Article About Izzy/Guns on the Wall Street Journal

[Its Tino]

With Izzy being Izzy, maybe “split the loot equally” meant splitting the loot equally throughout the entire band: Axl, Slash, Duff, Izzy, Melissa, Frank and 4tus??

Sounds bizarre and unlikely, but you never know. 

[RONIN]

6 hours ago, bikka said:

The contract said that both Axl and Slash could veto any decision. So Slash couldn't have been ousted by Axl - even with Duff's support (nor vice versa). That was a stalemate, my guess is that's why Axl formed a new band.

Interesting...never knew that. Add's a bit of context to Axl's "Use your Illusion is Slash trying to take over the band" comment....

 

2 hours ago, soon said:

I dont know the ins and outs of the various contracts and agreements.  So, Axl could leave the original agreement with out having to be bought out?

It appears so. Since he owned the name legally, he didn't need to remain in the partnership technically to continue GnR Inc. Where it gets fuzzy is how exactly was he able to leave the partnership without avoiding the buy out clause. And - how (as per Marc Canter) were they able to resuscitate the original partnership for the reunion if Axl had already left. I know Axl is a legal genius but GnR is full of these weird legal shenanigans.

Quote

I would say though, that Izzys business acumen is fair game for questioning imo. Other then the surging popularity and mark up of avocados he isnt necessarily known for his business savvy, I dont think? And sure Niven was there to advise the paranoid Izzy but isnt Niven a bit of a fatalist when it came to GNR?

Hmmm - yes and no imho. Izzy was always paranoid about where the money was going and he found it unconscionable the amount of money they were losing because of Axl's behavior. The band's money was being used as Axl's piggybank for expensive videos, parties, fines, lawsuits from Axl being Axl - there was a huge concern about the band's finances. The tide was turning against Axl and the band's future post-St.Louis riot - I suspect that's definitely a factor in things coming to a head between Axl and Izzy. In the end, it's usually always about money. Follow the money and you'll find your answer. Izzy (and Duff to a lesser extent back then) weren't guys who were motivated by money and they certainly walked away from huge paydays in the 90's to stay in GnR - but relinquishing your stake in a band you founded is an entirely different situation because in '91 they were at the peak of their fame. 

TOM ZUTAUT: "The band was paying thousands of dollars in curfew violation fees. Izzy finally had it and went over to Axl’s house and told him that if he insisted on going on late, the late fees should be charged to him. That was it–Izzy was out of the band."

https://www.spin.com/1999/07/appetite-for-self-destruction-axl-rose/

 I think Niven knew Axl was a wild card and that the band's future was uncertain because of it. Niven and Izzy were very tight (Niven was Izzy's manager for the Ju Ju Hounds) - probably a very good likelihood that Niven was advising Izzy on what his options were and how to negotiate the exit severance package.

Quote

If Axls to be believed on this, Niven thought the band would fall apart and Slash would die of OD and therefore booked the UYI tour in a rush before it all ended? Niven cashed out at a tremendous mark down from his own GNR interests if Im not mistaken?

As far as Niven's payday from GnR :

Quote

 

Of Axl’s claim that Niven tried to personally benefit from the Geffen renegtiation, the manager claims that, rather than being fuelled by greed he “paid millions to get Axl out of my life”.

Niven claims that he had “a 17% commission in perpetuity [ie that] anything released, mastered or negotiated during the term of my contract was commissionable forever… Axl fired me in ’91. Now that means that the sales of Appetite, Lies and Use Your Illusions were all commissionable. Forever. To get Axl out of my life I sold those rights back to the band for $3.5 million. I did not want to deal with him again. Now that’s a decent chunk of change, but Geffen had only paid royalties on about five million albums total at that time. Imagine how much I had still coming. [Appetite For Destruction alone has sold 30 million copies.] The settlement I took is not nearly anywhere close to what I was due and had earned.”

In fact, Niven claims that Axl waited until the manager had renegotiated the deal before firing him.

