Steven Adler in Argentina

[MADDOGJONES]

3 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

I'd be glad if you would point me into the direction of that.

Well, if he had to sell, then that's that. That's what was agreed on by everyone involved and that's what he did, so that is not to be held against him. But I find it pathetic how some people do. For Axl/Slash/Duff it was easier to move on, with Izzy making a clear cut, than still having to deal with him, despite him not being in the band anymore. So I'm not sure, how him leaving the partnership is a bad thing for the remaining partners, that should be held against him now. And really, I don't care about anyone's wallet but mine.

That point is, that that is being held against him by some. The fact that he sold his shares back in the day is used as a justification for some to view him as outrageous for demanding equal pay. But that was then. This is now. Him wanting (somewhat) equal money for a tour happening in 2016/17 has (or should have) nothing to do with him selling his shares 26 years ago. But I'm willing to concede that we don't really know what was offered and what he actually demanded. I'm just going on his one sentence on Twitter here.

I never said that. But he shouldn't be treated as an employee with a lesser pay cut or just a salary.

If the tour revenue is being split by the terms of the partnership and he isn't in it there's no way he can expect equal pay.

im not holding anything against izzy. He doesn't think he is getting paid his worth so he declined to take part. That's cool. That should be the end of it, people should be disappointed if that's how they feel, but what's with all the pointing finger nonsense?

He was crucial to guns but chose to leave for whatever reasons. But the fact remains, he isn't in the partnership, so no matter how important people think he is to guns, why would duff, slash and Axl just forget THEY bought him out? Because he is a OG? That's nice in the world of the fans but this one of the biggest bands of all time and is a business and they know publicly the face of guns is Axl, slash and to a lesser extent but before izzy, duff. The tour is proof of that, so why would they give him equal? They have a bunch of reasons not to and not much on the other side.

What i don't like is all the attacks against the others for NOT giving him equal pay. It's a crazy logic, they won't pay someone who is demanding more than they think he his worth, but they are the greedy ones?

[PatrickS77]

11 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

If the tour revenue is being split by the terms of the partnership and he isn't in it there's no way he can expect equal pay.

im not holding anything against izzy. He doesn't think he is getting paid his worth so he declined to take part. That's cool. That should be the end of it, people should be disappointed if that's how they feel, but what's with all the pointing finger nonsense?

He was crucial to guns but chose to leave for whatever reasons. But the fact remains, he isn't in the partnership, so no matter how important people think he is to guns, why would duff, slash and Axl just forget THEY bought him out? Because he is a OG? That's nice in the world of the fans but this one of the biggest bands of all time and is a business and they know publicly the face of guns is Axl, slash and to a lesser extent but before izzy, duff. The tour is proof of that, so why would they give him equal? They have a bunch of reasons not to and not much on the other side.

What i don't like is all the attacks against the others for NOT giving him equal pay. It's a crazy logic, they won't pay someone who is demanding more than they think he his worth, but they are the greedy ones?

Yes and this brings us back to the fact why it is viewed as a cash grab by many, which, as great as it is to see Axl and Slash back together, does taint the whole thing quite a bit. It's sad when as a justification for Izzy and Steven not being there you have to bring up partnerships and legal crap, which is not what rock n roll is about. And if per their agreement any leaving member has to be bought out by the remaining members, then Axl/Slash/Duff don't have to "just forget THEY bought him out?" or be stingy about it, because that is what the all agreed would happen in the case any member leaves. And if one leaves, it should be possible for that person to come back, unless of course "they don't want to share the loot" and are in it only for the money, thus the accusation of this tour being a "cash grab".

[MADDOGJONES]

11 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yes and this brings us back to the fact why it is viewed as a cash grab by many, which, as great as it is to see Axl and Slash back together, does taint the whole thing quite a bit. It's sad when as a justification for Izzy and Steven not being there you have to bring up partnerships and legal crap, which is not what rock n roll is about. And if per their agreement any leaving member has to be bought out by the remaining members, then Axl/Slash/Duff don't have to "just forget THEY bought him out?" or be stingy about it, because that is what the all agreed would happen in the case any member leaves. And if one leaves, it should be possible for that person to come back, unless of course "they don't want to share the loot" and are in it only for the money, thus the accusation of this tour being a "cash grab".

I don't care if it is a cash grab, I enjoyed the show I saw, and they should be able to make as much money as people are willing to pay them.

They are one of the greatest bands of all time and deserve the fruits of their labour. I don't care  if that is their primary motivation, they still rock and I'm happy my favourite band is still on the road. 

Does Izzy deserve that too? The fruits of his labour? Well, no, he doesn't. He jumped ship and was paid out, he already took his deal. He still gets his royalties or whatever, but a business desion he made a long time ago has made that difficult for him under the terms he now demands. He sold his share for whatever reason at the time and I completely get it that people want to see them all up there but it isn't as simple as people like to make out. It's easy for people to make decisions for a business from behind their keyboard but they don't have to deal with any of the BS or fall out. 

