The $$$ given to Axl/GNR by record company

[the dirt]

Do you guys think the record company would have given Axl/"GNR" the large amount of money to make the record (was it 13 mil) if they had known Axl would be the only one left out of the group that made them money due to their success in the past?

Now I'm not sure how much $ they gave GNR before Slash left, and later on, after Duff left or even if the majority was given to Axl post 97...

And i'm not an expert in how much is A LOT when it comes to record companies funding records, but I'm sure this is a fairly high amount for something that has stutter-stepped at best and never really shown solid proof that it is getting off the ground.

[Eeebs]

Well, we do know that Axl spent $5,500 dollars of the 13 million on a neon horse, so that leaves $12, 99x,xxx.  Yeah, my math does kinda suck

In any case, I have read articles in the past - ie Rolling Stone - that typically, record companies give their artists (well, if you factor in their past successes, that probably makes a big difference) 2 to 3 million to produce / record an album.  

So yeah, I'd say $13,000,000 is a good chunck of change, if ya were to ask me.

[anarchy]

GNR has a platinum album every year without even trying. $13 million isn't that much when you consider how much Geffen has made from GNR and could still make.

[matt88]

i think it was 10 million and it was given not long before slash left,

And i dont think they would have given axl that money if they knew he'd be the only 1 left.

[SLCPUNK]

i think it was 10 million and it was given not long before slash left,

And i dont think they would have given axl that money if they knew he'd be the only 1 left.

Really? I thought it was just given to Axl for his project? I dunno...got a link or something, I'm curious now.

[matt88]

i think it was 10 million and it was given not long before slash left,

And i dont think they would have given axl that money if they knew he'd be the only 1 left.

Really? I thought it was just given to Axl for his project? I dunno...got a link or something, I'm curious now.

Sorry no i dont. Now no1 hate me for sayin something without a link. I've read it a few times in a couple of different places and from a couple of people on this message board.

I may be wrong but i've heard it more than once so thats y i said I THINK.

[SunKing278]

That is an insane amount of money.  I wonder how much of it has been spent.  I would have a hard time believing the record company was thrilled about the entire band leaving, especially Slash.  More to the point, they would have NEVER given him all that money if that had known how long he was going to take.  We already saw the lawsuit over the "Greatest Hits" package, which Geffen said it released because Axl has yet to hand over the new album.  And we've all heard about Axl dealing with legalities recently, so - aside from the Slash and Duff lawsuit - there could be a legal showdown going on behind the scenes.  One thing is for sure, the record company is not going to put up with this garbage from Axl forever, especially after seeing his former bandmates make a record in almost no time and release it to great success and hype for a rival label, and with the notorious Scott Weiland on vocals to boot.  That is a huge embarassment for Axl, and I'm sure the suits at Geffen have taken note.

[astutej]

GNR has a platinum album every year without even trying. $13 million isn't that much when you consider how much Geffen has made from GNR and could still make.

Geffen made quite a bit off GnR :

Geffen's biggest and most profitable act is the Los Angeles group Guns N' Roses. Virtually unknown but for a small cult following, the band signed with Geffen in 1987 Its first two records have sold over 14 million copies. "Guns N' Roses is the act that made Geffen," says one industry insider. "Take them away, and David doesn't get $550 million in MCA stock [for his record company]." Forbes, Dec 24, 1990 v146 n14 p94(5)
The richest man in Hollywood. (David Geffen, includes related article) (Cover Story) Lisa Gubernick; Peter Newcomb

10 Guns N' Roses rock group 1992 $26,000,000 1991 $21,000,000 Total $47,000,000 -
Forbes, Sept 28, 1992 v150 n7 p87(5)
The top 40. (Forbes' 1992 list of entertainers with highest earnings) Peter Newcomb; Jean Sherman Chatzky.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

GNR has a platinum album every year without even trying. $13 million isn't that much when you consider how much Geffen has made from GNR and could still make.

Geffen made quite a bit off GnR :

Geffen's biggest and most profitable act is the Los Angeles group Guns N' Roses. Virtually unknown but for a small cult following, the band signed with Geffen in 1987 Its first two records have sold over 14 million copies. "Guns N' Roses is the act that made Geffen," says one industry insider. "Take them away, and David doesn't get $550 million in MCA stock [for his record company]." Forbes, Dec 24, 1990 v146 n14 p94(5)
The richest man in Hollywood. (David Geffen, includes related article) (Cover Story) Lisa Gubernick; Peter Newcomb

10 Guns N' Roses rock group 1992 $26,000,000 1991 $21,000,000 Total $47,000,000 -
Forbes, Sept 28, 1992 v150 n7 p87(5)
The top 40. (Forbes' 1992 list of entertainers with highest earnings) Peter Newcomb; Jean Sherman Chatzky.

Cool info... thanks  

Whatever the amount of money is... I've never had the impression that it was paid in some sort of lump sum up front.  I've always figured it to be something that they dole out as needed to cover expenses as they accumulate.

Like when we heard about Marco Beltrami being procured to do some orchestral arranagments - I'm thinking it is something that is presented / requisitioned for - then approved and the money's paid out.

Anyone have a perspective that might be useful in understanding how this actually may work?

[C0ma]

Eva GnRAxlRosette, I think you are 75% correct about the process. The only thing I think you are wrong about is that they probably didn't get one large lump sum. I think managment books studio time, the label aproves then pays.....
So I think they just kept approving 13 million in re-recording fees, hair extentions, and a new Lamborgini

EDIT: I misread you post and wrote the samething................I need to learn to read........

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Eva GnRAxlRosette, I think you are 75% correct about the process. The only thing I think you are wrong about is that they probably didn't get one large lump sum. I think managment books studio time, the label aproves then pays.....
So I think they just kept approving 13 million in re-recording fees, hair extentions, and a new Lamborgini

EDIT: I misread you post and wrote the samething................I need to learn to read........

hehe its okay...
btw: just plain "Eva" is fine... and

haha! on the hair extensions and Lamborgini... and the Neon Pegasus someone else mentioned earlier in the thread...

Axl does have his own money, ya know!

and yeah I remember the rumour from Sludge about the lein on his malibu estate....  eh, I don't see that happening

the way I understand it (cuz I used to work for a contractor) in order to put a lien on someone's house you need a judgement to be issued - you have to go to court and what not to prove that the person who you claim owes you money is in default of the debt

this type of scenario usually does not take place until after the transaction has already taken place - the services have been provied and the contractor has not been paid.  

the other scenairo that I am familiar with regarding leins - is when it is agreed to allow a creditor to hold a lein in case the debt is defaulted on (like when you take out a car loan)... thing is, this is something that is arranged before hand - at the time the loan is issued - not something the bank slaps on later on.

And a lien on someone's house (as far as I understand it) only ensures that in the case of the sale, that the creditor will get their money from the sale before the owner does....

its not like the IRS coming in and seizing your house/property (like in Happy Gilmore's mother in the movie)

if there are any liens they can't be cashed in until/unless the property is sold

again- thats my understanding