stella Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, alfierose said: I would say the reason he's kept the tattoo all this time is because, not necessarily in this order, 1. It's the cover of his best selling album and 2. Tattoo removal really hurts! There's an early MTV interview where he talks about the cross tattoo and says that regardless of what happens with the band in the future -- whether it breaks up or members leave -- he wanted something to commemorate that specific time in his life. if he's kept that philosophy, it would explain why he has never had the tattoo removed or covered up. He could have always hired an artist to modify it into something else if he wished -- like making it into a bigger cross to obscure and cover the skulls. Edited February 19, 2016 by stella 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 22 hours ago, Tom2112 said: I wouldn't take any if this as gospel, the good or the bad. I doubt many people are privy to the financial split. If in fact Axl is getting a 50% split, that would likely mean Slash & Duff are now part of GnR as salaried musicians. That would be all kinds of lame, but it's their decision to make. Not really. A % is a profit share, meaning they are not hired hands. I remember reading that Axl bought out Izzy's and Steven's shares a while ago....while Slash and Duff kept theirs (although they gave Axl control of the name, they still kept their overall share of the band). So if that's the case, it would make sense that Axl gets 50% and Slash and Duff each get 25%....that would also mean that Axl would be responsible of 50% of the cost of hiring other musicians while Slash and Duff would only be responsible for 25% each. They're basically going back to their "pre-nuguns" agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 21 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: I wouldn't say that he 'lied', more that he has been forced to swallow humble pie (that nugnr was a complete failure) and that he needs the money. Axl's net worth is still listed as over $150 million while Slash's and Duff's are around 30 million each....so Axl "needing the money" argument doesn't hold water. Slash's and Duff's net worth could easily double from a worldwide tour while Axl's would increase....but as a %, much less than Slash's or Duff's would. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 2 hours ago, Kasanova King said: Axl's net worth is still listed as over $150 million while Slash's and Duff's are around 30 million each....so Axl "needing the money" argument doesn't hold water. Slash's and Duff's net worth could easily double from a worldwide tour while Axl's would increase....but as a %, much less than Slash's or Duff's would. He has a lavish lifestyle. Factor in the endless (and usually doomed) litigation - Axl Rose has sued just about everyone imaginable, including computer game companies - and the roster of sycophants he insists on surrounding himself with, no doubt drawing from his purse, not to mention the fact that his concert draw has been less than scintillating the last five years, Axl sinking to as lowly position as to descend into Vegas revivalism, and I could well envision in which Axl's head is turned by copious wads of banknotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: He has a lavish lifestyle. Factor in the endless (and usually doomed) litigation - Axl Rose has sued just about everyone imaginable, including computer game companies - and the roster of sycophants he insists on surrounding himself with, no doubt drawing from his purse, not to mention the fact that his concert draw has been less than scintillating the last five years, Axl sinking to as lowly position as to descend into Vegas revivalism, and I could well envision in which Axl's head is turned by copious wads of banknotes. From my understanding, the "net worth" numbers take all that into consideration. Of course, Axl would have to sell everything he owns, including the rights to the band to get that sum as cash but it's still around the figure he would end up with at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I do not know where you get that figure? You can factor in various Lebeis family members dipping into the petty cash? Would you consider Metallica to be rich? You do realise that the reason they have been touring so extensively, at the expensive of albums, is that they were smashed financially when that film of theirs flopped? It does not mean that they were forced on the streets selling Big Issues, but it did mean there was a massive imperilment to their finances which has kept them on the road to recover it. Bill Wyman says he was broke in 1989 which was why he was forced to do the Steel Wheels tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I do not know where you get that figure? You can factor in various Lebeis family members dipping into the petty cash? Would you consider Metallica to be rich? You do realise that the reason they have been touring so extensively, at the expensive of albums, is that they were smashed financially when that film of theirs flopped? It does not mean that they were forced on the streets selling Big Issues, but it did mean there was a massive imperilment to their finances which has kept them on the road to recover it. Bill Wyman says he was broke in 1989 which was why he was forced to do the Steel Wheels tour. http://richestcelebrities.org/richest-rock-stars/axl-rose-net-worth/ http://loudwire.com/dave-grohl-james-hetfield-axl-rose-richest-rock-vocalists/ http://gonetworth.com/axl-rose-net-worth/ I think you're confusing "net worth" with how much cash a band (or person) has available to them. Just because Axl's net worth is in excess of $150 million doesn't mean he has that much cash in the bank or to even live off, really. That $150 million