect that dictates that, though a name counts for something, it is the work done under that name that is responsible for it being where it was at that time...and that work was done by Axl, Slash, Duff, Stevie and Izzy. Your theory would make sense if the band was a massive thing before those boys joined but it weren't, the weight GnR carried was cuz of their collective work, without those boyses input, its just a name that sounds kinda cool.

What you are proposing is patently ridiculous and just an attempt to manipulate a really simple and clear reality. The value in the name is in the work they all done, not Axl on his own.

[Powerage5]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Just curious in what hypothetical scenario you think a reunion would have had a higher probability. In my mind, Axl not forcing Duff/Slash to sign over rights would've gone something like this:

- Axl would still be bitter at Slash (Possibly Duff also?), though instead it would be for them not playing into his hand

- The band would likely break up shortly after the UYI tour ends, as you said

- No one individual owns the rights to GN'R; Duff and Slash go on with the projects they've done in reality, Axl possibly embarks on a solo career

- No reunion ever happens, because Axl is still bitter that, in his mind, Slash and Duff essentially forced GN'R to dissolve

Now, I'm not trying to challenge your statement, as I'm sure you have a better vision of what could have been than I do, given that you actually know everyone. I'm just genuinely curious how you think a reunion could've been more likely if Slash and Duff didn't sign over rights to the name.

Cheers.

[classicrawker]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Just curious in what hypothetical scenario you think a reunion would have had a higher probability. In my mind, Axl not forcing Duff/Slash to sign over rights would've gone something like this:

- Axl would still be bitter at Slash (Possibly Duff also?), though instead it would be for them not playing into his hand

- The band would likely break up shortly after the UYI tour ends, as you said

- No one individual owns the rights to GN'R; Duff and Slash go on with the projects they've done in reality, Axl possibly embarks on a solo career

- No reunion ever happens, because Axl is still bitter that, in his mind, Slash and Duff essentially forced GN'R to dissolve

Now, I'm not trying to challenge your statement, as I'm sure you have a better vision of what could have been than I do, given that you actually know everyone. I'm just genuinely curious how you think a reunion could've been more likely if Slash and Duff didn't sign over rights to the name.

Cheers.

As Duff has said in interviews if it was not Axl's way it did not get done so the fear they had of Axl derailing the tour was not without merit..............

[DieselDaisy]

Why are you assuming Slash and Duff would have automatically united as a 2-1 anti-Axl bloc? This can not be assumed as, we know Duff backed Axl over the ‘Snakepit’ demos and the direction of, what would become, Chinese Democracy. Duff found Slash's material, 'too country.' And by the late stage of the partnership agreement, whether it be 1992 or 1993, it would have been very difficult to merely boot Axl out without a threatening legal response from Axl. Besides, considering we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios, why are we always assuming that the old band would have always ended up in a some machiavellian powergrab? One of the key reasons for so much acrimony was infact, Axl’s takeover. It did not become an issue until, Axl made it an issue - and, even Izzy mentioned the way Axl was waving contracts about like a madman and this was 1990-1.

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

At the same time I do understand why Axl wanted control of the band.

I am sorry Marc but I cannot agree with any of this.

[Coma16]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Just curious in what hypothetical scenario you think a reunion would have had a higher probability. In my mind, Axl not forcing Duff/Slash to sign over rights would've gone something like this:

- Axl would still be bitter at Slash (Possibly Duff also?), though instead it would be for them not playing into his hand

- The band would likely break up shortly after the UYI tour ends, as you said

- No one individual owns the rights to GN'R; Duff and Slash go on with the projects they've done in reality, Axl possibly embarks on a solo career

- No reunion ever happens, because Axl is still bitter that, in his mind, Slash and Duff essentially forced GN'R to dissolve

Now, I'm not trying to challenge your statement, as I'm sure you have a better vision of what could have been than I do, given that you actually know everyone. I'm just genuinely curious how you think a reunion could've been more likely if Slash and Duff didn't sign over rights to the name.

Cheers.

As Duff has said in interviews if it was not Axl's way it did not get done so the fear they had of Axl derailing the tour was not without merit..............

