Article About Izzy/Guns on the Wall Street Journal

[RussTCB]

1 minute ago, shotsfired cro said:

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

OK, but what about the rest of the question? 

[IncitingChaos]

Rumor was Axl got 50% and Duff and Slash got 25%. That was on the assumption that Axl has to pay for his people, Frank, Dizzy, Fortus, Melissa and entourage out of that 50%. It was the easiest way to say “ok all this extra stuff that pissed us off last time is now on your dime.” And Slash and Duff would just get their 25% and be good. 

So where Izzy fits in? That’s on Axl. If Axl wants Izzy in it’s coming out of TB’s and his cut. So assuming Izzy play a full tour schedule I’d say Izzy’s worth was around 10% of the pie and was likely offered way short of that getting the same as Fortus. 

[beautifulanddamned]

Axl and Slash deserve more than anyone else, but Izzy deserved what Duff was getting. I honestly don't believe that Duff has any more name recognition than Izzy.  

[DieselDaisy]

An educated guess but Rose, Slash and Duff will each be taking a percentage of the box office whilst the other four will be on Rose's salary. There should be a big gulf in money between the three on the one hand and the salaried members on the other. 

As to my own opinion if Stradlin returned, Stradlin should receive equal (with Rose, Slash and Duff).

Edited May 31, 2018 by DieselDaisy

[IncitingChaos]

Oh there’s also the rumor that Slash backed out last second causing the Kimmel cancellation because he wanted a bigger cut. Duff offered part of his cut to keep Slash on board but somehow they came to an agreement a few days later. 

Just a rumor but makes for a good story. Izzy would have been a big cut in the money. But there was enough money going around to get him on tour. Sad they didn’t prioritize him like they did Duff and Slash. 

[RONIN]

On 5/29/2018 at 1:57 PM, Blackstar said:

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.

Agreed, I always assumed that they somehow overlooked buying out Steven's stake in the partnership until he filed a lawsuit. Was this done intentionally via Doug Goldstein or do you think the lawyers dropped the ball? Seems like a pretty major legal mistake to make unless they thought they could get away with it. 

Quote

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).

I remember that interview you're referring to. It's a ju ju hounds era interview. I think the next line that Izzy said after "he was trying to make it good for me too" was something like "I slept on it and the very next day I quit the band". What seems clear from that line is - he was given something to consider which would change his status in the band in some official way and he rejected it. An indirect confirmation of this so called contract.  

I don't think they backed down from the contract because if they did, it wouldn't have made sense for Izzy to quit in the way he did. It sounds to me from reading the sequence of events from all sides that Izzy was pushed to the brink of his patience by the recording and touring insanity of Illusions. Fed up, he brings up his issues and instead of the band addressing them, Axl presented the first contract to Izzy which was much harsher. That's where you get Axl/Slash publicly complaining about Izzy standing around and not contributing. I think what happens next is Axl's shock at realizing that Izzy was serious about quitting. My guess from here is that (as you said), he then presents a revised contract that keeps the demotion in place but also excuses Izzy from being obligated to do any business/promo related stuff for the band - in essence, tour with us and take a slightly reduced percentage and you're free to go ride your motorcycle around the country (which in all fairness is where Izzy's heart probably was anyway).

I suspect Izzy was given a "silent" partner type of contract w/ a pay cut where he would have to legally relinquish his veto power in creative/business affairs. Something in that revised contract must have been unpalatable for Izzy though going by his 2010 interview. How deep was this royalties cut I wonder? Or was Izzy's problem that he was going to be legally lower on the totem pole than the other members - i.e. a salaried employee like what Duff was in 1996/97 without creative/business influence. 

Quote

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.

Fantastic find. How fascinating. A prescient move on Zoo and the label's part knowing Axl. He still found a way around this somehow. 

 

Quote

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?

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.

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.

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.

That is seriously bizarre.The legal maneuvering with this band is mind boggling. So where does this leave us?

If Axl had control of the name and could legally start a new band back in '95 (as per Slash interviews) - but he still had to remain in the old partnership to be able to have access to GnR's IP - and he couldn't force a buyout of any of the other partners - how do Slash and Duff quit but remain active members of the partnership? The most obvious answer as per Slash is that they (Sluff) didn't choose to be part of a new band with Axl (presumably the '95 contract). Nu Guns has to be a legally registered entity separate from the old partnership for Axl to operate it without any interference from the partners. That's what we've always assumed to be the case (which may not be the case apparently if I've understood your post correctly). And this begs the question, what was Duff's status in 1996/97? Salaried employee of Nu Guns like the other hired gunners or...? 

@JustanUrchin or any legal scholars want to weigh in? 

and we have this from Chinese Whispers:

Quote

The Resignation Letter, 1995.

"As far as contractually - and this is a discrepancy between myself and our attorneys - apparently Axl owns [the GNR name]. Now I should have known that, because I could have then said: "Okay." I don't give a fuck who owns the name. But I find out later that Axl legally owns it - apparently." (Slash, Metal Hammer, 11/95)

"I didn't really know what else to do after Axl sent a letter on August 31, 1995, saying that he was leaving the band and taking the name with him under the terms of the new contract. After that we tried to put it back together." (Slash, Autobiography)

"I’d left and formed a new partnership, which was only an effort to salvage Guns not steal it." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)

"This will serve as notice [that] effective [...] Decemeber 30th 1995, I will withdraw from the partnership. [...] I intend to use the name 'Guns N' Roses' in connection with a new group which I will form." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)

As the contract negotiations dragged on, Slash silently fell out of Guns N' Roses.

"He (Slash) has been 'OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY' outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995." (Axl, 10/30/96)

"I think the last words, basically, it was just, 'I'm done'... And it wasn’t even me necessarily leaving the band, it was not continuing on with the new band that Axl put together that he was now at the helm of, which was the new Guns N’ Roses. I was given a contract to basically join his new band, and it took about 24 hours before I decided, 'I think this is the end of the line.'" (Slash, Piers Morgan Tonight, 05/24/12)

"I was offered a lot of money to stay in Guns N' Roses, and I was very honored by that." (Duff, 1999)

In November, Izzy was formally out of the GNR partnership in all its forms.

"When I left the group my lawyers negotiated a deal which said that I was to be given a certain percent on everything the group earned until November 1997." (Izzy, Expressen, 03/20/98)

On May Day '98, Geffen Records officially acknowledged the departure of Slash and Duff from GNR.

"Since 1992, [GNR and Geffen Records] have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998.

One of these amendments [...] confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as "Leaving Members" under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album. Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band.

In the other May 1, 1998 amendment, [...] Axl Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return." (Greatest Hits lawsuit document)

"The label paid Mr. Rose $1 million to press on with the album, with the unusual promise of another $1 million if he delivered "Chinese Democracy" by March 1 of the following year." (New York Times, 03/06/05)

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by RONIN

[RONIN]

4 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

Oh there’s also the rumor that Slash backed out last second causing the Kimmel cancellation because he wanted a bigger cut. Duff offered part of his cut to keep Slash on board but somehow they came to an agreement a few days later. 

Just a rumor but makes for a good story. Izzy would have been a big cut in the money. But there was enough money going around to get him on tour. Sad they didn’t prioritize him like they did Duff and Slash. 

A rumor that sounds very plausible. Even from around early 2016, the rumors were that Duff was taking a lower percentage than Slash because Slash was cleaned out from his divorce. That reason may be unlikely but Slash angling for a higher payday because he knew how crucial he was to this reunion? Very likely. I can't imagine Duff getting the same percentage as Slash given how they've dealt with Izzy. 

[IncitingChaos]

The good news for GNR’s camp is in 5 years from now when the reunion thing has run its course for $500 million+ They can reconvene with Izzy and Adler and charge astronomical prices for a true AFD reunion with a cut down stage and pay everyone a fair share and make a ton of money again. These guys are set...Bc of one album 

[Blackstar]

On 5/29/2018 at 9:42 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?

It's not in his book, it's from here:

https://www.musicradar.com/news/drums/interview-steven-adler-matt-sorum-the-guns-n-roses-story-549356

In the book he doesn't talk about either song along these lines.

Recently, when he said it isn't him playing on the "new" SOYL, he said that it's basically the same song as Reckless, so that kind of explains it.

[RONIN]

6 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

The good news for GNR’s camp is in 5 years from now when the reunion thing has run its course for $500 million+ They can reconvene with Izzy and Adler and charge astronomical prices for a true AFD reunion with a cut down stage and pay everyone a fair share and make a ton of money again. These guys are set...Bc of one album 

Will never happen with Axl and Slash running the show.

[Modano09]

7 hours ago, double talkin jive mfkr said:

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

How are they profiting from the classic era while not proving enough of classic value? 

[beautifulanddamned]

I'm not altogether sure that the Appetite 5 together on tour would be any more profitable then another round of the NITL line-up. It's the holy grail for most of us, but the average person buying stadium tickets doesn't care who the drummer and rhythm guitarist are. 

[MaskingApathy]

I think there was a rumor a while back that Duff was 20%, Slash 30% (Duff gave him 5% of his cut) and Axl 50% with the rest of the hired hands paid out of his share. Tbh the person getting screwed the most is Dizzy- he's been around for so long and still getting hired hand pay. Not saying he should be made a partner or anything but you would think that he would be a little higher up than 4tus, Frank and Melissa.

[Blackstar]

4 hours ago, RONIN said:

That is seriously bizarre.The legal maneuvering with this band is mind boggling. So where does this leave us?

If Axl had control of the name and could legally start a new band back in '95 (as per Slash interviews) - but he still had to remain in the old partnership to be able to have access to GnR's IP - and he couldn't force a buyout of any of the other partners - how do Slash and Duff quit but remain active members of the partnership? The most obvious answer as per Slash is that they (Sluff) didn't choose to be part of a new band with Axl (presumably the '95 contract). Nu Guns has to be a legally registered entity separate from the old partnership for Axl to operate it without any interference from the partners. That's what we've always assumed to be the case (which may not be the case apparently if I've understood your post correctly). And this begs the question, what was Duff's status in 1996/97? Salaried employee of Nu Guns like the other hired gunners or...? 

Axl could legally start a new band only if he quit the partnership (or if he was fired). Or if the other partners left.

In my opinion, Axl's resignation letter in 1995 was just a legal bluff, probably to drag Slash and Duff into an amendment of the 1992 agreement (for example, one that would give Axl more veto power). Slash and Duff would have to either call the bluff risking that Axl might actually leave and take the name with him (so the band would break up) or sit, appoint lawyers etc. and negotiate, which they did, and that led, with the mediation of the label, to the so called "trial period".

What is certain, is that Axl never left the old partnership eventually. In the link I posted with the trademark registrations, the applications for renewal of the use of the GnR trademark during the NuGnR era were signed only by Axl as "partner" but always in reference to the initial registration under the 1992 partnership.

And I think Duff left being member of that partnership. There's a quote from him (I don't have time to look for it now) when talking about Matt's firing, where he told Axl that he couldn't make that decision by himself because they had to vote (so they were partners).

It was a weird situation for sure. It looks like the band GnR and the business/partnership GnR were two different beasts between 1997-2015. From my understanding there was a lot of litigation during the NuGnR era because of that. I don't remember if it's in Chinese Whispers or elsewhere, but at some point in 1998-99 there was an arrangement with the label which released Slash and Duff from their obligation to record an album with Axl as GnR, which means that they were still  considered members.

Slash and Duff, as partners, interfered with Axl when it came to licensing and whatever else had to do with the back catalogue, but had no reason to interfere with what Axl did with the band, whom he hired etc., as none of the two parties, Axl and them, wished to reform as a band.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Blackstar

[IncitingChaos]

41 minutes ago, beautifulanddamned said:

I'm not altogether sure that the Appetite 5 together on tour would be any more profitable then another round of the NITL line-up. It's the holy grail for most of us, but the average person buying stadium tickets doesn't care who the drummer and rhythm guitarist are. 

I don’t think it will be more profitable but it would be another source of high income in 5 years. They could basically recreate a world tour with far less stage and less people and play arenas that make them just as much profit. 

Plus I think it’s underestimated how many people would care about a full reunion. It would still be huge 

[killuridols]

25 minutes ago, IncitingChaos said:

Plus I think it’s underestimated how many people would care about a full reunion. It would still be huge 

Totally this. A full reunion would be massive, in my opinion. 

Who wouldn't want to see the original five?

It's out of question.

[Modano09]

33 minutes ago, killuridols said:

Totally this. A full reunion would be massive, in my opinion. 

Who wouldn't want to see the original five?

It's out of question.

Hardcore fans would like to see it, the majority of the people that bought tickets the last two years wouldn't care or notice the difference. 

[Ace Nova]

4 hours ago, shotsfired cro said:

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

lol

I agree they're probably on some sort of payroll but zero chance it's as low as 10k a month.  10k a month is basically upper middle class in the U.S.   

At least 10k per show, imo. (Most likely more). 

Edited May 31, 2018 by Kasanova King

[Derick]

2 hours ago, Modano09 said:

Hardcore fans would like to see it, the majority of the people that bought tickets the last two years wouldn't care or notice the difference. 

Yep! Besides that,IMO, the headline of this tour is Slash and Axl playing together again after 20+ years. I dare to say 100% of the audience is on this matter. People are paying that kind of money to see the combo Axl/Slash on the same stage. And as you said, AFD5 tour would be awesome to the hardcore ones but I doubt that would be much more successful than NITL.

[DeadSlash]

If he is Mr. Invisible, how would you know for sure he is missing?  Just saying.

[SoulMonster]

48 minutes ago, DeadSlash said:

If he is Mr. Invisible, how would you know for sure he is missing?  Just saying.

Yeah, he is up there at stage, playing with them. You can't see him, though, because he is invisible. And you can't hear him, though, because they've turned his amp down.

[DeadSlash]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yeah, he is up there at stage, playing with them. You can't see him, though, because he is invisible. And you can't hear him, though, because they've turned his amp down.

It would not be the first time they did it!

[Natty]

7 hours ago, IncitingChaos said:

The good news for GNR’s camp is in 5 years from now when the reunion thing has run its course for $500 million+ They can reconvene with Izzy and Adler and charge astronomical prices for a true AFD reunion with a cut down stage and pay everyone a fair share and make a ton of money again. These guys are set...Bc of one album 

you dont know if all 5 of them will be alive in 5 years... so for me it s stupid to wait and not make it happen now.

and yeah I think slash was not really broke but nearly broke..due to the divorce. In US you get huge amounts of money in case of divorce and no contract if your partner is a millionaire..

they should do this afd 5 as soon as possible and split it equally. The big 3 have earned enough in 2016 2017 and 2018. End of 2019 they could do a full reunion and split money. would hurt no one. hired hands get a 15 k and thats it. 

adapt the show to a normal length so Izzy doesn t get upset too soon  with being massive stadiums and massive duration of a single show.. just my thoughts.

[bikka]

8 hours ago, beautifulanddamned said:

Axl and Slash deserve more than anyone else, but Izzy deserved what Duff was getting. I honestly don't believe that Duff has any more name recognition than Izzy.  

This. How on earth did Duff get to this elevated status? Just because he sucks up to everyone? Mr. Diplomat? Imo, he's spineless, just like Slash called him way back and that's why he manages to get his $

[RazorGunner]

8 hours ago, beautifulanddamned said:

I'm not altogether sure that the Appetite 5 together on tour would be any more profitable then another round of the NITL line-up. It's the holy grail for most of us, but the average person buying stadium tickets doesn't care who the drummer and rhythm guitarist are. 

Exactly right, and all most promoters care about is Axl/Slash and to a lesser degree Duff.