Liva Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 15 minutes ago, Spuffy78 said: Same reason George Carlin did back in the day he needed the money. Axl's got a bunch of yes men around him. There was an article he had a property in Vancouver and he never bothered to ever live there. Looks like he sold that a while ago. Looks like an owner bought it in 2004 for 3m and sold it in 2007 for 18.2m after building it out, prior to that it was an empty concrete shell. It lists prior owners as Canucks Hockey player Pavel Bure, and before that Axl Rose. Building was constructed in 1993 although when and how much Axl bought and sold it for is unknown. Axl also rented a NYC apt in 2011 and 2012 which he never lived in, he did not renew the lease in 2013 for a 3rd year. I think what happens with a lot of these famous people is they have other people "managing" their money and paying all their bills, so these guys spend and probably don't really know how much they have or what income vs expense ratio is, as long as the credit card swipes they continue on their way. A musician that is touring 8+ months a year can't have bills mailed to their house, all hell would break loose, so it goes to their money manager that just pays the bills. Most of the time, these people just approve whatever. This practice is also how you see all the time musicians and actors suing managers alleging they stole millions from the artist, its cause the artist assumes its all being handled until the well is dry, which is when everyone on the payroll bails and then you know you have a problem. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAYLOR Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 i dont know much about usa and there rules but he had no prenup she apparenly was like his personal asstance aswell from what a read she got half of everthing all sales he made from his solo carerer and loads more and so much for the kids who one is like 17 and the other is like 19 or so wasnt a very wise move though marriage with no pre nup but hey thats there life but if he paid her millions and she got half of stuff could be the reason he is so skint or was who knows she took him to the cleaners,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liva Posted February 16, 2021 Share Posted February 16, 2021 52 minutes ago, TAYLOR said: i dont know much about usa and there rules but he had no prenup she apparenly was like his personal asstance aswell from what a read she got half of everthing all sales he made from his solo carerer and loads more and so much for the kids who one is like 17 and the other is like 19 or so wasnt a very wise move though marriage with no pre nup but hey thats there life but if he paid her millions and she got half of stuff could be the reason he is so skint or was who knows she took him to the cleaners,,, but did she? He filed in 2014, so any earnings after that she would have no claim to. If the reports about her lawyers claims are correct and Slash made 45m in 2017, then he most likely made similar amounts in 2018 and 2019 as it was all touring income. 135m top line, left with around 75m after tax. If that is invested as a low rate of 5% (he can get much higher, this is low) it would throw off 3.75m per year in just INTEREST. He pays Perla 1.2m, and he is left with 2.55m per year in INTEREST to do as he pleases...all the while the 75m principal isn't even being touched. So who got the better of that deal is really behind the scenes with the parties involved only knowing that. Not sure how this turned from an Axl was broke thread into a Slash is broke one. If Slash had $200 or $200 Million in the bank, if Axl called to reconcile GNR, Slash was coming back either way, I have always felt that to be the case unless Slash's role would be part of a 3-4 guitar circus, then I don't think he would come back. Unless people have convinced themselves that Slash's divorce left him broke and Axl felt bad for him and therefore let him back in the band so he could make money and they go on a multi year tour. I believe Axl admitted to asking Fernando to reach out to Slash or to get him Slash's number, this whole thing was started by Axl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAYLOR Posted February 17, 2021 Share Posted February 17, 2021 20 hours ago, Liva said: but did she? He filed in 2014, so any earnings after that she would have no claim to. If the reports about her lawyers claims are correct and Slash made 45m in 2017, then he most likely made similar amounts in 2018 and 2019 as it was all touring income. 135m top line, left with around 75m after tax. If that is invested as a low rate of 5% (he can get much higher, this is low) it would throw off 3.75m per year in just INTEREST. He pays Perla 1.2m, and he is left with 2.55m per year in INTEREST to do as he pleases...all the while the 75m principal isn't even being touched. So who got the better of that deal is really behind the scenes with the parties involved only knowing that. Not sure how this turned from an Axl was broke thread into a Slash is broke one. If Slash had $200 or $200 Million in the bank, if Axl called to reconcile GNR, Slash was coming back either way, I have always felt that to be the case unless Slash's role would be part of a 3-4 guitar circus, then I don't think he would come back. Unless people have convinced themselves that Slash's divorce left him broke and Axl felt bad for him and therefore let him back in the band so he could make money and they go on a multi year tour. I believe Axl admitted to asking Fernando to reach out to Slash or to get him Slash's number, this whole thing was started by Axl. Yeah fair point it was in a interview she did but yeah anything before the divorce she apparently got half off but who knows suppose it’s really between them. I think no one knows the real reason but they are back together so it can only be good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryfon Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 Album sales are a good bragging point but musicians make 90% of their cash on ticket sales and merchandise. Wanna buy a GN'R scented candle? How about a $1000 box set of old songs? Why release new music when the band gets table scraps as payment and it's online within an hour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allwaystired Posted February 25, 2021 Share Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Gryfon said: Album sales are a good bragging point but musicians make 90% of their cash on ticket sales and merchandise. Wanna buy a GN'R scented candle? How about a $1000 box set of old songs? Why release new music when the band gets table scraps as payment and it's online within an hour. That's been discussed often on here. The most common reason is that any and every other band do it. Then someone mentions a band that doesn't. Then someone mentions they actually do really. Then the conversation goes along the route of 'making new music is what a band does'. There might be a rabbit hole of discussion about the amount of money bands do actually make from new material too, and how it gives them a boost in terms of attention anyway which helps them sell more tickets. It'll probably go on for about five pages, then people will come to a general shared opinion that it's all irrelevant anyway, as GNR just don't seem to want to do anything new and no-one knows why. Hope that helps! Edited February 25, 2021 by allwaystired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liva Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 49 minutes ago, allwaystired said: That's been discussed often on here. The most common reason is that any and every other band do it. Then someone mentions a band that doesn't. Then someone mentions they actually do really. Then the conversation goes along the route of 'making new music is what a band does'. There might be a rabbit hole of discussion about the amount of money bands do actually make from new material too, and how it gives them a boost in terms of attention anyway which helps them sell more tickets. It'll probably go on for about five pages, then people will come to a general shared opinion that it's all irrelevant anyway, as GNR just don't seem to want to do anything new and no-one knows why. Hope that helps! I would guess 95% of the attendees for all tours since 2001 have been people that want to hear the classics, songs that were released from 1987 - 1991. Add to the fact they more or less went dark from 1993 - 2006, discounting the 2001-2002 shows which there were only a few ( I was at Boston 2002). They have consistently sold out or nearly sold out venues based on a combination of their back catalogue and the mystique of Axl, as well as the mystique following the band knowing all members are still alive, therefore a reunion one day was possible. The current formula is good media coverage and selling out shows. If they release a new album, I don't think they can satisfy anyone as people always revert to a version of "its not as good as the past". So a new album will be major hype and if it actually turns out to not be great, negative press will ensue. They lost it, they suck, they should retire yada yada. That would only hurt ticket sales for shows if the average person hears negative press. Its a calculation they have to make and while I would personally LOVE new music from them, I don't see them putting any out until they have to in order to sell out shows. Now if the band never broke up they probably could have toured after the Live Era release but that most likely would have been the end of the publics interest and final tour. If the band was still together and CD was released 15 years later, the band would've been over in my opinion. It all goes back to making money, GNR is a big machine that needs to be fed a lot of $$$ to keep going, they aren't going to jeopardize the formula until they need to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allwaystired Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 36 minutes ago, Liva said: I would guess 95% of the attendees for all tours since 2001 have been people that want to hear the classics, songs that were released from 1987 - 1991. Add to the fact they more or less went dark from 1993 - 2006, discounting the 2001-2002 shows which there were only a few ( I was at Boston 2002). They have consistently sold out or nearly sold out venues based on a combination of their back catalogue and the mystique of Axl, as well as the mystique following the band knowing all members are still alive, therefore a reunion one day was possible. The current formula is good media coverage and selling out shows. If they release a new album, I don't think they can satisfy anyone as people always revert to a version of "its not as good as the past". So a new album will be major hype and if it actually turns out to not be great, negative press will ensue. They lost it, they suck, they should retire yada yada. That would only hurt ticket sales for shows if the average person hears negative press. Its a calculation they have to make and while I would personally LOVE new music from them, I don't see them putting any out until they have to in order to sell out shows. Now if the band never broke up they probably could have toured after the Live Era release but that most likely would have been the end of the publics interest and final tour. If the band was still together and CD was released 15 years later, the band would've been over in my opinion. It all goes back to making money, GNR is a big machine that needs to be fed a lot of $$$ to keep going, they aren't going to jeopardize the formula until they need to. Yeah that covers all bases, as well as what I posted above. Every single aspect of this line of conversation around 'they don't need to release new material' has been debated and debated. My previous post was meant to be a bit sarcastic really, along the lines of 'here's the way the conversation will go, the things that will be said and how it will eventually wind-down' rather than my own thoughts. I think most people are probably pretty weary of trying to find reasons for why GNR never release music now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liva Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 5 minutes ago, allwaystired said: Yeah that covers all bases, as well as what I posted above. Every single aspect of this line of conversation around 'they don't need to release new material' has been debated and debated. My previous post was meant to be a bit sarcastic really, along the lines of 'here's the way the conversation will go, the things that will be said and how it will eventually wind-down' rather than my own thoughts. I think most people are probably pretty weary of trying to find reasons for why GNR never release music now. I did see Slash recording/demo'ing with SMKC a few days ago according to Meegans IG. So his creative outlet is probably SMKC, GNR is play massive shows, have 20,000+ people screaming for most of the set and singing along, and sets him up financially. I don't know if Duff is doing side projects still, I saw he was releasing something from his band prior to GNR, thing it was recorded in 1982. Unfortunately seems like some of the band is doing other things, which most likely means, until GNR gets back to touring their attention is elsewhere. I still am convinced there is some issue with new music/ownership/release rights etc which is holding new music back. They released a whole bunch of early era stuff with the AFD box set, those songs probably are not under whatever contract Axl got himself/GNR into with the ChiDem era. They could've just as easily released new songs, but they didn't. Something is there, there has to be someone in the business/works at the label on here that knows something along these lines. I don't believe Axl is actually just tinkering with songs endlessly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 8, 2021 Share Posted April 8, 2021 On 2/1/2021 at 10:39 PM, Liva said: People that think rockstars are automatically rich and set for life don't realize the vast majority of rockstars go broke, and when you are making money in the late 80's/early 90's expenses rise to income. After that, when you aren't touring, and spending money recording for decades, the well gets drained. Axl might mentally not want to do things for money, but at some point, bills need to be paid and banks and vendors don't give extensions on due dates to save a persons feelings on musical integrity. Axl bought his Malibu house around 1990, it is public record on mortgages taken out against properties. For his house. 3/1/2002 - $2,000,000 6/5/2003 - $2,400,000 9/29/2005 - $3,510,000 5/31/2006 - $4,320,000 7/5/2006 - $500,000 2/23/2007 - $5,525,000 4/23/2007 - $500,000 So his first mortgage was in 2002 and the rest as they increased are most likely refinancing the current mortgage and taking a little more out. As you can see, from 2002 - 2007, he was constantly looking for money. He could have paid off all mortgages in 2008 or 2010 or 2016 or still have them, don't know that, but everyone that thinks he has millions just laying around back during that period would be mistaken, in my opinion, most people wouldn't mortgage their house to as close to 100% of its value if they had no money issues. In 2007, his $6,025,000 mortgage would've been around 45k PER MONTH plus another 5k PER MONTH for real estate taxes, then add upkeep and other bills, it adds up real quick. Prob 800-1m a year for him to just exist. In 2010, Bentley sued him for 74k for exceeding mileage by 42,000 and damage to the leased 2006 car which was also returned past lease ending date. Now if you have millions laying around, does this really happen, I doubt it. Pitman sued Axl because he was owed 125k for over a years worth of work presumably for the 2009-2010 time period, pitman claimed Axl wrote him a promissory note with a payment deadline of Oct 2012. Pitman sued and it was settled in 2016. Again, if you are loaded, does this stuff happen? I don't think so. If you google their net worth, it comes up to be like $200 Million, and for the past 10+ years it has been around 150m. I always got a kick out of those estimates, they are way off, don't take into account any expenses or use much logic. They basically just take record sales, assign a number to Axl per record, add it up, add some touring in there, and spit out a number. Taxes, nah, expenses, nah, living, nah... When Axl went on Jimmy Kimmel in 2012 he passed a joke to the effect of, "am I even making money now." There was probably some truth in that jest. In my opinion, Axl toured non stop from 2009 - 2014 because he had to for legal reasons, but also had to cause the guy needed money. Record royalties have gone by the waste side, its not like Axl is earning tons of money sitting at home, unless he got some lucrative finance job no one knows about??? He is in the business of making a living from music, the fact that he toured because he needed money doesn't mean its bad, if you went to a show and enjoyed it, you paid for a service, he delivered the service, you paid for it, everyone wins. The musical integrity lines gets tossed around a bit much. The motivation behind the 2016 reunion could very well have been money, and im cool with that, they put on some awesome shows. Artists don't have to be broke to be cool, GNR is a big company that needs to be fed to keep going. I think Axl/slash/duff are all set for a while or life depending what they do since 2016, but if I were to guess. Axl is maybe worth around 50 million now. I personally think Slash has the most out of all 3, he has kept the paychecks coming in steadily since 1987, he has never stopped. Everything I mentioned can be looked up on the internet, its all public record. I don't know anyone in the band or anyone related to the band, just used some good ol common sense. Excuse me for being financially illiterate but what does this mean in layman's terms? I don't understand how can you keep getting more and more money mortgaging the same real estate. Do those number add up or did he pay some of the loans back and then remortgaged the house time and time again? How does this work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liva Posted May 8, 2021 Share Posted May 8, 2021 On 4/8/2021 at 2:00 PM, Sisyphus said: Excuse me for being financially illiterate but what does this mean in layman's terms? I don't understand how can you keep getting more and more money mortgaging the same real estate. Do those number add up or did he pay some of the loans back and then remortgaged the house time and time again? How does this work? He was basically refinancing the previous mortgage and taking out a little bit more. Did it several times. Looks like he ended up with a $5,525,000 mortgage and a $500,000 home equity line of credit, or 2nd mortgage for a total of $6,025,000 by mid 2007. He had an existing mortgage of $4,820,000 ($4,320,000 + $500,000) in 2006 that he refinanced. So basically he paid off that 4.8m mortgage and took out another 1.2m. Now he could have paid that off in 2008, or 2016/2017, which I am sure he did especially with the windfall from the reunion. Mortgages recorded against a property are relatively easy to find public record, the current balance or when it was paid off is harder to find. I doubt as of 2021 Axl has any mortgages against his house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vloors Posted May 8, 2021 Share Posted May 8, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 4:45 AM, k12 said: The question is why does Axl care about money at this point in his life, when he was younger he seemed to not care about money and did everything by his rules, he already has more money than he will ever need, and as far as we know he does not have any kids so it is not like he wants to leave a large inheritance to them, so why is he now concerned about money? The inheritance would be to his wife Beta and step children Fernando included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkside259 Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 So maybe the band (axl) don t even had the rights to old live performances, so for that reason they don t release old stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkside259 Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 The band didn t owe money even to the people who film they reunion comeback show back in 2016 when axl broke his foot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamillos Posted May 9, 2021 Share Posted May 9, 2021 2 hours ago, darkside259 said: So maybe the band (axl) don t even had the rights to old live performances, so for that reason they don t release old stuff... I think the last thing we should do is look for yet another excuse for them not to release stuff. I believe even if what you say was the case, having made half a billion after 2 years of NITL, they could buy off anything they wanted; so if they really intended to release anything from the past, nothing is stopping them. No, this is not an enterprise that would be eager to release footage for the fans (like other bands normally do) yet alas, life somehow keeps throwing a monkey wrench in the works… let’s not delude ourselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom2112 Posted May 10, 2021 Share Posted May 10, 2021 On 5/9/2021 at 4:30 AM, darkside259 said: So maybe the band (axl) don t even had the rights to old live performances, so for that reason they don t release old stuff... Sometimes they might not own the video rights if it's a specific festival? that's all down to contracts and I'd guess GNRs contract with promoters is pretty meticulous about video/synch rights etc. However, even the case of times the video is off limits, they can release the multitracks if they want. The majority of the time if they make a request for that stuff it's just handed over... with the exception of the company who recorded the troubador and fell out with the band... that footage is 1000% off limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkside259 Posted May 11, 2021 Share Posted May 11, 2021 6 hours ago, Tom2112 said: Sometimes they might not own the video rights if it's a specific festival? that's all down to contracts and I'd guess GNRs contract with promoters is pretty meticulous about video/synch rights etc. However, even the case of times the video is off limits, they can release the multitracks if they want. The majority of the time if they make a request for that stuff it's just handed over... with the exception of the company who recorded the troubador and fell out with the band... that footage is 1000% off limits. Thanks for the info i didin t know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.