Weren't the documents signed in between legs? (lol)

[recklessroad]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Just curious in what hypothetical scenario you think a reunion would have had a higher probability. In my mind, Axl not forcing Duff/Slash to sign over rights would've gone something like this:

- Axl would still be bitter at Slash (Possibly Duff also?), though instead it would be for them not playing into his hand

- The band would likely break up shortly after the UYI tour ends, as you said

- No one individual owns the rights to GN'R; Duff and Slash go on with the projects they've done in reality, Axl possibly embarks on a solo career

- No reunion ever happens, because Axl is still bitter that, in his mind, Slash and Duff essentially forced GN'R to dissolve

Now, I'm not trying to challenge your statement, as I'm sure you have a better vision of what could have been than I do, given that you actually know everyone. I'm just genuinely curious how you think a reunion could've been more likely if Slash and Duff didn't sign over rights to the name.

Cheers.

I think they would have broke up for about a year or 2 and then they would all have some incentive to work it out. Now Axl has the band and can go on without the old guys.

Also how about Axl making it so that 50% of the band was his so that way Slash and Duff couldn't get rid of him?

Most of the reason Axl is upset with Slash is what Slash has had to say about Axl after he had no way of getting back in the band as an equal. Slash would have not said those things if he was still a partner in the band. He may have said that Axl wanted to change the music and put people in the band that didn't belong but it got much worse because Slash didn't have any rights left so he went to town on the person who he felt killed it.

Edited January 14, 2014 by recklessroad

[Powerage5]

Fair enough - I wasn't thinking about another sort of agreement between Axl, Slash and Duff re: the rights to the name. Like I said, I'm sure you're right on the matter.

[Dariablue]

Did Axl really think that they would get rid of him or was he more concerned with them out voting him on other issues?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Are you sure Slash & Duff feel that way? They are carrying on VR without Scott. If they had control of the GNR name when it split in the mid-90s, if Axl still hadn't come back by now do you really believe they wouldn't have tried to regroup with a different vocalist at some point? I mean, there's a lot of money on the table.

[recklessroad]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Are you sure Slash & Duff feel that way? They are carrying on VR without Scott. If they had control of the GNR name when it split in the mid-90s, if Axl still hadn't come back by now do you really believe they wouldn't have tried to regroup with a different vocalist at some point? I mean, there's a lot of money on the table.

First of all VR was a band for a long time with no singer and second who said they are carrying on with out scott. How many gigs they they play without scott? How manny records did they make without scott? Scott can be replaced but they still have not found someone. Axl can't be replaced in GNR.

[recklessroad]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Are you sure Slash & Duff feel that way? They are carrying on VR without Scott. If they had control of the GNR name when it split in the mid-90s, if Axl still hadn't come back by now do you really believe they wouldn't have tried to regroup with a different vocalist at some point? I mean, there's a lot of money on the table.

Well it turned out they agreed to give up all of it so why would they have a problem giving up Izzy's part? Also I think it didn't have much to do with money it was only control. Also I don't really know the details but I wish they would have talked to me about it when it was all going down. I could have found a better way to handle it where everyone would have been happy.

Edited January 14, 2014 by recklessroad

[classicrawker]

I have said this before, there is only one person that could front gnr and its Axl. Slash and duff both knew that so if they would have voted Axl out, that would be the end of gnr. If slash and duff didn't sign those papers, that also would have been the end of gnr. So by them signing them, it kept the band going a few more years. So in a way slash and duff saved the band at that time. Also the band would have broken up in 1995 becouse of musical differences but would have had a much better chance of a reunion if Axl didn't own the name.

Just curious in what hypothetical scenario you think a reunion would have had a higher probability. In my mind, Axl not forcing Duff/Slash to sign over rights would've gone something like this:

- Axl would still be bitter at Slash (Possibly Duff also?), though instead it would be for them not playing into his hand

- The band would likely break up shortly after the UYI tour ends, as you said

- No one individual owns the rights to GN'R; Duff and Slash go on with the projects they've done in reality, Axl possibly embarks on a solo career

- No reunion ever happens, because Axl is still bitter that, in his mind, Slash and Duff essentially forced GN'R to dissolve

Now, I'm not trying to challenge your statement, as I'm sure you have a better vision of what could have been than I do, given that you actually know everyone. I'm just genuinely curious how you think a reunion could've been more likely if Slash and Duff didn't sign over rights to the name.

Cheers.

As Duff has said in interviews if it was not Axl's way it did not get done so the fear they had of Axl derailing the tour was not without merit..............

Weren't the documents signed in between legs? (lol)

O.K. lets assume for a minute that this document is real and is the only one Slash and Duff signed related to the band name rights and they both got their dates mixed up in their drugged/ alcohol fog of the times.....You pointed out it was signed between legs of the tour right?...so that means there was still another leg going to happen which means Axl could have said he would not perform the shows on the upcoming leg yes?....did you really never think of that?..........

[Coma16]

rawker, how does that explain the claim that they signed because they were backstage during a show and feared people would die in a riot if they didn't sign?

The lies they tell

[classicrawker]

rawker, how does that explain the claim that they signed because they were backstage during a show and feared people would die in a riot if they didn't sign?

That has nothing to do with my response to Coma who is alledging that it could not have happened because they were bewtween legs of the tour.......but he ignores that if this is true Slash and Duff could have been told Axl will not continue the tour if they don't sign so his point is moot.........

To answer your question there are a lot of different stories out there on how and when it happened and I don't think we can assume anything based on a couple of pages of a document posted on a fan forum......... Axl claims they signed willingly and that he never threatened to not go on stage but to Marc's point why would Slash and Duff just sign over their rights willingly.........

In any case I will not get sucked into another MSL vortex over an issue we cannot prove or disprove and has been beaten to death.......so feel free to carry on as the defender of the faith............

[Rustycage]

1: Why is the guy still posting here? Is it for more hits?

2: There is nothing posted that proves there was only one signed document in what very well could have been a series of documents.

3: Just because HE only has one document that he acquired from the files associated to the lawsuit does not mean there is only one. They weren't challenging the name.

(these are not questions posed to Jared)

[classicrawker]

Classic Rawker -

The 1992 partnership agreement is public record and was entered into evidence by Slash and Duff. The entire contract was posted on my site. It shows very clearly that Slash and Duff were completely full of shit when they claimed they signed backstage at a show to prevent fans from dying in a riot.

As for why they would sign willingly, the agreement was beneficial to them in many ways. Their shares of revenue were increased from the previous agreement. More importantly, as Marc has correctly pointed out, Axl would never have agreed to proceed otherwise. With Izzy losing his vote, Axl would have had no protection whatsoever from Slash and Duff owning the band outright. Promising Axl the band name in the event they voted him out of the partnership or he quit was pretty fair considering he created the name and the band before either of them ever joined.

So in other words you are admitting that he did threaten them to not proceed with the tour unless they signed the agreement..............

1: Why is the guy still posting here? Is it for more hits?

2: There is nothing posted that proves there was only one signed document in what very well could have been a series of documents.

3: Just because HE only has one document that he acquired from the files associated to the lawsuit does not mean there is only one. They weren't challenging the name.

(these are not questions posed to Jared)

exactly MSL is making conclusions based on insufficient evidence.......

[Padme]

rawker, how does that explain the claim that they signed because they were backstage during a show and feared people would die in a riot if they didn't sign?

It´s not they. Only Duff has made that statement. Slash was not specific about it. He only said that Axl wound´t go on tour. And that Axl use a legal trick to ended up with the name.

Either way both of them fear Axl might quit the tour if they didn´t sign those papers. So somebody or something lead them to believe that tour was in danger.

P.S. Dude you´re not exactly the right person to accuse others of wrong doing. How dare you to cast the first stone against anyone?!

[John Bonham]

Is this thread about the contract MSL signed with Guns N' Roses in 2011 where he was paid $10,000 "hush money," and promised not to leak any more music?

[John Bonham]

A contract, I might add, that MSL broke when he leaked those samples of the Chinese Democracy Re-mix CD.

No one in this community has hurt Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses as much as MSL.

[Rustycage]

Why do people still bother to respond to that guy? Forum attention is his lifeblood.

There's has been no one on the forum that turned a 180 and come off as full of shit as him. One day he is leaking songs that he weaseled out of hoarders and blackmailing the band to current day where he is GNR defender #1.

A worthless sycophant. Nothing more.

[magisme]

And how retarded is this notion that the only options Axl had were taking over the band entirely and putting himself in jeopardy of being ousted 2-1?