Jump to content

Merk Leaving Sanctuary=Irrelevant


raodonne

Recommended Posts

First, I just wanna state that Merck leaving Sanctuary should not have any effect on a CD release...Its irrelevant to the issue: Merck is just the fucking manager...He has no rights/ownership in the material and hence no say in the matter...He doesnt do the marketing: thats the labels job...He is basically a personal assistant: that is all. He gets Axl coffee and helps FACILITATE communication between Axl and the label...He provides a service-he does not CREATE anything...or OWN anything...and therefore, the fact he changed corporate affiliations means jack shit to the release date...Can you see Universal saying "well this Merck creature changed management firms-we'd better hold off on releasing the album we sunk 13 million+ into"....Riiiiiiight

And so while we are on the topic (btw-best comment I've read on these boards was "whats a Merck?")

I am so fucking tired of people OTHER than the band having-allegedly-so much influence over the artistic direction/production...Merck/Paul Hughes/Beta/Del James-why the fuck do these people even matter? Like, I dig that people respect that Beta has apparently "helped" Axl but to be honest, I'm not sold on any of these people, including Beta...In fact, all I know is that they sure as hell werent around when Guns produced the music we love...(Ok Del was a hanger-on from way back and added some inspiration via "Without You" but hey-what have you done for Guns lately Del, other than penning that piece of shit article?...) So while some people sing the praises of Merck/Beta et al I ask: Was Guns better/more productive with or without these people? And, no matter how nice and motherly Beta might be, I think the question is in essence a rhetorical one cause the answer is just too obvious....

Edited by raodonne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I just wanna state that Merck leaving Sanctuary should not have any effect on a CD release...Its irrelevant to the issue: Merck is just the fucking manager...He has no rights/ownership in the material

I think that is where you are misinformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I just wanna state that Merck leaving Sanctuary should not have any effect on a CD release...Its irrelevant to the issue: Merck is just the fucking manager...He has no rights/ownership in the material

I think that is where you are misinformed.

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong (I can't be arsed to search for the info) but I believe that at some stage Merck tied up a deal where he either owns, or has part ownership of the publishing rights to GNR's CD recordings.

haha I love that phrase (arsed)...If anyone knows anything about this, I'm very curious...and would def. stand corrected...But I cant imagine how/why that would be the case...

Edited by raodonne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From htgth :

"To be fair, I think they did intend on releasing it this year, anyways I hope, but they decided to do more recording - thankfully that promoter stated they were making "finishing touches" on the album - But they've had to have known it wasn't coming out this year for a while and allowed everyone to think it was, perhaps to sell more tickets, but either way it is completely lame they can't make a simple statement saying its not coming out anytime soon."

Edited by Axingn'r
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I can't find anything....... but I'm sure I read something.

Sanctuary did the deal for the publishing of the back catalogue and the future recordings, but I believe there was some sort of clause that peronally gave Merck some ownership rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that they had a date in mind. They realised they were going to miss this and tried their hardest to make it by the end of the year.

They WILL know now whether or not they will make it. They need to make an annoucement before people figure it out for themselves. Saying this - who really cares other than a few thousand fans on these message boards?

The general buying public dont care thats for sure. They buy the album when its out and they see promotion. This is the vast majority of the potential new fan base that GNR will target. GNR know people here will buy regardless - so why bother bowing to our demands.

Edited by invisible_rose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I can't find anything....... but I'm sure I read something.

Sanctuary did the deal for the publishing of the back catalogue and the future recordings, but I believe there was some sort of clause that peronally gave Merck some ownership rights.

uh oh.

merck is a plonker. i wish he was irrelevant i really do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Axl sued Slash and Duff for the rights to the GnR name, I cant fathom he'd grant "Merck" any ownership rights....

Well obviously he has to sign the rights over to someone (not in full) - whether that be to Sanctuary or Merck. Sanctuary definately did the deal for the rights to the back catalogue and future material. I just have memories of Merck having some personal gain too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Axl sued Slash and Duff for the rights to the GnR name, I cant fathom he'd grant "Merck" any ownership rights....

Well obviously he has to sign the rights over to someone (not in full) - whether that be to Sanctuary or Merck. Sanctuary definately did the deal for the rights to the back catalogue and future material. I just have memories of Merck having some personal gain too.

Sanctuary has the rights to the back catalogue, Merck has the band but no control over catalogue, assuming GnR leave sanctuary.

If he does then sanctuary can lend GnR to anything, bad move for a band if Mercks not able to control it on the bands behalf.

Axl Rose Publishing Deal Fuels Feud

Posted by admin under Legal

No Comments

From Yahoo News

Rock recluse Axl Rose has signed a multimillion dollar publishing deal, and that isn’t sitting well with his former Guns N’ Roses bandmates.

The deal with music powerhouse Sanctuary Group covers both the back catalogue, which includes hits such as “Sweet Child of Mine,” “Paradise City” and “November Rain,” as well as Rose’s future material, including dozens of new tracks he recently recorded for Universal Music.

After burning up charts and selling out stadiums around the world in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Guns N’ Roses endured a bitter split, leaving only Rose and keyboard player Dizzy Reed to soldier on under the GNR banner. Former members Slash (Saul Hudson) and Duff (Michael) McKagan, now part of the band Velvet Revolver, filed a lawsuit against Rose last year over who controls the rights to the old GNR songs. The suit is still pending.

McKagan’s lawyer, Glen Miskel, expressed surprise when told of the Sanctuary deal. He said Rose, Slash and Duff were part of a partnership and “neither Sanctuary nor Axl Rose have provided the remaining partners with a copy of that agreement.” He added Rose is trying to transfer copyright interests in songs which “are not owned by Mr. Rose.” Guns N’ Roses’ manager Merck Mercuriadis, who just so happens to be CEO of Sanctuary Group, said he didn’t want to comment beyond the announcement of the deal.

Industry experts have valued the 20-year deal at about $19 million. Guess a Guns N’ Roses reunion won’t be happening anytime soon.

Edited by GET OFF AXLS BACK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Axl sued Slash and Duff for the rights to the GnR name, I cant fathom he'd grant "Merck" any ownership rights....

Well obviously he has to sign the rights over to someone (not in full) - whether that be to Sanctuary or Merck. Sanctuary definately did the deal for the rights to the back catalogue and future material. I just have memories of Merck having some personal gain too.

Sanctuary has the rights to the back catalogue, Merck has the band but no control over catalogue, assuming GnR leave sanctuary.

If he does then sanctuary can lend GnR to anything, bad move for a band if Mercks not able to control it on the bands behalf.

Axl Rose Publishing Deal Fuels Feud

Posted by admin under Legal

No Comments

From Yahoo News

Rock recluse Axl Rose has signed a multimillion dollar publishing deal, and that isn’t sitting well with his former Guns N’ Roses bandmates.

The deal with music powerhouse Sanctuary Group covers both the back catalogue, which includes hits such as “Sweet Child of Mine,” “Paradise City” and “November Rain,” as well as Rose’s future material, including dozens of new tracks he recently recorded for Universal Music.

After burning up charts and selling out stadiums around the world in the late ’80s and early ’90s, Guns N’ Roses endured a bitter split, leaving only Rose and keyboard player Dizzy Reed to soldier on under the GNR banner. Former members Slash (Saul Hudson) and Duff (Michael) McKagan, now part of the band Velvet Revolver, filed a lawsuit against Rose last year over who controls the rights to the old GNR songs. The suit is still pending.

McKagan’s lawyer, Glen Miskel, expressed surprise when told of the Sanctuary deal. He said Rose, Slash and Duff were part of a partnership and “neither Sanctuary nor Axl Rose have provided the remaining partners with a copy of that agreement.” He added Rose is trying to transfer copyright interests in songs which “are not owned by Mr. Rose.” Guns N’ Roses’ manager Merck Mercuriadis, who just so happens to be CEO of Sanctuary Group, said he didn’t want to comment beyond the announcement of the deal.

Industry experts have valued the 20-year deal at about $19 million. Guess a Guns N’ Roses reunion won’t be happening anytime soon.

Yep, that is correct. But I think that the story from the poster above you also has some truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its amazing that this random Rasputian (Merk) has so much say over GnR's music now....If people should be pissed at Axl for anything, it should be this horseshit...Can you blame Slash/Duff etc for getting into a legal battle over this? WTF does Merk have to do with Guns n Roses and, since his appearance, what have Guns n Roses done? It seems pretty clear what the problem here is....(and I am DEF NOT excusing Axl-this is all on the assumption that Axl allowed Merk to put Guns in this position in the first place...Apparently it was NINETEEN MILLION dollars that someone else forgot...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I am wrong (I can't be arsed to search for the info) but I believe that at some stage Merck tied up a deal where he either owns, or has part ownership of the publishing rights to GNR's CD recordings.

That is quite probably the worst news I've heard in a long time man! :( Thanks for posting nonetheless but that royaly blows.

Shouldn't matter, Merck said the 13 Tuesdays thingy after he was out of Sanctuary, right?

I think so. That's a good point. So the only thing left is Universal delaying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is relevant!

Look at it this way. Merck no longer works for Sanctuary, yet Guns n' Roses are still managed by Sanctuary. Since this is the case, why exactly is Merck still managing Guns n' Roses? Surely Sanctuary should have sent out another manager to oversee the band as Merck should no longer have any authority over the band, they are contracted to Sanctuary, yet Merck continues to manage!

Oh and there was a news item a while back saying that Merck would not be joining the management team he left Sanctuary for because of "unresolved issues" with Sanctuary.

So what the hell is going on is anyones idea. To me it looks like Merck is unemployed, and even if he is on Axl's payroll he shouldnt have any authority over what Guns n' Roses does.

The only explaination i can think of is that Merck has cleverly sorted things out contract wise so that he manages Axl exclusivly and Guns n Roses are exclusivly Axls property so he has say over them

But then again what do i know............ i know enough and something doesnt add up!

Jonx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it is relevant!

Look at it this way. Merck no longer works for Sanctuary, yet Guns n' Roses are still managed by Sanctuary. Since this is the case, why exactly is Merck still managing Guns n' Roses? Surely Sanctuary should have sent out another manager to oversee the band as Merck should no longer have any authority over the band, they are contracted to Sanctuary, yet Merck continues to manage!

Oh and there was a news item a while back saying that Merck would not be joining the management team he left Sanctuary for because of "unresolved issues" with Sanctuary.

So what the hell is going on is anyones idea. To me it looks like Merck is unemployed, and even if he is on Axl's payroll he shouldnt have any authority over what Guns n' Roses does.

The only explaination i can think of is that Merck has cleverly sorted things out contract wise so that he manages Axl exclusivly and Guns n Roses are exclusivly Axls property so he has say over them

But then again what do i know............ i know enough and something doesnt add up!

Jonx

When Merck left Sanctuary, that didn't mean that GNR had to stay with them. GNR are managed by Merck, who happened to work at Sanctuary. He left and took GNR with him. That would've been written in the contracts for sure - most managers do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...