coeus2k Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Matt sorum?????Were is steven Adler?Sorum is a idiot with hes toy face while hes drumming. Kick hes ass adler!Probably got his head stuck in a toilet somewhere singing...'I played on appitite for distruction oh yes I did la la laa..' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Va Va Voom Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Off topic: i think we might get a release date to morrow On topic: i smell a BIG TIME April hoax all the way down.........Sorry folks, but the date and shit is just playing whit our minds. If it is an April Fool's then it has been in the pipeline for over a month.Guns were advertised in the last issue of Classic Rock as being in this month's magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcalldp Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) I don't see the case really. I mean yea, he's not allowing them to use the old music in films and such and they are not making that money. However, he owns the controlling percentage and that's all there is to it. He may well be protecting the investment by not allowing it to lose name brand value by making bad choices about what the music is put on. The other guys are after the quick buck but in the long run the value of the brand name is more important. As stated, there is no doubt axl has controlling interest. I think it's a bunch of boys throwing fits with attorneys glad to take their money, with the end reult already known by anyone that actually understands law. I bet there are no grey areas here, not legally. The guys are just looking at it from a human, emotional view.... Edited March 31, 2006 by mcalldp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjc1706 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Off topic: i think we might get a release date to morrow On topic: i smell a BIG TIME April hoax all the way down.........Sorry folks, but the date and shit is just playing whit our minds. If it is an April Fool's then it has been in the pipeline for over a month.Guns were advertised in the last issue of Classic Rock as being in this month's magazine.To be honest it wouldnt surprise me. Just to get readers attention, because they knew that they were planning on putting a juicy roumour out there for april fools about GnR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naupis Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 They all own a third of the back catalog, Slash/Duff/Axl, when it comes to voting rights and such in terms of licensing songs.They claim Axl unilaterally vetos/licenses songs without consulting them, which he legally does not have the right to do as they all own 33.33% of the back catalog given the nature of their partnership.Their lawsuit claims Axl left the partnership that owns the back catalog when he formed his new band, hence leaving Slash/Duff as the sole remaining members of the partnership, and thus controlling the back catalog.This lawsuit has nothing to do with the GNR name or royalty percentage, but it has everything to do with their partnership that has control of the back catalog. Axl did not own a majority of that, even though he gets more of a percentage of royalty dollars. Hence S/D blocking Axl from putting a re-recorded SCOM on the Big Daddy Soundtrack.Axl has put himself in the fantastic position of owning a band name that he doesn't even own the songs for. Real smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ready2CrashandBurn Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Off topic: i think we might get a release date to morrow On topic: i smell a BIG TIME April hoax all the way down.........Sorry folks, but the date and shit is just playing whit our minds. If it is an April Fool's then it has been in the pipeline for over a month.Guns were advertised in the last issue of Classic Rock as being in this month's magazine.To be honest it wouldnt surprise me. Just to get readers attention, because they knew that they were planning on putting a juicy roumour out there for april fools about GnR.Some kind of bullshit will happen tommorow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cjc1706 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 yeh agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlskAmpf Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 They all own a third of the back catalog, Slash/Duff/Axl, when it comes to voting rights and such in terms of licensing songs.They claim Axl unilaterally vetos/licenses songs without consulting them, which he legally does not have the right to do as they all own 33.33% of the back catalog given the nature of their partnership.Their lawsuit claims Axl left the partnership that owns the back catalog when he formed his new band, hence leaving Slash/Duff as the sole remaining members of the partnership, and thus controlling the back catalog.This lawsuit has nothing to do with the GNR name or royalty percentage, but it has everything to do with their partnership that has control of the back catalog. Axl did not own a majority of that, even though he gets more of a percentage of royalty dollars. Hence S/D blocking Axl from putting a re-recorded SCOM on the Big Daddy Soundtrack.Axl has put himself in the fantastic position of owning a band name that he doesn't even own the songs for. Real smart.Yes, we agree it's about rights to the back catalog being used in film, tv, etc, not royalties. You have shed some new light on it though. They really can't claim Axl ever left a partnership since he formed a new band, as they left the old one. Axl could just as easily say Slash lost rights by joining/forming VR with the same validity, none. As to your statement of "Axl has put himself in the fantastic position of owning a band name that he doesn't even own the songs for. Real smart.", absolutely! He and Gilmour went to the same school of business. Axl probably deserved the name more, as he wrote a larger % all in all for GnR than Dave did for Floyd. Plus just try to imagine Guns without Rose! ( If you find this hard to imagine, see "Velvet Revolver") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac102205 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) Classic Rock Revelation 'Rubbish' Written by Administrator Friday, 31 March 2006 Classic Rock magazine have claimed that;"Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"Sanctuary have described the claims as "a load of rubbish".Last Updated ( Friday, 31 March 2006 ) http://www.elsewhere.com/ Edited March 31, 2006 by bac102205 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coeus2k Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Classic Rock Revelation 'Rubbish' Written by Administrator Friday, 31 March 2006 Classic Rock magazine have claimed that;"Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"Sanctuary have described the claims as "a load of rubbish".Last Updated ( Friday, 31 March 2006 ) http://www.elsewhere.com/Funny how this has been squashed but nothing about Slash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldibuxxx Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 and wath sais merck about this rumors madison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaoAxl Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Have to be suspicious about the proximity to April Fool's and everything else... but Haflin was hinting this months ago... so I think it's possible.In reality it could have been something the lawyer's for both sides came up with... Axl agrees to do a few shows with the old band and line their bank accounts.... they agree to drop their law suits. Then everyone gets back to going about their business- Axl and Dizzy with GN'R, Slash, Duff and Matt with VR, Izzy being Izzy...It would be a weird interlude during an otherwise new GN'R European tour... but it would undeniably call a lot of attention to the new band as well... they could spin that to their benefit if they put on a great show the rest of the summer... PS I think Axl could bring himself to take the stage with Sorum for a couple of nights... IF you keep the two separated from each other at all other times, and... IF Axl would know that these annoying law suits would go away if he could just grit his teeth and grind through a couple of shows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pronk Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I don't think they'll re-unite for just 2 shows. Because if they do that. It will be very dissapointed for the other fans. I think there are two choices, 1. They'll re-unite and do a complete tour together or 2. The new GNR is gonna do the tour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolio GNR Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I'm sorry guys but if this is true Axl is being a real asshole about this you got admit The catalogue should be split up they made the music as a whole band not just AXL!Wait a minute......i thought axl already had the rights to the back catalogue?In Axl's mind they are his (and rightfully so). But its still up to a judge or jury.Why doesn't anyone ban this !@#$%^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_l Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rosefor some reason. It feels like that actually could be true. But still. naaa. Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldibuxxx Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 merck its time to talk man!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dally Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 merck its time to talk man!!! Merck don`t know how to talk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carne_asaDA Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Wait a minute......i thought axl already had the rights to the back catalogue?In Axl's mind they are his (and rightfully so). But its still up to a judge or jury.Unless you were there during the song writing process, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cold_as_ice Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"This would be nice if it was true. However...very interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainX Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 "hopeful romantics dreaming of the past when the future is about to kick the fuck outta them" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 At least some people can smell a juicy rumour like this being a total April Fool's joke. This is Guns N' Roses people. Anything you hear within the next week from magazines will be pure rubbish, just like Sanctuary said. Don't fall for the jokes. Especially reunion ones. The reunion proposal jokes and the people wetting themselves over them are just plain old and annoying.Tomorrow we'll get an announcement on the release of CD from some source. Then we'll get cover art and the first single, and when it will be released. Then, we'll get some photoshopped picture of Slash and Axl back together again. It's all going to be shit, and a lot of you should know this by now, instead of having spontaneous orgasms about a reunion that will never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Estranged Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) "hopeful romantics dreaming of the past when the future is about to kick the fuck outta them"Thankfully we've had along time to prepare for the future so maybe he wont get the drop on us with old man axl and his employees that seem to endorsethe idea that Axl should have tried to buy the "motley Crue" moniker instead of using Guns N Roses.But then again, perhaps he was afraid his new product needed a little helping hand and so borrowed from the combined efforts of his old friends in the guise of the name they were collectively known by, to help put arses in seats ( just a thought).Also has ive already stated on my first post (see page 1 of topic), this is far too silly to be believed and the day thats in it (april fools eve, should be a bank holiday)just make you boys a wee bit gulible but then again, Bush got re-elected, Pink Floyd reunited for live 8, Ian Paisley was married (he actually said "Yes" to something in his life!) and I found my sea-con transformer from 1993, three years ago, when I was definite that i had lost itat the beach! so stranger things have happened Edited March 31, 2006 by Mr Estranged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirp Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"So, Axl say to his new band members:"Well, go to the rest room for a few hours because I want to make some money with my former bandmates."It's like you say to your new wife/husband: "Please do some dinner in the kitchen, because I want to make love with my ex-wife/husband in the bedroom."It's bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
November_rain Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naupis Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Yes, we agree it's about rights to the back catalog being used in film, tv, etc, not royalties. You have shed some new light on it though. They really can't claim Axl ever left a partnership since he formed a new band, as they left the old one. Axl could just as easily say Slash lost rights by joining/forming VR with the same validity, none.Just a point of clarification. Leaving the band and leaving the partnership are two different legal entities. S/D claim they have Axl's letter of intent to leave the partnetship to start his new band/enterprise. Thus leaving them as the 2 sole remaining members of the GNR partnership, and thus in control of the GNR back catalog. That is the premise of their lawsuit if you read the brief they filed. Not sure how it will play out, but the fact it hasn't been dismissed or settled after all of this time lends credence to the fact their case is not frivilous, and may have some merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts