You are not logged in. Please register or login.

apex-twin
 Rep: 199 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

apex-twin wrote:

As we all know, Axl owns the GNR name. He got it by adding a clause to the 1992 recording agreement, which itself was renegotiated by Guns' lawyers after Alan Niven managed to get David Geffen open the file. Niven's gambit was brilliant in itself; if Geffen wouldn't budge, Guns would tour the world without officially releasing the UYI albums. This led to a war of words, but Geffen ultimately relented. Cue 1992; Niven was gone, fired by Axl. The new recording agreement was still in the making. Axl put in his clause, so he could eat the cake and have it, too: Anyone else (Slash or Duff) walks from the Guns partnership, his shares are to be distributed equally amongst the remaining members. Axl walks, he keeps his share AND the name. In August 1995, he did just that.

Axl wrote:

The battles were during the breakup. Our people and my individual legal... basically forced me to go thru the motions...for over 2 years... Which led to the trial period, where Slash played the key bits of Fall to Pieces, but once I showed some interest that was over.

15yylac.jpg

MSL has helpfully posted some scans of the 1992 recording agreement online, which shed some light over it all. Thanks to Aussie too for additional snooping. 22

Axl wrote:

Slash has hoped to use [the public perception on the name ownership] to continually sue and have some sort of legal nonsense going on behind the scenes, in an effort to reverse things. He wouldn’t have been able to get the support and action on the part of his various team members over the years to do so if the truth were out there, especially when the statute of limitations had run out years ago.

"A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Most lawsuits MUST be filed within a certain amount of time. In general, once the statute of limitations on a case “runs out,” the legal claim is not valid any longer.

Breach of a written contract: Four years from the date the contract was broken.
Breach of an oral contract: Two years from the date the contract was broken."

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9618.htm

14o2crp.jpg
According to the signature dates, Duff's deadline for the name issue expired on 10/21/96, while Slash had his time-out on 10/15/96.

"Right now, Axl and I are deliberating over the future of our relationship. [...] I have only been back in the band for three weeks and my relationship with Axl right now is sort of at a stand still." (Slash chat, 10/16/96)

Two weeks from that, Axl sent a fax to MTV saying Slash has left Guns.


Maybe Axl has the right for the name. Maybe the backstage signing under duress never happened. But these scans, along with Axl's comments, allude Axl pulled the trigger on Slash the minute Slash's statute of limitations regarding the agreement expires. Meaning, Axl fired Slash right after he had gotten immunity in a court of law to own the band, lock, stock and barrel.

In any case, ouch.

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

Lomax wrote:

We are reading this contract because AXL okayed it. This is the best press he has had in years. It proves that SLash and Duff are lying about when, where and why they signed the contract.


MSL wrote:

While Duff claimed it was a show in 1993 and Slash claimed it was a show in 1992, their stories have the following in common:

• Both claim they signed backstage at a Guns N' Roses concert.

• Both claim they signed the same day.

• Both claim they signed because they feared Axl would refuse to take the stage that night.

This contract proves that they were not backstage at a concert as they were on a break from the tour at the time and that they did not sign the same day.

All 3 points are gone.

apex-twin
 Rep: 199 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

apex-twin wrote:
Lomax wrote:

We are reading this contract because AXL okayed it.

You are most probably right.

The record set by Slash and Duff doesn't really jive with this.

Aussie
 Rep: 283 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

Aussie wrote:

I always suspected the backstage at a concert signing thing was somewhat of an urban myth or at least distorted by "Chinese Whispers". However Slash and Duff conveniently never corrected it and in fact went along with it, perhaps because it served their purpose and/or they really had such a hazy drug/alcohol affected memory of the circumstances they weren't sure.

I suspected it may have happened before a tour or in between legs.  If this contract is correct (not sure why MSL won't post the full thing?) then it was between a leg of the tour. That suggests the backstage at a concert thing is false. However, it doesn't prove there was no duress when they signed it. I can just see Reese or Goldstein intimating either subtlety or explicitly that if it wasn't signed then the next leg of the tour wouldn't happen.

I mean think about it, you still have to wonder about why Slash and Duff would sign this.  There was no monetary consideration so why would they do it?  If relations were already strained by that time of the tour it further makes you question why they would potentially disadvantage themselves for no reason, unless........ There was some type of duress/threat used to get them to sign.

TheMole
 Rep: 77 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

TheMole wrote:

Wait, Slash can legally sign documents like this with "Slash"? That's pretty cool...

Neemo
 Rep: 482 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

Neemo wrote:

I just read duffs book and can't recall what he wrote about this issue hmm

Anyway maybe it happened before a tour or between legs? They were in a bad way back then so can understand a hazy memory lol...duff talks about forgetting several days at a time in his book

Also understand Axl trying to get some type of control in place as either of them could've od'd at any moment

tejastech08
 Rep: 193 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

tejastech08 wrote:
Aussie wrote:

I mean think about it, you still have to wonder about why Slash and Duff would sign this.  There was no monetary consideration so why would they do it?  If relations were already strained by that time of the tour it further makes you question why they would potentially disadvantage themselves for no reason, unless........ There was some type of duress/threat used to get them to sign.

It's also possible they didn't really read it, the same way that none of us read the terms of use when we install a new program on our computers. Both of the guys were so fucked up on drugs and booze that it wouldn't surprise me if they just signed it without even thinking to read what it said.

-D-
 Rep: 231 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

-D- wrote:

I agree with what was said, Slash is a stage name... any legal binding document would have to be signed by Saul Hudson which makes me think this isn't accurate

apex-twin
 Rep: 199 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

apex-twin wrote:
Neemo wrote:

I just read duffs book and can't recall what he wrote about this issue hmm

Read it here.

Aussie
 Rep: 283 

Re: GNR Name Contract (w/ MSL/snooze72 scans)

Aussie wrote:

I have permission to post the following email:

Subject: Re:
From: bfdink
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:37:40 -0700
To: tru-b-dor

I was at home waiting for Jakes birth, but as I understand it he had Laurie Soriano draft an agreement in Barcelona relinquishing their rights in the name, before he would take the stage. The shitty thing is Slash and Duff were so fucked up that they think I gave them the ultimatum and that's why they don't speak to me today. It was Reese, I was halfway round the globe!!

Doug Goldstein
CEO When Pigs Fly


On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Alan Niven  wrote:

Hey,

since I keep getting asked, what is the truth about Red forcing the name from Slash and Duff?

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB