Jane M. Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said: 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. You can read something about that here: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MADDOGJONES Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said: 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. It's my only reason why? What other reason do you need? I don't need multiple reasons for something if the first one is correct. We don't add up how many reasons we each have, count them, and declare that person correct. I gave you a factual reason why he isn't going to get equal money. You can not like that reason, but it's a fact he sold his share and it's a fact that he's not getting whatever shares he had before now because he sold his shares, he has no leverage. Facts. Okay? Facts. I'm surprised I have to keep repeating myself, I'm not saying anything controversial here. It's like me being perplexed that the car I sold years ago is no longer mine and that I no longer have rights to it. Yeah I sold it, but it means a lot to me and the guy I sold it to should respect that, I was the original owner and I'm a better driver too! It's gone up in value lately and I don't think it's fair that I shouldn't get some of that back. It's not my fault I had to sell it, I sold it to save my life and it's not my fault I didn't know it would increase in value. So give it to me! If they changed the rules and terms of the contracts and partnership after izzy left, so what? What does it have to do with Izzy? He left, was paid out, it's none of his business and he hasn't complained about that so what you are doing now is a straw man and it's verging on fan Fiction. Why are you presenting me with hypothetical scenarios that don't exist? What is the reason for this? What are you trying to convince me of? That izzy was fucked over? Why hasn't izzy sued the guys if that's true? Yeah, mate, thing is, with all due respect, I'm not your PA. you have google, right? use it to find what you want to find. I don't have to prove anything to you or provide anything to you. I'm presenting facts, not fan fiction. The partnership details are available and have been discussed here before and on other sites, that's well known. If you are not up to speed on GNR, then don't debate GNR, it's certainly not my job to provide you evidence for well known things. I won't waste my time especially when you are arguing fan thoeries against my facts. Edited March 9, 2017 by MADDOGJONES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modano09 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 hour ago, PatrickS77 said: 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. When Izzy left he pretty clearly wanted to wash his hands of the whole thing and his history is that he likes to do his own thing at his leisure and not have any obligations or drama. I wouldn't be surprised if he just wanted out of GNR all together and wanted to be bought out and go on his way. Slash and Duff still had to take part in the lawsuits brought against the band, or themselves, or Axl, over the years, I don't see Izzy wanting to deal with that. He was paid a sum of money to give up his ownership stake and happily went along his way collecting his royalty checks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MADDOGJONES Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 On 08/03/2017 at 3:28 PM, Słash said: Who is telling Steven to join Nasa and be an Astronaut? He is good at playing the drums and still can play them he just wants to play the songs which he was a part of, end of the story. The band don't want him to play the songs. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsinindy Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, MADDOGJONES said: The band don't want him to play the songs. End of story. Well no shit sherlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhazUp Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Regardless of the behind the scenes stuff, whatever happened, the fact that Adler is openly talking about all of this stuff in interviews most likely means that he is done with GNR in any capacity - at least for the time being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts