You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
buzzsaw wrote:buzzsaw wrote:When was the letter saying Slash left issued?
I ask because it is possible that 1992 is the correct date and 1996 was when everything took place. For some reason the end of 1996 is sticking out as the date for the Slash letter...Slash made it sound like he didn't think about the offer to join as a contractor very long before saying no (on Piers Morgan's show at least), but he wasn't very detailed in his response.
Axl's fax from late 1996 wrote:#7. However*******Slash will not be involved in any new Guns N' Roses
endeavors? as far has not been musically involved with Guns N" Roses
since April 1994 with the exception of a BRIEF feel period with Zakk
Wylde and a 2 week initial period with Guns N' Roses in the late fall
of '95. He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the
Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.That's when Axl took his ball, left the band, created a new one with the same name and invited his ex-banmembers to be his employees.
They might have tried to continue as Axl's back-up band, since Axl announced Slash's departure in late 1996, almost a year after he took absolute control.
So in theory, the "negotiations" take place in 1992, Axl takes his ball legally in 1995, but plays nice trying to make Slash a contractor (or does nothing) until the 4 years is up, then makes it official? Is that at least a possibility?
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Can someone do the highlights out chronologically, I just don't have the smarts to line all of this up myself.
Thanks dudes.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Problem is Intercourse, no one really knows the timeline, because everyone's story is different.
Axl claims it was 1990 when Niven re-negotiated the contract
Slash claimed 1991
Izzy supported 1991
Matt claimed 1991 (yet wouldn't of had any say-so, nor signed such a document)
Duff claimed 1993
Slash supported 1993
Then Axl takes off with the name at the end of 1995 and forms basically a new business venture legally as Guns N' Roses, that's technically NOT GN'R, but because he has the name and the rights to it, the Uzi Suicide business partnership with Axl, Slash & Duff is effectively dissolved, without their input, because Axl owns the name.
Then Axl offers them to join his new business partnership. They claim as contract players (no different than new GN'R), Axl claims the same thing as they were before, but won't go into real detail.
This supposedly happened by early 1996.
Then Slash quits GN'R later in 1996, but if that was true, technically he didn't quit, Axl quit, and then offered Slash to sign up with his new business partnership, and Slash refused (this was talked about a bit in Slash's book, but a couple details didn't add up).
So if that happens, that means Duff DID sign up to be apart of Axl's new Guns partnership, and Duff should know the details involved in what his part was in a band he helped found, but unless there's new info I don't know about from Duff's book, Duff claimed and talked as if he quit "old" Guns in like 1998 (or 1997), depending on what article you read.
So was Duff apart of a GN'R with Robin, Paul, Josh, Dizzy & Chris before Tommy was brought in?
None of it, has EVER made ANY sense, because everyone's stories are different. I personally believe Axl's. I think it was thrown in to that re-negotiation in 1990, and it's been that way ever since. Axl's behavior almost confirms it. From the very start of the UYI tour he acted like a man who held ALL the cards in what GN'R did and where it was going. He also was far far far more involved in business decisions than any of the rest of them, and even by 1992 was talking to Slash post-OD like "don't die, i've have to replace MY guitarist".
It just didn't dawn on Slash then that they were already working for Axl by then.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Throw out all the contractual shit, it became Axl's orchestra as soon as Izzy left in November 1991. No way in hell the name issue changed hand in 1991. No way in hell. Earliest date it changes hands is 9-1-92 when the new partnership was formed by Axl-Slash-Duff....dead earliest date. Niven said Axl was thinking about it already in 1991 but didn't pull the trigger until Niven was shit canned and out of the picture. I'm 100% certain the name was taken in 92-93.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Throw out all the contractual shit, it became Axl's orchestra as soon as Izzy left in November 1991. No way in hell the name issue changed hand in 1991. No way in hell. Earliest date it changes hands is 9-1-92 when the new partnership was formed by Axl-Slash-Duff....dead earliest date. Niven said Axl was thinking about it already in 1991 but didn't pull the trigger until Niven was shit canned and out of the picture. I'm 100% certain the name was taken in 92-93.
Which is exactly why I cited that date from the lawsuit. Which in turn would mean that according to California law, the statute of limitations would not have expired on the contract until 09/01/96. Which in turn means that Axl left the partnership before the statute of limitations had expired. Which in turn means that he did not wait until 1995 to act on his ownership of the name to be outside the statute of limitations.
Ali
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
right...throw out the statute of limitations argument....plus, Slash and Duff's own attorney's wrote this about the contract! I will take their word over the bandmembers "recollection" of when things happened. The attorney's would not be making such crystal clear comments like this if they didn't know what the contracts actually said.
"On, or around September 1, 1992, Axl, Slash and Duff entered into a written partnership agreement defining the rights of the Original GNR partners, and obligations entitled "Memorandum of Agreement". [...] Among other things, the Agreement provided that Axl would own the rights to the name "Guns N' Roses" if he was expelled or voluntarily withdrew from the partnership." (Slash & Duff v. Axl lawsuit document, 2004)
So, Axl "withdrew from the partnership" on December 30, 1995 and took the name with him to form the new Gnr with eveyone as contract players. In essence, the new Gnr legally started at that point.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Statute of limitations isn't on when he left, it's when they can sue. Axl can withdraw from the partnership all he wants...if Slash thinks they are still working together, in his mind nothing has changed; thus no reason to sue. There's a reason he "withdrew from the partnership" in 1995, but no announcement was made until 1996. I know Ali won't like the speculation, but none of the "facts" that we know have changed anything. There is still plenty to debate about who knew what when and why it went down the way it did and with the timing that it did.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
"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)
