Jump to content

Guns N' Roses to return to the road in 2025


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Draguns said:

You really need to understand how business works. You can be partners in a business WITHOUT being EQUAL in a business. That doesn't mean that others are employees. I used my employer Bloomberg LP the last time you brought this up. There are several partners in Bloomberg LP. Mike Bloomberg has the most equity in the business. The others have equity, but not as much as Mike Bloomberg. Since Mike has the most, he's the ultimate decision maker in the company. 

Another example is a college friend of mine. He was second in charge of  an accounting firm. The firm was acquired. He's now a partner in the company that acquired his firm. He isn't the ultimate decision maker since he does not have the most equity in the business. He's also not just an employee. He's one of the executives. 

As for the GN'R partnership: There were no partial partner status in the original agreement, all three were 100% partners to that agreement. You either are or you aren't. Being a partner is a discrete value. There was also no equity. But, the partnership agreement and its provisions granted Axl more right than Slash, and Slash more right than Duff. Still, they were 100% partners, they were all equally much partners, but the rights provided to each partner were not equal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

As for the GN'R partnership: There were no partial partner status in the original agreement, all three were 100% partners to that agreement. You either are or you aren't. Being a partner is a discrete value. There was also no equity. But, the partnership agreement and its provisions granted Axl more right than Slash, and Slash more right than Duff. Still, they were 100% partners, they were all equally much partners, but the rights provided to each partner were not equal

May I ask if the original agreement is publicly available? I would be surprised that it would be considering GNR is a private entity.

 In business, there's always some type of equity involved. The provisions  granted to Axl and Slash  is backed by some type of equity. We know that Axl has the naming rights while Slash has the rights to the logo. That is a  form of equity. As an example, Ford used its blue oval logo during the Great Recession as collateral for the loan they received. The logo has equity value and is considered an asset.  

The rights provided indicates they are not equal partners if this is publicly available. 

Edited by Draguns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Draguns said:

May I ask if the original agreement is publicly available? I would be surprised that it would be considering GNR is a private entity.

 In business, there's always some type of equity involved. The provisions  granted to Axl and Slash  is backed by some type of equity. We know that Axl has the naming rights while Slash has the rights to the logo. That is a  form of equity. As an example, Ford used its blue oval logo during the Great Recession as collateral for the loan they received. The logo has equity value and is considered an asset.  

The rights provided indicates they are not equal partners if this is publicly available. 

It is available because it was attached as exhibit in lawsuits between Axl, Slash and Duff:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

As for the GN'R partnership: There were no partial partner status in the original agreement, all three were 100% partners to that agreement. You either are or you aren't. Being a partner is a discrete value. There was also no equity. But, the partnership agreement and its provisions granted Axl more right than Slash, and Slash more right than Duff. Still, they were 100% partners, they were all equally much partners, but the rights provided to each partner were not equal

What I'm seeing from what @Blackstar posted is that Axl had a slight more percentage in profit than Slash and Duff.  It's probably based on owning the GNR name since this came up:  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event that Axl shall be the Terminated Partner or in the event that Slash and Duff shall be Terminated Partners, Axl shall own and shall have the right to use the Group Name, and thereafter neither the Partnership nor the Partners other than Axl shall have any right to use the Group Name."  Taken a look at this, one can concur that Axl is the majority partner while Slash and Duff are minority. However, if you look at it slightly deeper in detail Slash and Duff can override Axl's decision. 

My honest take based off of this is that technically there is no equal partners. However, there is an override so I would lean towards them being EQUAL  partners. This isn't the case of Bloomberg LP where Mike Bloomberg owns roughly 88% of the company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Draguns said:

Honestly, I don't think anyone has ever made that argument since no one knows  the percentage of ownership. What I have seen from you and  a few others are that Slash and Duff are employees. They are most definitely NOT employees.  They are partners in the Guns N' Roses business along with related entities of GNR.  Additionally, there was a business filing in California stating that the three of them are partners. The percentage of that partnership is something we don't know because GNR is a private company.  They don't have to disclose the percentage of the partnership. 

You're going off about irrelevant details that I honestly don't care about it. My whole point is that it's funny that Slash has no idea what GnR is or isn't doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Draguns said:

May I ask if the original agreement is publicly available? I would be surprised that it would be considering GNR is a private entity.

 In business, there's always some type of equity involved. The provisions  granted to Axl and Slash  is backed by some type of equity. We know that Axl has the naming rights while Slash has the rights to the logo. That is a  form of equity. As an example, Ford used its blue oval logo during the Great Recession as collateral for the loan they received. The logo has equity value and is considered an asset.  