All of this do it for the fans stuff is only levelled at Slash, duff and Axl. Why doesn't izzy do it for the fans? Why doesn't it work both ways?

[Lio]

17 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yes and this brings us back to the fact why it is viewed as a cash grab by many, which, as great as it is to see Axl and Slash back together, does taint the whole thing quite a bit. It's sad when as a justification for Izzy and Steven not being there you have to bring up partnerships and legal crap, which is not what rock n roll is about. And if per their agreement any leaving member has to be bought out by the remaining members, then Axl/Slash/Duff don't have to "just forget THEY bought him out?" or be stingy about it, because that is what the all agreed would happen in the case any member leaves. And if one leaves, it should be possible for that person to come back, unless of course "they don't want to share the loot" and are in it only for the money, thus the accusation of this tour being a "cash grab".

So how about Izzy demanding an equal part of the loot? Is that rock n roll or a cash grab? You can't accuse the rest of doing a cash grab tour and pretend Izzy is all about rock n roll when he said himself he's not there because they didn't want to split the loot equally.

[PatrickS77]

5 minutes ago, Lio said:

So how about Izzy demanding an equal part of the loot? Is that rock n roll or a cash grab? You can't accuse the rest of doing a cash grab tour and pretend Izzy is all about rock n roll when he said himself he's not there because they didn't want to split the loot equally.

And now he's getting no money at all. He rather gets no money, than being disrespected and getting the feeling of being treated unfairly. He stood by his principles. I'd say that's rock n roll.

[PatrickS77]

7 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

I don't care if it is a cash grab, I enjoyed the show I saw, and they should be able to make as much money as people are willing to pay them.

They are one of the greatest bands of all time and deserve the fruits of their labour. I don't care  if that is their primary motivation, they still rock and I'm happy my favourite band is still on the road. 

Does Izzy deserve that too? The fruits of his labour? Well, no, he doesn't. He jumped ship and was paid out,

Don't get me wrong. I did and will enjoy the shows too, but would enjoy it more if Izzy and Steven would be there.

And yes. Izzy would deserve that too. He jumped ship, supposedly to safe his life. Axl got out of the spotlight for many years too and took GNR with him, why is nobody else allowed to do that? Of course, Izzy's only way to do that, was to leave the band.

[MADDOGJONES]

3 minutes ago, Lio said:

So how about Izzy demanding an equal part of the loot? Is that rock n roll or a cash grab? You can't accuse the rest of doing a cash grab tour and pretend Izzy is all about rock n roll when he said himself he's not there because they didn't want to split the loot equally.

It's funny how that is overlooked and ignored. Now izzy has got "integrity". Axl and izzy skipped the hall of fame and they got called out for not attending, again, because people didn't get what they wanted, do it for the fans they said! While booing Axl for not showing. But no one really cared about izzy not going, it was all on axl. Now that's Axl's played with slash they want something else and will insult and slander anyone who they think is standing in the way. so they point fingers and insult the band they supposedly love. Same with Steven, if he got to play all of the appetite songs and share the stage with frank, do the whole tour or whatever, he wouldn't give a fuck about izzy not being there, but since that hasn't been offered to him, he's a "good solider" and a man of "integrity"  fucked over by the big bad 3. He just wants to play rock n roll, "do it right" and climb the "toppest mountain". It's bs, PR and damage control.

[Lio]

8 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

And now he's getting no money at all. He rather gets no money, than being disrespected and getting the feeling of being treated unfairly. He stood by his principles. I'd say that's rock n roll.

Okay, that's your point of view then.

Does that mean we'll get people being disappointed if Izzy does show up as a guest some time in the future then, because he betrayed his principles?

[Lio]

7 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

It's funny how that is overlooked and ignored. Now izzy has got "integrity". Axl and izzy skipped the hall of fame and they got called out for not attending, again, because people didn't get what they wanted, do it for the fans they said! While booing Axl for not showing. But no one really cared about izzy not going, it was all on axl. Now that's Axl's played with slash they want something else and will insult and slander anyone who they think is standing in the way. so they point fingers and insult the band they supposedly love. Same with Steven, if he got to play all of the appetite songs and share the stage with frank, do the whole tour or whatever, he wouldn't give a fuck about izzy not being there, but since that hasn't been offered to him, he's a "good solider" and a man of "integrity"  fucked over by the big bad 3. He just wants to play rock n roll, "do it right" and climb the "toppest mountain". It's bs, PR and damage control.

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Steven wouldn't be crying about Izzy if he'd had a bigger role in GNR himself.

It's too bad for Steven and I would've loved Izzy involved in one way or another (song writing, preferably), but it is what it is. None of us were there, we don't know how it went down and I'm just happy to get what we have now. Anything more would be just a bonus.

[MADDOGJONES]

3 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Don't get me wrong. I did and will enjoy the shows too, but would enjoy it more if Izzy and Steven would be there.

And yes. Izzy would deserve that too. He jumped ship, supposedly to safe his life. Axl got out of the spotlight for many years too and took GNR with him, why is nobody else allowed to do that? Of course, Izzy's only way to do that, was to leave the band.

But it's a settled matter, izzy was bought out. None of the others took that route. Which is why they hold all of the cards. They don't need izzy, which is why he's not there. They tried but he wanted more than they were willing to pay and seem happy to move on without him at this time. If they needed him they would pay whatever.

If it was Axl who sold his share he could probably get away with demanding a big slice of the pie, because without Axl, they don't have the shows. Same with slash, they are the big draws. 

Whether izzy had to sell or whatever is not really the point. The others new the value and held on to it and in 2016/2017 this has worked out well for them, izzy wanted nothing to do with GNR, again, for whatever reason, it isn't important contactually that he needed to save his life, he wanted out and sold up. Bad business move if he wants back in now on the same footing, but it seemed to be what he needed to do at the time. Let's no feel too sorry for multimillionaires and the few business stumbles they have.

[MADDOGJONES]

2 minutes ago, Lio said:

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Steven wouldn't be crying about Izzy if he'd had a bigger role in GNR himself.

It's too bad for Steven and I would've loved Izzy involved in one way or another (song writing, preferably), but it is what it is. None of us were there, we don't know how it went down and I'm just happy to get what we have now. Anything more would be just a bonus.

Yeah, that's right. It is what it is, enjoy it or don't. this may be the very last line up of GNR, there may never be an appetite reunion, so take what you can while you can or don't. 

[MADDOGJONES]

24 minutes ago, Lio said:

Okay, that's your point of view then.

Does that mean we'll get people being disappointed if Izzy does show up as a guest some time in the future then, because he betrayed his principles?

Izzy's principles are deal welching apparently. 

[Darkenchantress]

51 minutes ago, Lio said:

Okay, that's your point of view then.

Does that mean we'll get people being disappointed if Izzy does show up as a guest some time in the future then, because he betrayed his principles?

YES.

[alfierose]

I've cleaned up a couple of pages of this thread that derailed into a fight. If your post is missing it is due to to this.

Please debate civilly without resorting to name calling - it's not okay to call other members moronic. Neither is it okay to call troll or question someone's choice to post here because you disagree with their opinion.

Seems like the thread is back on track now but please bear the above in mind.

Thanks

 

[Sosso]

3 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Don't get me wrong. I did and will enjoy the shows too, but would enjoy it more if Izzy and Steven would be there.

And yes. Izzy would deserve that too. He jumped ship, supposedly to safe his life. Axl got out of the spotlight for many years too and took GNR with him, why is nobody else allowed to do that? Of course, Izzy's only way to do that, was to leave the band.

I will tell you why Izzy and Steven aren't there. This was never supposed to be a AfD reunion. Slash and Duff rejoined GN'R and the line-up was complete with that step.

[Lio]

17 minutes ago, Sosso said:

I will tell you why Izzy and Steven aren't there. This was never supposed to be a AfD reunion. Slash and Duff rejoined GN'R and the line-up was complete with that step.

That's not true. Steven was in rehearsals and they negotiated with Izzy too, which means they had the intention of having them at least partly on board at some point.

[Sosso]

5 minutes ago, Lio said:

That's not true. Steven was in rehearsals and they negotiated with Izzy too, which means they had the intention of having them at least partly on board at some point.

Yeah, but not the whole time. Even at the time he was involved only the names of Axl, Slash and Duff were in the statement for Coachella.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Sosso

[Modano09]

5 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

So and by not accepting whatever Axl/Slash/Duff were offering them, they fucked it up? We know that they offered Steven 2 songs at select shows and Izzy a minor cut, even though the show mostly is based on his songs. Why exactly should they accept that??? Just because they walked away/were fired 25 years ago? Slash and Duff also walked away and still they supposedly get what Axl is getting. Why should it be different for the other two, just because they walked earlier? This tour is founded on what all 5 of them did together 30 years ago.

Slash and Duff left the band but didn't give up their stake in the band, which meant they had to take part in the various lawsuits against the band, against Axl and against themselves from Axl. 

Izzy sold his stake and was paid a sum of money for it. 

He can't profit from selling it and profit from owning it at the same time.

They may have lowballed Izzy for all I know, but I completely see why they didn't think he was entitled to equal share to the rest of them.

[trev]

11 hours ago, Słash said:

Why do you care if they sell out stadiums or not? Is Axl giving you a cut of it?

what matters is that Steven and Izzy have huge contributions to the band and are equally GNR as Axl/Slash/Duff

 

In 1990ish yes.  In 2017, no...not at all.

11 hours ago, Słash said:

Cause VR was also a side project

but this is supposedly a Guns N Roses reunion

like that Duff and Slash backstabbed Matt too, they chose someone like Frank over Matt, it doesnt means Matt is not a good drummer

Matt was a "hired gun" as some like to say.  What's the difference between bitching about Frank and not him?  Matt doesn't matter if you don't think Frank should be there.

Edited March 9, 2017 by trev

[Tom-Ass]

4 minutes ago, trev said:

In 1990ish yes.  In 2017, no...not at all.

Matt was a "hired gun" as some like to say.  What's the difference between bitching about Frank and not him?  Matt doesn't matter if you don't think Frank should be there.

Matt is the drummer on like 45 of the bands studio tracks... Most of Live Era.. The Tokyo DVDs... Like 10 music videos... And he didn't suck at playing Gn'R songs like Frank Does.. Matt > Frank

[trev]

1 minute ago, Tom-Ass said:

Matt is the drummer on like 45 of the bands studio tracks... Most of Live Era.. The Tokyo DVDs... Like 10 music videos... And he didn't suck at playing Gn'R songs like Frank Does.. Matt > Frank

Yeah fuck that, it should have been Steven on those tracks.  Not that scab Sorum..what a hack.  No swing or groove.

[Tom-Ass]

Just now, trev said:

Yeah fuck that, it should have been Steven on those tracks.  Not that scab Sorum..what a hack.  No swing or groove.

lol.. I'd prefer Steven too I just thought you were saying there is no difference between Matt and Frank... Steven is the best but Matt would be 100X better than Frank.. Slash's drummer would be too.

[trev]

1 hour ago, Tom-Ass said:

lol.. I'd prefer Steven too I just thought you were saying there is no difference between Matt and Frank... Steven is the best but Matt would be 100X better than Frank.. Slash's drummer would be too.

I was being sarcastic to show the if dislike Frank so much you may as well dislike Matt so much.  To each their own.  I'd rather Adler if he wasn't such a goon.  He fucked it all up for himself though.  I think it's just fine the way it is right now.  Bringing the orignal 5 back is only as cool as some people think it'd be if they came back in their 20's.  So cue that time machine...  

I don't think Frank is that bad while I acknolwedge sometimes he misses on Brownstone.  Matt Sorum though, my personal opinion of him is low to say the least.  

Edited March 9, 2017 by trev

[PatrickS77]

9 hours ago, MADDOGJONES said:

But it's a settled matter, izzy was bought out. None of the others took that route. Which is why they hold all of the cards. They don't need izzy, which is why he's not there. They tried but he wanted more than they were willing to pay and seem happy to move on without him at this time. If they needed him they would pay whatever.

If it was Axl who sold his share he could probably get away with demanding a big slice of the pie, because without Axl, they don't have the shows. Same with slash, they are the big draws. 

Whether izzy had to sell or whatever is not really the point. The others new the value and held on to it and in 2016/2017 this has worked out well for them, izzy wanted nothing to do with GNR, again, for whatever reason, it isn't important contactually that he needed to save his life, he wanted out and sold up. Bad business move if he wants back in now on the same footing, but it seemed to be what he needed to do at the time. Let's no feel too sorry for multimillionaires and the few business stumbles they have.

Well, yes. It is the point, because that’s your only reasoning for why he’s not worthy to get equal pay. But if the valid agreement they had in 1991 said that any leaving member has to give up their shares to the remaining shareholdes, then he had no other choice and did what they all had agreed a leaving member would have to do and that’s to give up their shares and get the fuck out. If that agreement was changed later on and thus enabled Slash and Duff to leave (or they left and never dissolved things, which could have led Axl to start up a new legal entity to run Guns N’Roses), but still keep their shares, then your whole reasoning is off, as they were in a much better position and dealing with different facts than Izzy.
 
And you still haven’t pointed me to where I can see what it says what would happen, when a member decides to leave. So I/we still don’t know whether it was a voluntarily decision by Izzy to get rid of his share (which yes, could be considered a bad business move) or if that’s what he was obligated to do upon leaving (which, if it was possible a leaving member could just keep their shares, could be considered a bad business move by the others) per their agreement when they formed the partnership.

[PatrickS77]

5 hours ago, Sosso said:

I will tell you why Izzy and Steven aren't there. This was never supposed to be a AfD reunion. Slash and Duff rejoined GN'R and the line-up was complete with that step.

I don’t care what it was supposed to be. It’s the fact that it could be and is not that's frustrating. Each and every one of them would be willing and able, if all 5 of them could come to terms with certain things. If there still wouldn’t be ego, resentments and shit involved, it could be the greatest thing ever. Now it’s the half… well 3/5ths, greatest thing ever.