figure includes him having to sell his entire share/rights to the Guns N' Roses name and catalog, along with any property he owns, etc....which obviously he probably does not want to do. So if he can make money to live off of by touring and not having to liquidate everything he owns, why wouldn't he? Edited February 20, 2016 by Kasanova King 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Riggs Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Those net worth sites are all basically bullshit and guesses. They don't have access to the info you would need to be accurate. The only ones that may be close are people that Forbes has already reported on. Not the case for Axl, Slash, Duff etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Martin Riggs said: Those net worth sites are all basically bullshit and guesses. They don't have access to the info you would need to be accurate. The only ones that may be close are people that Forbes has already reported on. Not the case for Axl, Slash, Duff etc. Possibly but it's not just one or two sites that have that figure. Every site has him around that figure....and most of that comes from his % of owning most of the Guns N' Roses catalog and the name. Edited February 20, 2016 by Kasanova King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 I'm sorry, but you have to be really gullible to believe those sites. They just copy from each other, the way all news sites do. They have no idea what any celeb's expenditure would be, and income is nothing but guess work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 27 minutes ago, Babooshka said: I'm sorry, but you have to be really gullible to believe those sites. They just copy from each other, the way all news sites do. They have no idea what any celeb's expenditure would be, and income is nothing but guess work. Could be but doesn't seem that far fetched, imo. The G N' R catalog, rights, etc are easily worth over 100 million...combine that with the properties he owns, etc...150 million doesn't seem that high of a figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 If we are going off them sites, I refuse to believe that Slash's net worth, and to a lesser extent Duff's - is that much lower than Axl's: 150 million to 30 million! Even given the fact that Axl takes more (Guns) publishing royalties, that seems terribly disproportionate. I would not be surprised if Slash is almost as rich as Axl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussTCB Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 17 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: If we are going off them sites, I refuse to believe that Slash's net worth, and to a lesser extent Duff's - is that much lower than Axl's: 150 million to 30 million! Even given the fact that Axl takes more (Guns) publishing royalties, that seems terribly disproportionate. I would not be surprised if Slash is almost as rich as Axl. I would assume so as well. The money subject is one that's got me pretty damn baffled so far. No matter what order anyone thinks they're in as far as financials go, I just to don't see Axl, Duff or Slash hurting for money. So for me, that takes out the "They're doing it just for the money!111!!!!!1111!!" argument. But then, every sign I've seen (so far) makes it appear as if it's just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvanG Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 About new music that the article mentions, I think the fact that Izzy and Duff recorded together shouldn't be read too much into. Weren't those the songs for the promotion of his book anyway? And they have always been recording together since he left GnR, doesn't mean it's for GnR purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 21 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: He has a lavish lifestyle. Factor in the endless (and usually doomed) litigation - Axl Rose has sued just about everyone imaginable, including computer game companies - and the roster of sycophants he insists on surrounding himself with, no doubt drawing from his purse, not to mention the fact that his concert draw has been less than scintillating the last five years, Axl sinking to as lowly position as to descend into Vegas revivalism, and I could well envision in which Axl's head is turned by copious wads of banknotes. How accurate is that 150 million network estimate? That number has been listed for at least ten years. And I've seen numerous "stars" say that there published network estimates weren't even close to being accurate. And money is money. Rich people don't stop wanting to grow their bank account. Just because a guy has X Million dollars in the bank doesn't mean he stops watching his financials. Mark Cuban is a Billionaire and he is constantly buying and starting new businesses and trying to make more money. If it wasn't about the money then these boys would be doing club shows and charging $30 a ticket for up close and personal shows. Kasanova.......I read Miser make the statement about Axl buying everybody out. You've read that somewhere else? 21 hours ago, Martin Riggs said: Those net worth sites are all basically bullshit and guesses. They don't have access to the info you would need to be accurate. The only ones that may be close are people that Forbes has already reported on. Not the case for Axl, Slash, Duff etc. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modano09 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 20 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: If we are going off them sites, I refuse to believe that Slash's net worth, and to a lesser extent Duff's - is that much lower than Axl's: 150 million to 30 million! Even given the fact that Axl takes more (Guns) publishing royalties, that seems terribly disproportionate. I would not be surprised if Slash is almost as rich as Axl. Duff invested in Microsoft and Starbucks in the early 90's, he has more than just GNR money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Broue Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Umm, excuse me, but i don't give a shit about Slash's former wife, or how much percentage they share on each show... These are the most important parts Quote The plan is to move into an aircraft hangar for full production rehearsals. There is little information on a set-list, although it’s believed that songs from Chinese Democracy, specifically the title track and Madagascar, are being rehearsed along with late-80s/early-90s material. Quote There is one other tantalising detail to this story. A hint that, if true, would change the complexion of the reunion. The prospect of a new album, or at the very least, some new material. “I know they’re doing some recording,” says Vereecke. “They’re definitely doing something there in the studio. Axl hasn’t been there, but Slash is definitely in there and it’s not for anyone else [other than Guns N’ Roses].” “I hope they’ve done it already [begun recording],” says Niven. “Duff and Izzy were in the studio before Christmas doing stuff. At a casual glance I think they’ve got at least a couple of tracks down. There has to be an element of creativity. Guns N’ Roses is about a spirit, about individuality. It can’t just be purely fiscal. It must be about legacy. After all, you don’t see many hearses with luggage racks.” Eeverything else is just the usual babbling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 3 hours ago, RussTCB said: I would assume so as well. The money subject is one that's got me pretty damn baffled so far. No matter what order anyone thinks they're in as far as financials go, I just to don't see Axl, Duff or Slash hurting for money. So for me, that takes out the "They're doing it just for the money!111!!!!!1111!!" argument. But then, every sign I've seen (so far) makes it appear as if it's just that. Alimony can wipe out half of your fortune, can't it? That explains Slash in an instant. Axl? How many people has he sued now? How many people does he keep on the pay role? That is a lavish lifestyle he is funding there. I think for Axl to eat humble pie, the arenas had to dry up. Between 2011-14 Axl was no longer an arena artist in North America. The thing is, this (assuming it is a full tour) is the last big injection of cash these people can possible gain in their career. There is little money from future albums now, and their tours probably made a bit of money but nothing on the scale of old Guns (or even VR and new gnr circa 2006). So the last gigantic wad of cash they will ever make is by reuniting. And of course you cannot do it again. Once they have toured the main areas of the globe and decide to continue, it will no longer have the novelty of being a 'reunion' (or regrouping or whatever it is called). It will merely be another old farts show playing the market a second time. And if they disband, then reunite further down the line, people will smell a rat. So they have probably 1 1/2 - 2 years to make more money than they have made since 1993 - more than that even. They could probably double their fortune in the first year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 As long as everyone puts 100 % effort into this thing I'm fine with it being mostly for the money 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericy210 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) On February 19, 2016 at 8:40 AM, alfierose said: There's a further article published today on the same site about their first UK gig http://www.teamrock.com/features/2016-02-19/guns-n-roses-anarchy-in-the-uk Hey, thanks for the links to the site. I signed up and they are good, well written pieces. I'll spend my afternoon snooping around. Most rock press sucks or is gossip. This is actually good. Edited February 21, 2016 by ericy210 Missoell 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Modano09 said: Duff invested in Microsoft and Starbucks in the early 90's, he has more than just GNR money. He invested in Seattle businesses and the timing was perfect, but Susan did well with her business. So did Gilby's wife. They make enough to not have to work but they'd have to live very modestly. Axl also has a lot of overhead, taxes are in the tens of thousands, the money he sees from concerts is far less than people think. Even doing these GNR shows, he might walk away with just under a million a show, but how many times do you see him wearing the same clothes in concert photos? Edited February 21, 2016 by dalsh327 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Another reason to get rid of all the stage effects. Sometimes less is more, both fiscally and creatively! I don't care if they make a killing, and don't see why it bothers some people. This is the fruits of their labour imo. Moreso Duff, Axl and Slash, who went on that gruelling UYI tour and earned nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 '...their labour'? Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6lake sa66ath Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 2 hours ago, ericy210 said: Hey, thanks for the links to the site. I signed up and they are good, well written pieces. I'll spend my afternoon snooping around. Most rock press sucks or is gossip. This is actually good. Classic Rock magazine is a top quality publication as is Metal Hammer. UK press isn't as bad as the stereotypes would lead you to believe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babooshka Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Did they not put work into the band? Did they not write the songs? Did they not build the band up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts