Good one.

Stern: "Does Axl have any plastic surgery done?"
Trunk: "Yeah... (pause) It's hard to tell with the hat and the glasses."

Ah, but the truth is a complicated matter.

As for the name,

Axl says he got his clause inserted in 1990 during the Alan Niven renegotiation.
S & D claim the clause was inserted in a 1992 revision, which links to the 'Axl wouldn't come on stage' story.

Duff has alluded Doug Goldstein did present them a stack of papers to sign. Slash has said to have been blindsided by the whole name affair as it happened. Now, let's look at this differently.

In 1990, Axl puts in the name clause (as Axlin describes, possibly) during the Alan Niven renegotiation. Not much is ever made of this, and Axl's happy. Slash & Duff don't bother reading through the contract at this point.

In 1992, Doug Goldstein has Slash & Duff sign the revision mentioned in the lawsuit. The Axl clause for the partnership is there already, has been for two or so years. There may be a lot of stuff in the revision S & D might be curious about, but Goldstein is alluding Axl's show depends upon them signing.

The Death Clause (to which Duff refers to in his book) can be seen as Axl putting his seatbelt on. S & D are in the deep end with their substance abuse, and one wouldn't be surprised to find one OD'ing and another with a burst pancreas. So if the Death Clause of '92 would've been Axl's idea, one has to admit it does have something of a point.

S & D got curious over the contract some three years later, when Axl sent them a letter saying he'll disband the partnership. 

Here's one from the Greatest Hits lawsuit:

"Since 1992, [GNR and Geffen Records] have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998.

One of these amendments [...] confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as "Leaving Members" under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album.

Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band."

Ok, so let's look at that differently.

Alternative reality; Axl, Slash, Duff & co complete the '96 album. S & D remain in the band throughout. Based on the description above, S & D retain royalties for their contributions to the '96 album. They also share the financial responsibility for the recording costs. With me so far?

What kind of hired hands are treated with rewards and responsibilities comparable to the Man himself?

Slash called it escrow. What does that mean, really?

When you put money in escrow it is held by a neutral third party (called an escrow agent) who works for both the lender and the borrower. The agent's role is to carry out the instructions agreed upon by both parties. The money is released when all the terms of the agreement are met. - here

The money coming from the GNR organization to Slash and Duff for their ongoing work on the '96 album would be held by, perhaps, Doug Goldstein. They'd still have their share as partnership members, but their continued presence would be dependant on their ability to complete an album with Axl.

Slash & Duff would've been the victims of some ruthless powerplay. Axl's not too innocent here, as the claim to the name (which he dates back to 1990) seems a particular sore spot.

But the possibility that rises from this haggling is that Axl's enablers encouraged him to contain Slash & Duff, his equal partners and collaborators, both contractually and financially.

Why would Doug Goldstein or anyone else choose to feed Axl's insecurities to such ends? Well, in 1992, GNR was a very big band in the middle of a very big tour. Whoever had the ultimate say on the brand name became the one all the sharks zeroed in on.

They'd know who to go to because of the Name Clause Axl had inserted two years earlier.

Myles has got some balls.

That was standing in for Axl Rose alongside Slash in an event every fan of the original band was interested in.

In the middle of a media blitz, where Axl raised a storm by sticking to his no-show policy (albeit announcing it just a bit too close - next time Ax, spare us the tweets containing any 'this is (the fans') victory' pep talk).

And a rather daring move for Slash and Duff to go along with it - without Izzy.

Steven had his moment, and he may now have peace.

So, at the end of the day,

is everyone happy with what we DID get?

The double standards are great on both sides of the fence.

Some say the RRHOF lineup was not the 'Real' GNR, just a bunch of people who used to play in the band.

Just like those who think Axl should have specific people in the lineup to justify the GNR name.

And I can tell you one thing. Somewhere right now, Axl is eating up all this clamoring and attention towards him. He's still the bad boy, the pillar of integrity, and whatever justifications the biggest nutswingers around (yes, you, Fernando) can come up with. 

And who gives a toss?

They may reunite one day, but I would've been surprised to see it happen in Cleveland. You put an inch of pressure on Axl, he'll walk away and have you fired. When he needs the last payday, he'll do it - and the rest will follow, aside Izzy, perhaps.

Just how it goes.

I think he'll be there, only expect him to take the stage and bow a few hours late.