Tonight's show in Portland, ME is cancelled [press release]

[Scarlett]

In talking about powertrip....Awful. Sorry to hear this. 
This kind of harrassment / threats were anticipated, I guess.
more fans would have been treated this way at the portland venue.

How do you know how the fans at Portland would have been treated? Do you live in this area?

There has NEVER been a problem before at any concert or games at the CCCC by security or police.

[estranged.1098]

In talking about powertrip....Awful. Sorry to hear this. 
This kind of harrassment / threats were anticipated, I guess.
more fans would have been treated this way at the portland venue.

How do you know how the fans at Portland would have been treated? Do you live in this area?

There has NEVER been a problem before at any concert or games at the CCCC by security or police.

Yeah, and GN'R played how many shows at how many places this year without any problems at all?

[creepingvines]

hey, here's a letter i sent to various news outlets including the associated press in defense of gnr, hopefully it won't piss anyone around here off!

Guns N? Roses: Setting the Record Straight
To Whom It May Concern:
   Upon Guns N? Roses? cancellation of a show in Portland, Maine Monday night, various TV news outlets and online news websites began reporting the cause as being ?low ticket sales? and accusing the band of trying to combine the audience with Wednesday?s crowd at the DCU center in Worcester, Massachusetts, where tickets from the Portland show would be honored. One newscast alleged that Rose ?didn?t even show up in Portland.? This was done without regard to the press release from the band?s management explaining restrictions by fire marshals as the cause for the cancellation. 
   Approximately two hours after the announcement from the Cumberland County Civic Center that the show had been canceled by the band, Guns N? Roses? management issued a statement on the band?s website, specifically naming local fire marshals Nelson Collins and Bob Cadigan.  ?We have been informed that officials intend to enforce rules and regulations that should not and do not apply in this venue. Our production manager and crew have been in this building with Clay Aiken and Green Day and none of the restrictions imposed on Guns N' Roses were experienced by those artists. It is our opinion that they are going out of their way to target and single out Guns N' Roses and the band's loyal fans. Following consultation with the band's manager, agent and promoter, it was felt that it was best to cancel the show. It is a regrettable decision, particularly at this late notice, but it is of paramount importance that our fans have the best experience possible without being harassed and threatened.? 
   Over the course of the next day, there was an overwhelming number of negative posts criticizing the band and management and accusing them of lying on the popular Guns N? Roses message board on the website ?Here today? Gone to Hell!.?  This website is known to be monitored by the band, and has more than one source close to the band who post messages on it, including Axl?s longtime assistant Beta Lebeis, who responded: ?The fire marshals and the building made it impossible for GN?R to play. Every time we agreed with something they found something else and that went on for almost 3 hours. Our crew was threatened every 10 minutes that if they would light one cigarette they would get a $1000 fine. If any of the fans coming to the show and would be caught smoking they would get a $1000 fine. If anyone would look intoxicated they would be arrested. If any band member would look intoxicated they would be arrested; if they felt that the pyro would cause any danger, they would stop the show and the list goes on. This incident has nothing to do with anybody in Axl?s camp. Promoters, our team and management came to the conclusion that canceling was the right thing to do. Axl and band were not part of their decision at all, so please stop jumping to conclusions. Is it better for the tour to continue or have them arrested and maybe a cancelled tour? It was one show and lets blame the right people. [Axl] was going to do the show and got a call from management saying that the show was cancelled.?  (This was also confirmed by the band?s guitarist Ron ?Bumblefoot? Thal in both another online message board post as well as in person after the Worcester show.  While Thal signed autographs, a hurt fan confronted him about the cancellation.  Thal?s mood sobered instantly as he explained: ?They were going to arrest you guys.?) 
   This post was widely ignored and discounted, so for the first time, GN?R manager Merk Mercuriadis and Axl Rose himself posted a message directly on the board, ?They made it clear that they intended to harrass our fans, crew and the band through enforcing rules and regulations that are 200 years old to an extent that has not been applied to other artists and that we believed would make the gig a potential time bomb that would explode. Our Production Manager Chris Gratton is a seasoned pro who has worked with everyone from Korn to R. Kelly and has terrific relationships with Fire Marshals and authorities all over the world. This is the first time he has ever come to us and said this is a dangerous situation and these people intend to use their authority in a negative way against our fans, our band and our crew and I need you to do something about it?We take our responsibility to the band seriously and we take our responsibility to the fans seriously. Now if you want to vent your spleens about this do it to the people responsible i.e. the fire marshals. We named them for a reason. They are the reason why the Cumberland County Civic Center did not rock last night.?
   Following this, an AP article surfaced Friday further condemning the band as canceling because ?they couldn?t drink booze onstage.?  This article, which appeared on over 150 news websites and in countless newspapers nationally, even went so far as to use quotes from the portion of the second statement given directly from Rose (which had been reprinted on the band?s official website and included a personal apology to the fans), completely out of context, to make it appear as if he admitted and acknowledged indirectly the alcohol ban as the reason for the cancellation. ?I agree with and ultimately take responsibility for the end decision not to jeopardise the safety of the fans, the crews, the bands and myself as a result of the methods of these particularly draconian authorities.?
   Now, although I am a longtime fan of the band, I have never been one to blindy jump to Axl?s defense when negative stories surfaced about him or the band, and I never really understood it when he claimed to have been ?victimized? by the press.   However, in this instance, I finally see what he means.  These stories all have a common thread:  They pick and choose their facts, and insert blind speculation and assumption, to paint a picture of Axl Rose as the media usually does:  A zany, eccentric, arrogant alcoholic who doesn?t care about his fans.  The original stories made the assumptions about ticket sales, without acknowledging that it cost the band quite a bit of money to cancel the show.  Nor did it occur to them to note that the band would have been aware of the amount of tickets sold well in advance of the show and would have no reason to cancel on such short notice and generate negative publicity.  According to the second statement from Mercuriadis, ?Most bands do not go to Portland, Maine because it is what the music business calls a "soft market" but we had a lot of letters from fans in the area and we were determined to play there regardless of whether it was ?only? 3500 people.?   
   The AP article was even worse; it quoted a Maine fire official in a positive light, and twisted Axl?s words in such a way to make it seem that he may have considered being unable to drink on stage a significant safety risk for everyone involved in the concert, as it gave absolutely no explaination of the band?s side of the story: ?After the cancellation, a band spokesperson blamed fire marshals for ?making it impossible for the band to perform their show to the usual high standards that their fans deserve..?  The press release, however, did not give a specific reason for the pullout.? ?But they are obviously insinuating it had something to do with alcohol.
   I am not a band insider, or a journalist.  But it makes me angry as a fan to see this.  It hurts a band that a lot of people  have stuck with, despite all the negativity and lies that seem to follow them for some reason; a band on the verge of a new era.  Aside from that, its just shoddy journalism.  Stories that don?t even attempt to present the truth or get both sides.  Why did they not include this part of Rose?s message?  ?Thanks for even trying to see us. It sincerely is much more than appreciated.?  The answer is that it does not fit the image of Axl Rose that they have created.  And it makes the story less ?juicy.?  I know I am not alone when I say the Associated Press has lost my respect and lost credibility with me.  Its one thing for one individual writing for one local news outlet to spread disinformation and damaging lies, but it crosses a line when its done by a major respected news organization and spread via the internet and in print to nearly every corner of the earth.
            Sincerely,
               C. Vines

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

I think that was a pretty cool effort on your part, C.Vines.
Did you get any responses/ replies?