The rights provided indicates they are not equal partners if this is publicly available. 

As far as I know, formally/legally speaking, "equity" refers to ownership amount of shares/stocks in public or private corporations. So I don't think that is relevant to GN'R. More informally, I suppose "equity" can refer to ownership amount of any assets. GN'R's assets include the music, revenues from the music, any other IP like name and logo, etc. The regulation of these assets are to a large extent covered in the partnership agreement. This agreement also contains governance clauses. I see that Blackstar has already sent you a link.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Draguns said:

What I'm seeing from what @Blackstar posted is that Axl had a slight more percentage in profit than Slash and Duff.  It's probably based on owning the GNR name since this came up:  "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, in the event that Axl shall be the Terminated Partner or in the event that Slash and Duff shall be Terminated Partners, Axl shall own and shall have the right to use the Group Name, and thereafter neither the Partnership nor the Partners other than Axl shall have any right to use the Group Name."  Taken a look at this, one can concur that Axl is the majority partner while Slash and Duff are minority. However, if you look at it slightly deeper in detail Slash and Duff can override Axl's decision. 

My honest take based off of this is that technically there is no equal partners. However, there is an override so I would lean towards them being EQUAL  partners. This isn't the case of Bloomberg LP where Mike Bloomberg owns roughly 88% of the company. 

They are not equal partners in the sense that the partnership provides them with equal rights and obligations. The provisions are clearly biased towards Axl (like taking the name with him of he was to leave the partnership). And against Duff (for instance, Duff has no say in decisions if Slash and Axl agrees on something). So I would find it very odd to refer to them as equal partners. As for majority partners, I would only use that term for partners given more than 50% rights to the assets regulated by the agreement, which I don't see is really applicable. 

On a different note, it is a rather shoddy agreement. And this has partly led to litigations in the 2000s where Slash and Duff challenged the interpretation of different clauses. These lawsuits were settled, but I do believe I read that a judge suggested they got a less ambiguous and better written agreement. Although the disagreement were settled, and it didn't seem like Slash and Duff won much in the settlements, at least it doesn't seem like pratcise changed, it could be that the agreement was amended in one or more of these settlements, and that these amendments have not become publicly available. So we should be a bit careful about assuming that the partnership agreement from 1992 is still valid and hasn't been updated. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Он доступен, поскольку был приложен в качестве вещественного доказательства в судебных процессах между Экслом, Слэшем и Даффом:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3745-1992-10-dd-guns-n-roses-partnership-contract-memorandum-of-agreement

Is it known for certain that the partnership exists in the 92 version of the document? I haven't seen it before. And now I see paragraph 2, which says that the profit in the partnership is divided equally. And somehow Izzy's phrase has a different meaning in this context. Maybe he wanted to say with this phrase that the partnership does not exist? Although I'm probably exaggerating..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2020_Intensions said:

You're going off about irrelevant details that I honestly don't care about it. My whole point is that it's funny that Slash has no idea what GnR is or isn't doing.

There is no reason to assume he has no idea about what the band is doing. Blackstar explained this.

It is perhaps tempting to look back at Bumblefoot and other band members who were not partners in Guns N' Roses and hence had no governing rights, and which were simply told when the band would go on tour or record music, etc, but Slash is not such a band members. He would probably never accept to rejoin the band under such terms (nor should he). And most likely, the 1992 partnership, or an updated version, is valid which grants Slash direct governing rights. Under that agreement, Axl is not allowed to dictate what happens to the band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lunastar said:

Is it known for certain that the partnership exists in the 92 version of the document? I haven't seen it before. And now I see paragraph 2, which says that the profit in the partnership is divided equally. And somehow Izzy's phrase has a different meaning in this context. Maybe he wanted to say with this phrase that the partnership does not exist? Although I'm probably exaggerating..

Hmm? The 1992 document IS the partnership agreement. We don't know if it is still valid, though, but some agreement must be in place to regulate the substantial business of Guns N' Roses and it is unlikely to think that Slash and Duff would rejoin the band if their interested were not protected (and Slash has stated that no new agreements came in place after he rejoined).

Section 2 stipulates how revenue should be distributed among the partners. For "old" records (Appetite Live like a Suicde and Lies), the rveneues are split with 20% to each. For Illusion and later,  only the three partners would get revenues. You might ask why Izzy doesn't get revenues from the Illusions, but that is because he had a separate agreement with the band when he quit that gave him certain revenues until 1997, and after that he would (presumably) get nothing. When they discussed bringing him back into the band for the reunion in 2016, they negotiated how much he should receive from the touring revenues, and they didn't come to an agreement. His comments (split the loot equally) was just in reference to these negotiations, I am sure, and have nothing to do with the partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Hmm? The 1992 document IS the partnership agreement. We don't know if it is still valid, though, but some agreement must be in place to regulate the substantial business of Guns N' Roses and it is unlikely to think that Slash and Duff would rejoin the band if their interested were not protected (and Slash has stated that no new agreements came in place after he rejoined).

Section 2 stipulates how revenue should be distributed among the partners. For "old" records (Appetite Live like a Suicde and Lies), the rveneues are split with 20% to each. For Illusion and later,  only the three partners would get revenues. You might ask why Izzy doesn't get revenues from the Illusions, but that is because he had a separate agreement with the band when he quit that gave him certain revenues until 1997, and after that he would (presumably) get nothing. When they discussed bringing him back into the band for the reunion in 2016, they negotiated how much he should receive from the touring revenues, and they didn't come to an agreement. His comments (split the loot equally) was just in reference to these negotiations, I am sure, and have nothing to do with the partnership.

I think Izzy's comments were directly related to the partnership, but to the agreement that was concluded with his participation earlier. That is why he stated this publicly, referring to this section of the agreement, bearing in mind that the GNR as a group in the form in which it originated no longer exists. This is most likely a message to the whole group, and not his complaints about income. Now I understand his tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 2020_Intensions said:

I'm not talking about music. I'm talking about how apparently the band has planned a tour but the equal partner has no idea what's going on ....

I think he was being coy. Are they supposed to be equal partners? I would imagine that Axl has the most power legally, and maybe Duff / Slash have 25% each? but I don't know obviously, I just find it hard to see Axl giving them equal partnership powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

I think he was being coy. Are they supposed to be equal partners? I would imagine that Axl has the most power legally, and maybe Duff / Slash have 25% each? but I don't know obviously, I just find it hard to see Axl giving them equal partnership powers.

You might have caught up on the rest of the discussions in this thread now, but just to revisit the topic of governance, this is what the 1992 agreement states:

"All partnership decisions shall require the affirmative votes of Axl and Slash. If Axl and Slash become deadlocked on any issue, then such issue shall be decided by a person designated by the majority of Axl, Slash and Duff."

Disclaimer, we don't know if this is till valid or whether it has been amended, but it was back in 1992. It basically says that Axl and Slash together make decisions. Axl can't make a decision that Slash disagrees with. Slash can't make a decision that Axl disagrees with. And if they can't make a decision, if they can't agree, a third party (not Duff; but chosen by the majority of Axl, Slash and Duff) gets to decide. So in that sense Axl and Slash has equally much power when it comes to making decisions. But Axl has some leverage to force decisions in his favor: He can threaten to leave the partnership forcing the band with Slash and Duff to end (since the band name follows Axl). 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 2020_Intensions said:

You're going off about irrelevant details that I honestly don't care about it. My whole point is that it's funny that Slash has no idea what GnR is or isn't doing.

Actually I'm not. You keep referring to Slash and Duff as employees when you are being told by several people here throughout different posts that they are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so release the new album november 2024, get the xmas sales and start the world tour in early 2025, we should have a new single in july and september. that's how obvious and easy it is. Can't wait....

  • GNFNR 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JimiRose said:

so release the new album november 2024, get the xmas sales and start the world tour in early 2025, we should have a new single in july and september. that's how obvious and easy it is. Can't wait....

And if this was a normal band, Axl was a normal guy and they had a competent management team that would probably happen. But we all know that's not the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Some tangential comments on Izzy and his income from GN'R:

Before the partnership agreement of 1992, the band had another partnership where Izzy was included. We don't have a copy of this agreement, but it is reasonable to assume it had provisions for how to split income between the four partners (five when Steven was still in the band). Izzy left this partnership when he quit the band on September 9, 1991. The 1992 agreement was backdated to September 10, 1991, making it legally valid from the day after Izzy left. Does this mean that Izzy didn't get any income from GN'R when he quit? No, the 1992 agreement stipulates that revenues from "old records" would be split equally between all AFD lineup members, Izzy included. "Old records" did not include Use Your Illusion. So there was no provision in the 1992 agreement that provided Izzy with revenues from Use Your Illusions. It sounds strange that Izzy would not earn money considering his sizable contributions to those records..and why would he accept this? Well, he didn't. After leaving the band negotiations started with the goal of agreeing on how much he should earn from the Illusions, and these negotiations, or dispute, didn't conclude until April 1994 when an agreement was made. When the 1992 agreement was written, it was still unclear what the outcome of the negotiations would be, and thus the 1992 agreement doesn't contain any provisions for Izzy's income from the Illusions. We don't have a copy of the April 1994 agreement, either, but in 1998 Izzy himself stated that the deal meant he would get a "certain percent on everything the group earned until 1997". Basically, he settled with the band and agreed to leave all his previous rights as a partner for a certain time-limited income. Taken literally, it means that Izzy has absolutely no income anymore from GN'R, and hasn't had for more than 25 years. Considering the massive popularity of GN'R still, and sales of especially Appetite, it is quite likely that Izzy now feels the 1994 agreement did not serve him well in the long run (assuming it actually means that all his income from GN'R ended in 1997), and that when he considered returning to the band for the 2016 tour he might have tried to compensate for this by demanding more money than the partnership was willing to give.

To add to this (and also clarify), the only income that Izzy still seemingly gets from GN'R is the part that corresponds to his publishing rights (the rights from writing or co-writing the songs). For that purpose, there was a separate publishing agreement attached to the settlement agreement about Izzy's partnership rights that was signed in April 1994. We don't have the main settlement agreement, but we do have the attached publishing agreement:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t8122-1994-04-dd-co-administration-agreement

That 1994 publishing agreement presumably concerned the publishing rights for the songs on the Illusions (as the publishing for AFD and Lies had already been settled) and that's where the publishing shares for UYI, as explained in the link in my signature (and in which Izzy has about 25% of the publishing) have stemmed from.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JimiRose said:

so release the new album november 2024, get the xmas sales and start the world tour in early 2025, we should have a new single in july and september. that's how obvious and easy it is. Can't wait....

It's so easy since 2010. But nothing happened in regards to a new album, unfortunately.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JimiRose said:

so release the new album november 2024, get the xmas sales and start the world tour in early 2025, we should have a new single in july and september. that's how obvious and easy it is. Can't wait....

With everything going on in the world now is not the time. 

So entitled. The band doesn't owe you anything. Etc. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

On a different note, it is a rather shoddy agreement. And this has partly led to litigations in the 2000s where Slash and Duff challenged the interpretation of different clauses. These lawsuits were settled, but I do believe I read that a judge suggested they got a less ambiguous and better written agreement. Although the disagreement were settled, and it didn't seem like Slash and Duff won much in the settlements, at least it doesn't seem like pratcise changed, it could be that the agreement was amended in one or more of these settlements, and that these amendments have not become publicly available. So we should be a bit careful about assuming that the partnership agreement from 1992 is still valid and hasn't been updated. 

I doubt Slash and Duff got anything from the lawsuits or anything was amended as a result. The fact that all three cases were dismissed without prejudice probably suggests that the lawsuits and Axl's counter-suits were just mutually withdrawn - in short, those lawsuits led to nothing other than both parties spending money on lawyer fees.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

To add to this (and also clarify), the only income that Izzy still seemingly gets from GN'R is the part that corresponds to his publishing rights (the rights from writing or co-writing the songs). For that purpose, there was a separate publishing agreement attached to the settlement agreement about Izzy's partnership rights that was signed in April 1994. We don't have the main settlement agreement, but we do have the attached publishing agreement:

https://www.a-4-d.com/t8122-1994-04-dd-co-administration-agreement

That 1994 publishing agreement presumably concerned the publishing rights for the songs on the Illusions (as the publishing for AFD and Lies had already been settled) and that's where the publishing shares for UYI, as explained in the link in my signature (and in which Izzy has about 25% of the publishing) have stemmed from.

Wow I didn't know any of this. Izzy and his representatives really made a poor decision. I doubt he's hurting for money though

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Tom2112 said:

Wow I didn't know any of this. Izzy and his representatives really made a poor decision. I doubt he's hurting for money though

I think that, at the time Izzy left the band, quitting the partnership probably seemed to him as the best thing to do, as there were many lawsuits pending against GN'R (for riots, cancellations, Adler's lawsuit, etc.) and he was afraid that if he stayed there was a chance that the band would go bankrupt and he'd lose a lot of what he'd made, and so he opted to take his share and run. And then, after all those lawsuits had been settled (and GN'R hadn't gone bankrupt) his lawyers negotiated a deal so that he would get something more, hence the settlement of getting royalties for UYI until 1997.

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...