“As regards his remark about me getting a payday from Geffen from renegotiations – let’s get some more facts straight. I have a right to defend myself against this guy. “Firstly, both the managers of Aerosmith and Whitesnake tried to get renegotiations on existing contracts around this time and failed. I think I am the only person to leverage a re-negotiation out of David Geffen on an existing contract… Their royalty rates were increased by 30%. There were other refinements. Better advances, etc. But since when I was fired I sold my rights back to the band I did not benefit from this re-negotiation.”

“Furthermore, I had their merch deal redone, and their sub-publishing deal redone. They were due. …I also got the first major headline tour in place. Then I was fired. Nice.”

http://chinese-democracy.blogspot.com/2009/01/alan-niven-responds-to-axls-homework.html

Quote

 

I am not motivated by material reward exclusively – ask Little Caesar – done things for them recently purely out of the respect I have for their grit and the love I have for their latest record. Ask Razer – who I am also helping out for free. Again this topic was more than adequately addressed in the interview. BUT – nota bene – I never charged back my expenses, for example, and I paid Goldstein’s salary while he was GnR’s tour manager … which was their bill to pay. That was over a million in 33 months. I also bought him a Mercedes. Axl said that “it was cool to be a part of that.” I paid for the car. Axl didn’t … but now you see how imperious his thought process is.

http://droppingtheneedle.com/alan-niven-one-time-only-answers-your-comments/

 

 

 

Regarding the illusion tour:

Alan Niven addresses this in one of his interviews, I believe w/ Mitch Lafon (can't seem to find it). The gist was basically that Axl approved it and was excited about doing the tour - the whole band was. There were also promotional/financial reasons to get on the road that would benefit the band and label (you have to remember, UYI was delayed by months from its original release date and they were losing momentum). 
 

Quote

Ill have to look up some references to Izzy fear of lawsuits and poor band finances when I have the chance. Although if he had to be bought out thats a whole other thing then.

As per Izzy:

When Axl finally sent his old school friend a contract to sign, it was the final straw. “This is right before I left - demoting me to some lower position. They were gonna cut my percentage of royalties down. I was like ‘Fuck you! I’ve been there from day one, why should I do that? Fuck you, I’ll go play the Whiskey’. That’s what happened. It was insane.”

https://www.loudersound.com/features/izzy-stradlin-in-too-deep

There's more great quotes in that interview about his perspective on money. If you go through Izzy interviews from around the time he's touring w/ Ju Ju Hounds, there's a few other quotes re: this "contract" he was presented by Axl iirc.

 

[scooby845]

1 hour ago, RONIN said:

https://www.spin.com/1999/07/appetite-for-self-destruction-axl-rose/

We rented a studio and we were jamming on this song called “Reckless Life” and Axl grabbed the microphone and started running up and down the walls, screaming like I’ve never heard in my life. From the first note, I knew this was gonna be it.

Wasn't this said for Shadow of your life a while ago? As it stands in Steven's book? Which one is it?

[Tucknroll]

14 hours ago, DeadSlash said:

So you're saying "it's all about the money."  Thanks for playing, Try again later.

It's 100 percent about the money. Always is. If it's fun then that's a bonus. Same with athletes and actors and asny other entertainment these days. Always about the money. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Tucknroll
More

[Blackstar]

21 hours ago, RONIN said:

re: Izzy's buyout:

1. Steven being ousted out of the band and all of the partners dividing his stake required an amended partnership agreement. They had to essentially buy out Steven from my understanding. Therefore the amended agreement more than likely required a departing member to be bought out. I don't think Izzy had a choice as far as retaining his stake.

The 1992 partnership agreement (which is the only such document that has circulated) had a clause about mandatory buyout of a leaving partner. Going by that we can only assume that there was a similar clause in the previous partnership agreement (the amended one after Steven's firing in 1990), so Izzy would have to sell his share. But we don't have access to that document and also it has to be taken into account that Adler's lawsuit was filed in 1991. From the known details of the Adler case (the video with Axl's testimony, in particular) it seems that there was a "legal hole" about Steven's buyout, essentially that they had fucked it up in that regard, so the clause in the 1992 agreement might have been a result of them realising that after the lawsuit was filed.