[TAP]

FYI, the penalty for a first violation of smoking in a public place in Maine is up to $100, not sure how the "pattern of conduct" is interpreted., but if a fan was fined $1000 for a first offence with no prior knowledge of the rule I would be surprised if it was upheld.

http://www.mainelung.org/learn_with_us/advocacy/laws_brochure.htm

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Its a week later, but for what its worth, note the following Maine Statute

?17. Enforcement of civil violations
 
? ? ? 1. A law enforcement officer who has probable cause to believe that a civil violation has been committed by a person must issue or have delivered a written summons to that person directing the person to appear in the District Court to answer the allegation that the person has committed the violation. The summons must include the signature of the officer, a brief description of the alleged violation, the time and place of the alleged violation and the time, place and date the person is to appear in court. The form used must be the Violation Summons and Complaint, as prescribed in Title 29-A, section 2601, for traffic infractions and the Uniform Summons and Complaint for other civil violations. A person to whom a summons is issued or delivered must give a written promise to appear. If the person refuses to sign the summons after having been ordered to do so by a law enforcement officer, the person commits a Class E crime. The law enforcement officer may not order a person to sign the summons for a civil violation unless the civil violation is an offense defined in Title 12; Title 23, section 1980; Title 28-A, section 2052; or Title 29-A.

 
? ? ? 2. Any person to whom a law enforcement officer is authorized to issue or deliver a summons pursuant to subsection 1 who intentionally fails or refuses to provide the officer reasonably credible evidence of the person's correct name, address or date of birth commits a Class E crime, if the person persists in that failure or refusal after having been informed by the officer of the provisions of this subsection. If the person furnishes the officer evidence of that person's correct name, address and date of birth and the evidence does not appear to be reasonably credible, the officer shall attempt to verify the evidence as quickly as is reasonably possible. During the period that verification is being attempted, the officer may require the person to remain in the officer's presence for a period not to exceed 2 hours. During this period, if the officer reasonably believes that the officer's safety or the safety of others present requires, the officer may search for any dangerous weapon by an external patting of the person's outer clothing. If in the course of the search the officer feels an object that the officer reasonably believes to be a dangerous weapon, the officer may take such action as is necessary to examine the object, but may take permanent possession of the object only if it is subject to forfeiture. The requirement that the person remain in the presence of the officer does not constitute an arrest.

After informing the person of the provisions of this subsection, the officer may arrest the person either if the person intentionally refuses to furnish any evidence of that person's correct name, address or date of birth or if, after attempting to verify the evidence as provided for in this subsection, the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has intentionally failed to provide reasonably credible evidence of the person's correct name, address or date of birth.
[2003, c. 657, ?4 (amd).]
 
? ?? 3. If, at any time subsequent to an arrest made pursuant to subsection 2, it appears that the evidence of the person's correct name, address and date of birth was accurate, the person must be released from custody and any record of that custody must show that the person was released for that reason. If, upon trial for violating subsection 2, a person is acquitted on the ground that the evidence of the person's correct name, address and date of birth was accurate, the record of acquittal must show that that was the ground.[2003, c. 657, ?4 (amd).]
 
? ? ? 4. Any person who fails to appear in court as directed by a summons served on that person pursuant to subsection 1 or to otherwise respond in accordance with law on or before the date specified in the summons commits a Class E crime. Upon that person's failure to appear or respond, the court may issue a warrant of arrest. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subsection that the failure to appear or respond resulted from just cause.[1991, c. 459, ?5 (amd).]
 


So fans fined would have been removed from the show - and not necessarily without force or being searched
Its not like they would have appoached the fan wherever they were and stood there in the dark taking id's and writing tickets as the fan was allowed to remain in their place...? ? the fans would have been pulled out of the crowd... one after the other..? ?for smoking , for public drunkedness, for standing, for who knows what?? for profanity?!? any civil offiense etc.

and the officer could detain them for up to 2 hours to verify the identity!?
and what if they didn't have ID?? The statue says the officer is within his rights to arrest them!

