You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
"When Guns renegotiated our contract with Geffen, I had the bit about the name added in as protection for myself, as I had come up with the name and then originally started the band with it." (Axl, MyGNR, 12/14/08)
"The contract stated that Axl would retain the rights to the band name and was allowed to start a new band that he could call Guns N' Roses. Of course Duff and I could be members... but only on his terms, which felt to us like we were being defined as hired hands." (Slash, Autobiography)
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
When was the autobiography written...1995? What he understood when the book was written could have been completely different than what he understood in 1995-1996. Hell, he may have had no idea what was even going on in that timeframe. How many times have you said "if I knew then what I know now" about things in life?
I'm not saying it has to do with anything. I'm saying to simply dismiss it because you don't think the timeframe fits is irresponsible. As calculated as Axl is, I find it hard to believe that he pulled out in 1995 (ok, I had to snicker at that a little), but didn't formally announce ANYTHING until the end of 1996 for no reason. There was a reason for that. MAYBE it was the statute of limitations, maybe he thought he could convince Slash to stick around and didn't want fans to know what was going on behind the scenes, maybe it was a gazillion other reasons. Simply dismissing the statute of limitations based on no fact is irresponsible. Maybe the the lawyers told him everything was fine, but just to be safe, wait until 4 years is up to make a big deal out of it. We don't know, therefore it can't just be randomly dismissed because it doesn't fit your timeline. If there's no reason for it, the timing is an amazing coincidence.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
9-1-92 is your 99% best bet on the name change. Legal documents filed on behalf of Slash claim Axl formally left the partnership on December 30th 1995. Axl announced Slash's departure in October 1996 which is over the 4 year sol on the 92 contract. Hmm...could be an angle Axl looked at. However, why did he leave the partnership before the SOL expired?
I imagine they were already done with each other in 95, and I guess maybe Axl knew that and tried over the course of the next year to get Slash and Duff as contract players. Once that didn't work. Axl said fuck you in October 1996 as he knew the sol expired, and he could formally block them out of new Gnr. 
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
9-1-92 is your 99% best bet on the name change. Legal documents filed on behalf of Slash claim Axl formally left the partnership on December 30th 1995. Axl announced Slash's departure in October 1996 which is over the 4 year sol on the 92 contract. Hmm...could be an angle Axl looked at. However, why did he leave the partnership before the SOL expired?
I imagine they were already done with each other in 95, and I guess maybe Axl knew that and tried over the course of the next year to get Slash and Duff as contract players. Once that didn't work. Axl said fuck you in October 1996 as he knew the sol expired, and he could formally block them out of new Gnr.
I think it's something close to that. Maybe he tried to get things his way assuming the junkies would just go along with anything at that point. Maybe he pulled the trigger prematurely and was advised by lawyers to drag out contract negotiations. If 9/1992 is the date (and we don't know that it is) and 10/1996 is the formal announcement, it's one hell of a coincidence if there wasn't some reason for the timing. No way for us to know for sure.
I really don't even care - I just didn't want to see something someone did care about randomly dismissed because someone (not you) wanted it that way.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
we don't know for sure but is too perfectly timed to be a coincidence. Nice work Agent Starling......I had to go back and slightly amend some of my posts.
"It's all in the case file Clarice."
Buffalo Bill Bailey....:haha:
Should I be offended that you called me a woman? Worse than that, am I an idiot for having to google Agent Starling to find out who you were referring to?
Maybe it's nothing, I don't know though it's a pretty impressive coincidence if it is nothing. I just didn't want to see it dismissed as even being a possibility.
Thank you for having a nice, civil discussion and having an open mind. It's something that doesn't often happen and I'm as guilty as anybody.
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Sky Dog wrote:we don't know for sure but is too perfectly timed to be a coincidence. Nice work Agent Starling......I had to go back and slightly amend some of my posts.
"It's all in the case file Clarice."
Buffalo Bill Bailey....:haha:
Should I be offended that you called me a woman? Worse than that, am I an idiot for having to google Agent Starling to find out who you were referring to?
Maybe it's nothing, I don't know though it's a pretty impressive coincidence if it is nothing. I just didn't want to see it dismissed as even being a possibility.
Thank you for having a nice, civil discussion and having an open mind. It's something that doesn't often happen and I'm as guilty as anybody.
Silence of the Lambs...one of my favorite movies of all time.
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
Great work guys. You fuckers rock.
you can thank SIC for all his work on Chinese Whispers. He documents all the important parts...especially portions of the S/D lawsuits against Axl and the Greatest Hits lawsuit...plus the various quotes from bandmembers. While these quotes are all sketchy, when taken all together and when reading the lawsuits, you CAN piece together a pretty clear picture of what happened. I would like to hear what old Doug Goldstein has to say about all this. Axl's boy when all this went down. Something tells me we will never hear that tale! 
Re: Slash on Piers Morgan
It's a shame we don't have the "Exhibits" that were attached to that 2004 lawsuit. The lawsuit states that a copy of the "Memorandum of Agreement" (i.e. the document they signed the name over in) was attached to the lawsuit as "Exhibit A", except whoever got that court document didn't get the exhibit with it, or maybe it wasn't available?
Shame they charge to serach the Superior Court of California records as I wondered if it was actually there.
