You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
You have missed the point. Yes the original document seems to have been signed between tours in 1992.
However, it appears that the asterixed sections were added at a later date. That's why the formatting is different, and the margins are different, even a variation in wording. When was the later date we obviously don't know for sure. Could have been 1993?
No, I don't think so. The signatures are dated exactly the same. There is no indication that the asterixed sections were added at a later date. Even in Snooze's copy you can see 10/15/92 in the asterixed section addressing Axl's right to own the band name upon voluntary departure or expulsion from the partnership.
So, respectfully, I don't see anything whatsoever to indicate that section was added at a later date.
Ali
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
Aussie wrote:You have missed the point. Yes the original document seems to have been signed between tours in 1992.
However, it appears that the asterixed sections were added at a later date. That's why the formatting is different, and the margins are different, even a variation in wording. When was the later date we obviously don't know for sure. Could have been 1993?
No, I don't think so. The signatures are dated exactly the same. There is no indication that the asterixed sections were added at a later date. Even in Snooze's copy you can see 10/15/92 in the asterixed section addressing Axl's right to own the band name upon voluntary departure or expulsion from the partnership.
So, respectfully, I don't see anything whatsoever to indicate that section was added at a later date.
Ali
Even the page number "5" is squashed in between those two * sections. If that section was truly there in the original document surely they would have just shunted that stuff to the next page, not tried to squeeze it in which it obviously has been. I think it's clearly been inserted after the original document was first completed.
When I obviously couldn't say with certainty.
So how often do documents have crucial information written below the page number at the bottom? Or in fact in the case of Snooze's version even have the text slightly going over the top of the page number. How is that even possible if not for the stuff being added later?
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
That 15/10/92 is on every page of the document. Have a look at the signature page, that footnote is there too. It confirms that the document was likely created on that date and every page had that date in the footnote.
Again this would help explain why in MSL's version those asterixed sections seems to go over the top making that date barely legible. Again because they were likely added after the original document had been prepared.
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
That 15/10/92 is on every page of the document. Have a look at the signature page, that footnote is there too. It confirms that the document was likely created on that date and every page had that date in the footnote.
Again this would help explain why in MSL's version those asterixed sections seems to go over the top making that date barely legible. Again because they were likely added after the originally document had been prepared.
Disagree. The font issue, etc. is immaterial IMO with regard to date. There is no date associated with those fonts. It's possible that section was added after an initial draft of the document was typed. But, there is an issue with claiming that as proof they were added at a time/date that would verify Duff/Slash's version of events...
Even if those sections were added to the document after the first draft had been typed, there is nothing to indicate they were added and subsequently initialed while the band was on tour, not in 10/1992.
In other words, there is nothing to verify when that section was added, IF it was added at a later time.
Ali
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
Disagree. The font issue, etc. is immaterial IMO with regard to date. There is no date associated with those fonts. It's possible that section was added after an initial draft of the document was typed. But, there is an issue with claiming that as proof they were added at a time/date that would verify Duff/Slash's version of events...
Even if those sections were added to the document after the first draft had been typed, there is nothing to indicate they were added and subsequently initialed while the band was on tour, not in 10/1992.
In other words, there is nothing to verify when that section was added, IF it was added at a later time.
Ali
It's not immaterial, it strongly suggests it was added later. If it was put in at the time the original document was prepared why was it not formatted exactly the same? Why is the right hand margin bigger. Why is it squished in, why does it go over the footnote in one copy and the page number in another. I would suggest so they could fit all the text in because it wasn't in there when the original document was done.
Go back and read my posts I haven't claimed that as proof that it was added in 1993, I simply suggested it might have been, but I have no idea when. My guess is Slash and Duff and Goldstein would say 1993.
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
Ali wrote:Disagree. The font issue, etc. is immaterial IMO with regard to date. There is no date associated with those fonts. It's possible that section was added after an initial draft of the document was typed. But, there is an issue with claiming that as proof they were added at a time/date that would verify Duff/Slash's version of events...
Even if those sections were added to the document after the first draft had been typed, there is nothing to indicate they were added and subsequently initialed while the band was on tour, not in 10/1992.
In other words, there is nothing to verify when that section was added, IF it was added at a later time.
Ali
It's not immaterial, it strongly suggests it was added later. If it was put in at the time the original document was prepared why was it not formatted exactly the same? Why is the right hand margin bigger. Why is it squished in, why does it go over the footnote in one copy and the page number in another. I would suggest so they could fit all the text in because it wasn't in there when the original document was done.
Go back and read my posts I haven't claimed that as proof that it was added in 1993, I simply suggested it might have been, but I have no idea when. My guess is Slash and Duff and Goldstein would say 1993.
I now have a copy of the partnership agreement. There is no font change associated with the section regarding ownership of the band name.
If you'd like, I can send you the version I have on hand so you can see for yourself.
I'm not sure what to say. You have a copy that shows in difference in font size, I have a copy that has no difference. Although, my version has the font difference at the bottom of page 2. It also looks scrunched in as you say, in that area.
I think it may be as Neemo is saying. Different people typed up different versions of the document in the pre-Microsoft Word era. All the partners signed all the versions. All of the signatures are dated the same.
Ali
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
Im guessing that someone used a type writer or whatever (not sure what technology was being used back then lol) to add that bit in. Probably why in Snoozes version the font even rises upwards (see the word "Group") on the far right hand side.
MSL's version certainly visually doesn't look like it has any font change compared to Snooze's but as you say it still looks like it's been squashed in, which suggests to me it was an afterthought. The million dollar question was when, was it one hour, one day, one year, we don't know?
I gotta say none of it looks particularly professional to me - lol.
I'm curious to have a better look at your one if you want to pm it thru to me.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)
I thought we had computers back then. Am I crazy? I am almost sure of it!!
