Jump to content

Contracts


Recommended Posts

Guest Len B'stard

1: Why is the guy still posting here?

Cuz the bakery ain't open yet? :lol:

If my arguments weren't sound, you'd be attacking them instead of me.

First of all that isn't an attack, just a quip in passing, attack is a little extreme as a definition of a crap joke. Secondly, I did address your argument earlier in the thread, specifically your 'on what planet would Axl agree to...' post...but because your argument was unsound you didn't address it ;) As is often the case with you, you don't appear to have anything to say for yourself when confronted with common sense.

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Sugar -

There was nothing in your previous post to address. All you posted was empty rhetoric. I asked why Axl should have put himself in a situation where he'd have no protection whatsoever and you didn't answer. I am not obligated to respond to all complaints. If you believe Axl shouldn't have tried to prevent Slash and Duff from ending up with 100% ownership of GNR, feel free to explain. I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you if you can find some time in your busy schedule of making fat jokes.

Yes there was something to discuss, you asked why would Axl agree to that and I said because the weight (no pun intended) behind the GnR name was as a result of all of theirs work. If the name was so fuckin' important to him why not make a point of having that shit in his name from the get-go, if it was fairly his by rights and the resultant monies that come from that then why not have it from the get go? Why wait until they've worked together, made it into something together and then decide...oh y'know what? I came up with the name so lets just throw everything in my favour here, thats bullshit and you can piss around the pan with this one but whats real is real.

It's a clear and obvious attempt to take the shit over for his own personal gain. I believe in an equal say about this shit, especially when they all put in the work to make it what it was, it's really not that complicated a concept, umpteen fuckin' bands do and have done it. I love how the only options in your head is the two gargoyles duff and slash running things or Axl running things, the concept of the shit being legally equally shared out doesn't occur to you.

I stated this in my post before but everytime you can't address something when obvious facts are staring you in the face you just do what you're doing now. You just enjoy getting into vague semantic discussions with people and just tying yourself in knots and constantly ignoring the patently obvious aspect of a given issue.

Edited by sugaraylen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty -
Do you mind explaining what you are suggesting? The 1992 partnership agreement is still binding to this day and Slash and Duff are the ones that entered it into evidence. Are you claiming Slash and Duff signed an earlier draft on a different date while under duress backstage at a show? If so, why would they sign again under their own free will while not on tour?
Or are you suggesting they signed a later version under duress at a later date? If so, how does that explain them first signing under their own free will while not on tour and why would their lawyer submit an outdated and unenforceable document to the judge when the document in question was what the lawsuit hoped to enforce?
Classic Rawker -
The main thing the agreement dealt with was how the revenue for the tour was going to be split among the remaining partners now that Izzy was gone. So yes, chances are there wouldn't be a tour without a signed contract. That is how business works . . .
And what exactly is the insufficient evidence? Slash and Duff entered the entire partnership agreement into evidence. It's public record. We now know exactly what the band's agreement was. There is nothing to argue about.
Padme -
You are mistaken. Here is a direct quote from Slash:
"Before a gig one night in '92, Axl hands us a contract saying that if the band breaks up, he's taking the name."
"Unfortunately, we signed it. I didn't think he'd go on stage otherwise."

Really? before a gig where? U.S., Europe, SA? One night? in what way is that specifc? Axl hands us... It could mean Axl himself or someone on his behave. We know they signed it. Was it at that very moment? They could´ve signed it a week or a month later. Slash thought Axl wouldn´t go on on stage. Yes, that´s Slash own personal feeling and fear. It sounds like Slash made a long story short.

Duff on the other hand told us more details. Again either way they both were scared to death that Axl would stop touring in 92, 93.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sugar -

There was nothing in your previous post to address. All you posted was empty rhetoric. I asked why Axl should have put himself in a situation where he'd have no protection whatsoever and you didn't answer. I am not obligated to respond to all complaints. If you believe Axl shouldn't have tried to prevent Slash and Duff from ending up with 100% ownership of GNR, feel free to explain. I'd be happy to discuss the subject with you if you can find some time in your busy schedule of making fat jokes.

Yes there was something to discuss, you asked why would Axl agree to that and I said because the weight (no pun intended) behind the GnR name was as a result of all of theirs work. If the name was so fuckin' important to him why not make a point of having that shit in his name from the get-go, if it was fairly his by rights and the resultant monies that come from that then why not have it from the get go? Why wait until they've worked together, made it into something together and then decide...oh y'know what? I came up with the name so lets just throw everything in my favour here, thats bullshit and you can piss around the pan with this one but whats real is real.

It's a clear and obvious attempt to take the shit over for his own personal gain. I believe in an equal say about this shit, especially when they all put in the work to make it what it was, it's really not that complicated a concept, umpteen fuckin' bands do and have done it. I love how the only options in your head is the two gargoyles duff and slash running things or Axl running things, the concept of the shit being legally equally shared out doesn't occur to you.

I stated this in my post before but everytime you can't address something when obvious facts are staring you in the face you just do what you're doing now. You just enjoy getting into vague semantic discussions with people and just tying yourself in knots and constantly ignoring the patently obvious aspect of a given issue.

I'd be interested in knowing what msl thinks of this post. That is, of course, if he can address it with no bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're goin way too far with "it's all Axl's band". the band name still carries Tracii Guns' name in it and a girl from back then was the one coming up with the name "Guns N' Roses", Axl even told that in the 12/2008 online chats. and Slash didnt just join the band, he played with Axl in HR already, they did knew each other for long before 06/06/1985, those Axl nutswingers always try to make it look as if Slash was hired in the 1st place during the last minute when that just wasnt the case. Slash was as big as Axl back then, he still is for the general public, if not bigger, so "Axl fonting the band" is probably not the best way to describe the AFD/UYI line-ups.
and according to your logic Slash could have voted out by Duff and Axl, so could have Duff by Slash and Axl. but it was only Axl who dared to "protect himself" and dared to trick out the name....it was his evil intention in the first place and could have handled way more fair. unfortunately he succeeded with this, but will always carry the AFD and Slash cross on his shoulders.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rusty, I'm sticking to the facts and being civil. You guys are resorting to insults, changing the subject, etc.

There's a lot of trolling going on in this thread, but it sure as hell ain't coming from me.

Rusty, Slash and Duff entered the partnership agreement into evidence as an existing and still enforceable contract. It proves they didn't sign backstage under duress. Can you please explain what you meant before when you said that didn't prove anything? Thanks.

It does not prove they did not sign something backstage only to have a more formal agreement drawn up later. Please stop talking like you were there or have all the facts..........

And it is interesting you admit you believe Axl would have not continued touring if they did not sign the agreement as this implies that Slash and Duff signed under duress which goes against what Axl claims in his rants. He claims there was no threat involved.

IMHO the most interesting question related to the name isssue is did Axl threaten to not go on stage if they did not sign? If the answer is yes then when they actually signed the agreement is a moot point.......................

In any case your claim that Axl was forced to sign the agreement for his own protection is bullshit. If he was really worried about Slash and Duff ganging up on him and firing him I am sure the lawyers could have come up with a contract which protected his interests without compromising those of Slash and Duff................

Edited by classicrawker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Len B'stard

Yeah, pretty much what Mags said is what it boils down to, on what planet was complete takeover the only other option? The whole 'empty rhetoric' auto cue thing, it's cute but could you try answering the question this time please? Maybe? Go on, have a go :)

Edited by sugaraylen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if english is your first language, but when I say that Axl fronted the band, I simply mean that he was the front man. That is simply a common phrase for vocalist or lead singer.
You have absolutely nothing to support your premise that Axl had some "evil intention" in 1992 to trick anyone out of anything. Nobody was tricked. Slash and Duff had to initial the clause. They knew exactly what they were signing.

english aint my 1st language, anyhow you're twisting the "frontman"-scenario so much, that readers should imply Axl wasnt the frontman but the "leader" since day 1. that just was never the case with old Guns, it started after he tricked out the name and all AFD members were gone, not before.

Axl wanted to make sure that he would never ever loose the name and rights, no matter what would happen. you claim it business decision, i call it "evil intention", a power move, and to stay financial much more independent. Slash, Duff and no fan would have ever thought that the GN'R brand name would exist without them, meaning that Axl would dare to leave the old GN'R partnership and make them hired hands or hire new members and go on tour/release new album(s) (which is exactly what happened in the end of 1995 and afterwards), so hell no, i'm not buying your theory that Slash/Duff really knew what they had to sign....but i do think Axl knew that exactly.

Edited by Lim666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...