(see the account ppbebe posted about a fans being removed from the NJ crowd)

this is was the threat to the safety of the fans
GN'R did not want to risk this
for this they should be applauded

Further... for those who can't fathom why such enforcement might be threatened.? Perhaps the officials became aware that management was willing to absorb any fines imposed for playing too late, or drinking in the building, or smoking in the building or whatever... so they advised *cough*threatened*cough* of other consequences they could impose.

[MotherGooseLuvR]

Sounds exactly like what Nelson Collins told Eat My Silkworms in their exclusive interview.  Wow!  What a major scoop!  CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Yahoo and the AP all picked it up a few days later!

[ppbebe]

In talking about powertrip....Awful. Sorry to hear this. 
This kind of harrassment / threats were anticipated, I guess.
more fans would have been treated this way at the portland venue.

How do you know how the fans at Portland would have been treated? Do you live in this area?

And how could the Portland people know things that were averted? 
Did the poster I quoted go to the NJ show knowing he was going to be kicked out by cops just for standing, beforehand the show?

There has NEVER been a problem before at any concert or games at the CCCC by security or police.

Can you not at least read the topic and the post you're replying to?
anyways, More proof that the management was on the right track

"We have been informed that officials intend to enforce rules and regulations that should not and do not apply in this venue. Our production manager and crew have been in this building with Clay Aiken and Green Day and none of the restrictions imposed on Guns N' Roses were experienced by those artists. It is our opinion that they are going out of their way to target and single out Guns N' Roses and the band's loyal fans."
Source(s): Sanctuary

[ppbebe]

hey, here's a letter i sent to various news outlets including the associated press in defense of gnr, hopefully it won't piss anyone around here off!

far from that. telling letter.
Your forceful writing proves that GNR fans are not a bunch of rowdies or illiterates. I'm proud of you!
Those shoddy-ass journalists should be ashamed of themselves, if they still had an ounce of pride. At least they should learn they can't just fuck the readers. We are watching.

And I find this article, which is not so sloppy.

GNR Under The Gun
Updated 02:55 PST Tue, Nov 14 2006

Guns N' Roses has been the subject of some intense media scrutiny following a recent concert cancellation in Portland, Maine.
 The band's November 6 gig at the Cumberland County Civic Center was canceled hours before the show was to take place. Almost immediately, fan and gossip sites were awash with theories as to why GNR backed out, including poor ticket sales and the band not being allowed to drink on stage.
 Steve Crane, GM of the Civic Center, said it was up to the band to explain the reasons for the cancellation.
 "We were set up. We were ready to go. The stage was all set. All the technical and logistical requirements that we were asked to fulfill as an arena were fulfilled." Crane told Pollstar. "I just received word from the band and the promoter that the show was canceled and they issued a press release."
 That press release, and various statements posted on numerous fan sites, revved up the rumor mill. Some blamed ticket sales, some blamed clashes with fire marshals over the band's setup and pyrotechnics, and still others blamed the cancellation on an old state law that prohibits performers from drinking on stage.
 A representative for the Maine Department of Public Safety said in a statement November 9 that the band was informed by fire marshal inspectors during a pre-show pyrotechnics test that it could not drink on stage, and the show was consequently canceled a few hours later.
 "The band had wanted to drink beer, wine and Jagermeister while performing," according to the statement.
 But representatives for the band said it wasn't all that simple.
 "Axl doesn't drink on stage," said production manager Chris Gratton.
 GNR manager Merck Mercuriadis told Pollstar that during the setup, he was informed by Gratton that the fire marshals were intent on harassing not only the band, but the audience as well.
"They made it clear they were going to harass the fans and that they were going to give $1,000 citations to every fan that was smoking cigarettes during the performance, that if anyone was caught drinking that they would be arrested on the spot," Mercuriadis said. "That they were going to basically do everything that they possibly could do to make sure that this Guns N' Roses performance was as compromised as possible.
 "At the end of the day, this is a band that has had issues in the past, and we're very, very careful not to put the band or put Axl in the situation where there's going to be a problem."
 But Mercuriadis denied that the real problem had anything to do with ticket sales nor the band's mercurial frontman, who's had his share of last-minute no-shows in years past.
 "Ticket sales didn't come into it at all. We gave up $200,000 to do what we thought was the right thing here," he said. "We went into Portland, Maine, knowing that it was a soft market, knowing that whether it was 3,500 people or whether it was 5,000 people that was what it was likely to be. And we would have played for those kids. You know, 3,500  kids are important to us." Fans were given the option to use tickets at a Worcester, Mass., concert two days later or receive refunds at point of purchase.

Dana Parker-McClain / Pollstar
http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewnews.pl?NewsID=7440

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

""They made it clear they were going to harass the fans and that they were going to give $1,000 citations to every fan that was smoking cigarettes during the performance, that if anyone was caught drinking that they would be arrested on the spot," Mercuriadis said. "That they were going to basically do everything that they possibly could do to make sure that this Guns N' Roses performance was as compromised as possible.
 "At the end of the day, this is a band that has had issues in the past, and we're very, very careful not to put the band or put Axl in the situation where there's going to be a problem."
 But Mercuriadis denied that the real problem had anything to do with ticket sales nor the band's mercurial frontman, who's had his share of last-minute no-shows in years past.
 "Ticket sales didn't come into it at all. We gave up $200,000 to do what we thought was the right thing here," he said. "We went into Portland, Maine, knowing that it was a soft market, knowing that whether it was 3,500 people or whether it was 5,000 people that was what it was likely to be. And we would have played for those kids. You know, 3,500  kids are important to us." Fans were given the option to use tickets at a Worcester, Mass., concert two days later or receive refunds at point of purchase..

Good job creepingvines...? ?

I'd like to see this circulated.? ?

[MotherGooseLuvR]

If you believe Axl and Merck's take on the story, then you'd have to believe that those two fire marshall's had something personally against Axl, his band and their loyal fans.  Do you really think that's the case?  If you do, you're just as paranoid as Axl.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

If you believe Axl and Merck's take on the story, then you'd have to believe that those two fire marshall's had something personally against Axl, his band and their loyal fans.? Do you really think that's the case?? If you do, you're just as paranoid as Axl.

All one needs recognize is that that figure(s) in authority feeling said authority challenged will resort to whatever means available to them to assert said authority.

Also helpful in regarding the AP release is consideration of the relationship that the local Maine AP writers wish to maintain with local and state officials.

[1badapple]

If you believe Axl and Merck's take on the story, then you'd have to believe that those two fire marshall's had something personally against Axl, his band and their loyal fans.? Do you really think that's the case?? If you do, you're just as paranoid as Axl.

Dude, WTF is your deal. 2 days ago you were jammin your nose up Axl's ass. I could pull up some quotes, but i'm sure you know what i'm talking about.

Looks like someone/something gave you dose of reality. congrats!

[dave-gnfnr2k]

What was the point of bumping this thread?

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

What was the point of bumping this thread?

The last post in this thread before I 'bumped it' cited that following penalty for smoking in a public place:

FYI, the penalty for a first violation of smoking in a public place in Maine is up to $100, not sure how the "pattern of conduct" is interpreted., but if a fan was fined $1000 for a first offence with no prior knowledge of the rule I would be surprised if it was upheld.

http://www.mainelung.org/learn_with_us/advocacy/laws_brochure.htm

So I replied to cite how officers issuing the summons for the violation could/would have created an unsafe environment for the fans in attendance.?

Also ppbebe wanted to share an article that was published by Pollstar on the 14th....? and this was the appropriate thread to post it in.

And if I receive any replies from the correspondence i sent to Foxnews, USAToday, CNN, or The Associated Press, I will be bumping again to share it with the board.