Quote

2. Izzy was facing a demotion in the band as per vintage interviews from Izzy and Axl.  Axl and Slash were essentially running GnR by '89 and Izzy had less and less influence in band affairs. But the contractual demotion appears to be Axl's retaliation to Izzy's demands that Axl show up on time for shows. Izzy wanted any fines the band was incurring because of Axl's behavior to be directly paid by Axl instead of by the band. Redhead decided to go for the nuclear option as a result.

 If Izzy was going to continue in GnR, he had to take a lower percentage cut than the other three partners. Slash backed Axl on this. I vaguely recall reading innuendo that Duff had major reservations about the whole thing but whatever the case, it appears the partners were in agreement about Izzy's demotion. I think the timeline for this is during Spring of '91 all the way till the day before Izzy quit in September. Him not showing up for the Don't Cry video was basically an FU to Axl. That being said, Izzy even showed up to a few rehearsals in December '91, right before the 2nd leg of the tour (presumably to work things out?). Point being, signs seem to point to him being essentially ousted from the band. Yes he had a lot of other reservations that influenced him, but I believe the trigger issue was Axl's throwing down the gauntlet w/ the contract. There was no way Izzy could have remained in GnR without accepting a downgraded position - he was facing an ultimatum and so he called Axl's bluff and walked.

The series of events sounds accurate. What puzzles me about the bolded, is that Izzy mentioned the contract only in 2001, ten years later, whereas in his 1992-93 interviews cited the other things (Axl's behaviour during the tour, Slash's and Duff's addictions, the fact that he didn't feel connected to the band anymore, etc.) as the reasons that led him to leave. This small inconsistency leads me to speculate that, towards the end, they either backed down from that contract (which most likely was the new prepared partnership agreement, which eventually, after Izzy left, became the amended 1992 agreement) or they made it more "acceptable" and less insulting for Izzy (for example that he would have the same percentage as Duff); there is a quote from Izzy, referring to his last talk with Axl, where he said "Axl tried to make it better for me" or something like that (I'll look for it).

Quote

* Duff and Slash retained their partnership stake because Axl withdrew from the agreement and formed his own band. Axl couldn't demote Slash to an employee without Duff's approval in the original partnership. If Duff had backed Axl, it's conceivable that Slash could have faced the same situation as Izzy in 1996 : getting bought out of his stake in the band or accepting a demotion.

5 hours ago, RONIN said:

It appears so. Since he owned the name legally, he didn't need to remain in the partnership technically to continue GnR Inc. Where it gets fuzzy is how exactly was he able to leave the partnership without avoiding the buy out clause. And - how (as per Marc Canter) were they able to resuscitate the original partnership for the reunion if Axl had already left.

There might be a plot twist here. I'd taken it as given that Axl formed a new partnership in 1995-96, but I've been wondering about the bolded too. Based on some indications I think it's highly possible that Axl never formed a new partnership eventually.

I've studied the 1992 partnership agreement (the version of it that was used as evidence in the 2004 Slash and Duff Vs Axl lawsuit and has circulated on the internet). In the clause about the band name, it says that leaving partners would have no rights whatsoever to the use of the name, and then there are the asterisks adding the exception for Axl. But in the clauses about the mandatory buyout of leaving partners, however, as well as about the rights to assets, profits from the back catalogue etc., there is no exception for Axl.

There is a detail in the 2016 BBC doc that I hadn't paid attention to when I first watched it (because I didn't know much about the contracts etc. then). Tom Zutaut, speaking about the partnership agreement, says that it was drawn up by the band's lawyer, Peter Paterno, in such way that, whereas it granted Axl the name (so that he would have the right to form a new band under the GnR name if expelled from the partnership or quit it), at the same time Axl wouldn't keep his position in the "board of directors" of the old partnership, hence he wouldn't have a "say so" or any rights to anything regarding the "old GnR". In other words, Axl would have to start from scratch. Zutaut says they (i.e. the label and the lawyers) believed that wording the contract in that way would prevent the band from breaking up, since, on one hand, Axl had what he wanted (the rights to the name), but on the other hand he would want to have control in the old band, so he would never use the name clause.

What we know from all sources is that Axl sent a legal notice in August 1995, saying that he intended to resign from the partnership and form a new one under the GnR name by the end of the same year (Axl said in 2008 that his lawyer "shat himself" when he made that move). Then a "trial period" followed, during which Slash left. But did Axl eventually form a new partnership?

If you look here

https://tinyurl.com/y9lpdl9y

EDIT: The page expires, so you can go here and type GUNS N ROSES in the search field:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4802:1j5gdv.1.1

there is no new partnership registered, either active or inactive. All three active ("live") trademark registrations are in the name of Guns N' Roses as a partnership composed by Axl, Slash, and Duff; i.e. the only active partnership that appears to have continuously existed and renewed till this day is the 1992 one. One of the three (about merch) was registered in 1996, still as a partnership of Axl, Slash and Duff.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:1j5gdv.2.16

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:1j5gdv.2.17

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4802:1j5gdv.2.5

(Press "TSDR" on the top left of the documents for more details)

So it's certain that Axl never left the 1992 partnership, and he probably never formed a new one. In the aforementioned Slash/Duff Vs Axl lawsuit, Axl's 1995 legal notice was presented as evidence, but no document of a new partnership was presented. We don't have details on Axl side's counter-claims. All we know is that the lawsuit was settled and things remained as they were.

And Slash and Duff never left the partnership either, even though they left the band. How did that happen? Maybe because Axl, being in the minority, couldn't force a buyout to them. That wasn't the case with Izzy (supposing that there was a similar clause in the amended partnership agreement after Steven's firing) because probably there was a majority.

12 hours ago, bikka said:

The contract said that both Axl and Slash could veto any decision. So Slash couldn't have been ousted by Axl - even with Duff's support (nor vice versa). That was a stalemate, my guess is that's why Axl formed a new band.

I've read the contract and it doesn't say such thing. What it says is that the decisions regarding the band would be made by Axl and Slash, and in the case of disagreement between them, Duff's vote would count. In the case of expelling a partner, though (or accepting a new partner) it says clearly that there had to be unanimity.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Blackstar

[bikka]

@Blackstar can you post the agreement you have found? I remember reading it in full a few years back and there was the veto part in there. I clearly remeber that because it instantly connected for me with the claims of Doug? Axl? about the need of putting in the name sign over in case one of Duff or Slash would OD or something (and their spouses turning into Yoko Onos, etc.). They clearly were afraid of a stalemate. The version I read had a majority vote but A & S could veto any decision. I can only find 2 pages of the agreement now, the rest seems to have disappeared from the net.

[Blackstar]

7 minutes ago, bikka said:

@Blackstar can you post the agreement you have found? I remember reading it in full a few years back and there was the veto part in there. I clearly remeber that because it instantly connected for me with the claims of Doug? Axl? about the need of putting in the name sign over in case one of Duff or Slash would OD or something (and their spouses turning into Yoko Onos, etc.). They clearly were afraid of a stalemate. The version I read had a majority vote but A & S could veto any decision. I can only find 2 pages of the agreement now, the rest seems to have disappeared from the net.

I can, if the mods allow it, because it originates from another forum, the former (?) owner of which shall not be named

Edited May 29, 2018 by Blackstar

[GNRmello77]

I am glad Izzy spoke about this in public now, it's still up to wondering what exactly happend and I'm sad it didn't go the way Izzy and all of us hoped. Also agree with what others said in this thread about all the useless shit and entourage they spend money on! Priorities eh? 

This tour has been a huge succes and I enjoyed every second of the gig I saw but yes Izzy is a miss in this!

[RONIN]

8 hours ago, soon said:

Oh 50k? Yeah, that's rock star pay. The 10k that I was speaking to, not so much imo. Especially if Izzy would be covering his own travel expenses like Adler or any other associated costs. But if he were full time, traveling as a part of the band and covered by the bands insurance, etc that would be pay worthy of the one and only Mr Stradlin'!

The rumor is that Izzy was going to be paid around 40k for 4 shows. So 10k/show. Who knows what the real figures were but all the rumors from January right up till Coachella basically spelled out that Izzy was getting lowballed big time. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Add in Gilby sitting out the reunion and it makes you wonder what kind of financial arrangement they offered these guys.

[soon]

3 minutes ago, RONIN said:

The rumor is that Izzy was going to be paid around 40k for 4 shows. So 10k/show. Who knows what the real figures were but all the rumors from January right up till Coachella basically spelled out that Izzy was getting lowballed big time. Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. Add in Gilby sitting out the reunion and it makes you wonder what kind of financial arrangement they offered these guys.

For sure, I was speaking to 10k per show which is insulting. Just open to the poster who was suggesting a different figure and saying it would be more in the ball park. I believe he was low balled but was open to new info should it arise.

I didnt know for sure about covering cost, but figured that much. Ive said the same about Gilbys choice myself.

I think its you who've mentioned about them lowballing possibly to appease LN or Coachelas request for AFD5 but then knowing Izzy wouldnt take it, which is what the band actually preferred? Who ever said that, I think its a very smart question to ask. 

[RONIN]

22 minutes ago, soon said:

I think its you who've mentioned about them lowballing possibly to appease LN or Coachelas request for AFD5 but then knowing Izzy wouldnt take it, which is what the band actually preferred? Who ever said that, I think its a very smart question to ask. 

Yeah, good memory. That was one theory I had kicked around earlier here. From a marketing pov, it's easier and less shady for Live Nation to advertise a reunion if you can get all the original members participating - especially given the huge financial stake they had in this tour performing well.  So ostensibly, that could have been a stipulation from them - for Izzy and Steven to be approached and potentially included. I could see Axl and co saying "We're not opposed to AFD 5 but want Izzy/Steven on our terms and only for a limited # of guest spots. If they accept terms, fine. If not, we're going to move forward." 

The plan may have initially been for Fortus/Ferrer to sit out a few songs so they could bring out Izzy and Steven at a few select shows (maybe the markets that weren't selling so hot). With this group of guys, anything is possible I imagine.

What is very unlikely given what we know of the tour and Axl/Slash/Duff's behavior since the reunion was announced, is them being open to having Izzy and Steven being a permanent fixture of NITL. It's really hard to sell that Fortus/Ferrer were not always part of NITL from the second the "reunion" was announced.

I think sometimes it just is as obvious as it appears to be. 

Edited May 29, 2018 by RONIN

[Sosso]

@RONINEven Pitman was supposed to be a part of the NITL line-up. I think that Axl intented to fill the open spots of the last line-up with Slash and Duff.

The only person who wasn't invited since the very beginning was Melissa.

 

[RONIN]

1 minute ago, Sosso said:

@RONINEven Pitman was supposed to be a part of the NITL line-up. I think that Axl intented to fill the open spots of the last line-up with Slash and Duff.

The only person who wasn't invited since the very beginning was Melissa.

 

Good point. And I'm glad you brought up Pitman.

Maybe I'm not remembering this right, but didn't he complain that the partners were being cheap and not giving him a raise for the tour? 

[Tucknroll]

Funny how Steven is the only one who doesn't seem to care about the money on this tour

[Modano09]

7 hours ago, tremolo said:

But the initial offer didn’t contemplate a massive world tour. Wasn’t it just a few dates? So commiting to that would have been fine and nothing too demanding.

And maybe Izzy was up for that but wasn't up for anything beyond that, while they were considering more beyond that, and he decided he'd do a few shows for X amount of money, but if they decided to tour like they are now it'd cost XXXX amount of money, and that's why he says it's about money and they imply he changes his mind. There's probably truth in what they're all saying. 

[shotsfired cro]

regardless what they intended what we have as result is a comedy.

Given you are coming back as 'GUNS N ROSES' reunion tour the guys that should have came back was the original line up, followed by their 90's replacements.

Now we have a situation all former memebers wanted in, but for some reason we have a hybrid old/new which results in a fuckin comedy, useless keyboard player and an awful drummer.

[WhazUp]

47 minutes ago, shotsfired cro said:

regardless what they intended what we have as result is a comedy.

I don't think they would get nearly as much sales on this tour since 2016 if people were buying tickets for a "comedy" as you put it.  As much as some fans on a GNR forum want certain members back in (I do too, don't get me wrong), they are doing just fine in that sense.  

Edited May 30, 2018 by WhazUp

[DeadSlash]

Does anyone in their right mind think that if Izzy had agreed to whatever terms he was offered that he would not have left by now?  

Does anyone think that pushing 60 year old Izzy developed a magic taste for touring that he never had before?

 

Let's all be honest, if he signed on, he would be gone by now.

[Tadsy]

People on here think they have the answers or the real story, but we dont know what was offered by axl/tb towards izzy, we dont know what izzy offered either...

all we know is, it didnt work out.... beating it like a dead horse on here is getting really old..

Id love AFD 5... hell id settle for an Illusion line up over what we have now... but its not gonna happen  in the forseeable future.. so no point banging on about it. and... if u dont wanna see the show, then thats cool too.

 

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by Tadsy

[double talkin jive mfkr]

13 hours ago, Tadsy said:

People on here think they have the answers or the real story, but we dont know what was offered by axl/tb towards izzy, we dont know what izzy offered either...

all we know is, it didnt work out.... beating it like a dead horse on here is getting really old..

Id love AFD 5... hell id settle for an Illusion line up over what we have now... but its not gonna happen  in the forseeable future.. so no point banging on about it. and... if u dont wanna see the show, then thats cool too.

 

 

i dont think its cool not to want to see what was once your favorite band and to have this current incarnation set as it is, profiting from the classic era only not to provide the real chemistry of what GNR truly was as the end product for NITL hasn't been that good IMO - there have been some good Axl moments with slash etc but thats about it 

i hate to go on and on about it all 

they should know that the onus is on them to provide a bit more of that classic value rather than the extension of NU while warping the classic brand and product as a result

[StrangerInThisTown]

It is indeed actually a pretty funny situation how guys who have been in the band 20 years like Pittman are being fired over money, Izzy thing was a money problem, and here's the lone most passionate guy Steven who'd do it for free and they don't want none of him. #onlyingnrworld

[RONIN]

On 5/29/2018 at 11:42 AM, scooby845 said:

We rented a studio and we were jamming on this song called “Reckless Life” and Axl grabbed the microphone and started running up and down the walls, screaming like I’ve never heard in my life. From the first note, I knew this was gonna be it.

Wasn't this said for Shadow of your life a while ago? As it stands in Steven's book? Which one is it?

Yep. I always assumed it was Shadow of your love....

[DeadSlash]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 2:42 PM, scooby845 said:

We rented a studio and we were jamming on this song called “Reckless Life” and Axl grabbed the microphone and started running up and down the walls, screaming like I’ve never heard in my life. From the first note, I knew this was gonna be it.

Wasn't this said for Shadow of your life a while ago? As it stands in Steven's book? Which one is it?

The quote, or one very similar from Steven has been used with SOYL as the song they were playing.  It's possible that Steven has misremembered and used both songs in that quote, he has done some pretty hard livin' and it's possible some memories are murky.

[RussTCB]

OK... I might be opening a can of worms here, but fuck it-

I have to assume the current GNR pay scale percentage goes like this:

Axl = highest cut

Slash & Duff = less than Axl but more than Dizzy

Dizzy = less than Slash & Duff, but more than 4tus, Frank & Melissa

4tus, Frank & Melissa = lowest cut

So I'm curious, where would everyone think Izzy should fit in assuming of course he replaced 4tus altogether? 

Would most people think he, Slash & Duff should get an equal but lesser cut than Axl or should the 4 AFD members all receive an equal cut with the 3 supporting members splitting the rest? 

Hopefully my question makes sense as I'm genuinely interested in what everyone thinks. 

 

[shotsfired cro]

5 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

OK... I might be opening a can of worms here, but fuck it-

I have to assume the current GNR pay scale percentage goes like this:

Axl = highest cut

Slash & Duff = less than Axl but more than Dizzy

Dizzy = less than Slash & Duff, but more than 4tus, Frank & Melissa

4tus, Frank & Melissa = lowest cut

So I'm curious, where would everyone think Izzy should fit in assuming of course he replaced 4tus altogether? 

Would most people think he, Slash & Duff should get an equal but lesser cut than Axl or should the 4 AFD members all receive an equal cut with the 3 supporting members splitting the rest? 

Hopefully my question makes sense as I'm genuinely interested in what everyone thinks. 

 

Fartus/Mel/Frank - monthly pay roll.  probably 10k or something.