asking the record company again.

[A Private Eye]

Are many reasons of decently selling bands. These bands together are the reason why Interscope do not need money from GNR sales - theyre hardly in financial dire straights! So why no drop 'em?

Dont get me wrong, i want the album, i just dont get it.

I'll tell you the reason the label has not dropped them. Their debut album sold 30 million copies, the UYI albums sold 30 million collectively, at least. they wont drop the band.

I'll have to disagree with that. The label has, reportedly, stopped paying Guns N' Roses to make the album. So the reason they haven't dropped them is because they expect to either make some money from Guns or at lease not lose any anymore.

either way, i think its weird to keep them purely in the hope of makind decent money, or at least not losing any.

and gnr will sell nowhere near 3omil nowadays, no band does, those days are gone. I simply dont think gnr sales can be that important to them. the point about their back catalogue that someone made is a good one, but i guess time will tell. anyone turned out that light yet?

it's weird to keep them purely in the hope of making decent money???


Making money is what it's all about.? ?If they're profitable now and there is the chance of them being MORE profitable in the future then that means $ now and $$ later.? ? That's what business is all about.

The record label is not a non-profit organization.? ?They WANT to make money.? Music is purely a vehicle for that, their number one objective is profit.?

yeah i agree, but wouldnt the profit (based on reports of expenditure which i realise may be incorrect) they would need to make MASSIVE?

Yes, but they might as well try and recoup some of it. For the sake of argument assume the reported 13 million spent on the album by the label is correct and also that they cut funding in 04. This leaves the label with 13 million of expenditure on CD and no profit. If they dropped GNR now they have still spent that 13 million and then have no album to try and recoup any of it. If they keep GNR on the label and GNR releases CD, admittedly it might not make 13 million but even if it only makes 7 million (for example) the label is still better off than if they dropped GNR.

[Bartlet]

fair enough, up to a point i agree with you both. but they make more out of them ONLY if there are more releases - CD or otherwise, if you discount the relatively small income from the back catalogue.

but you both talk a lot of sense and you didnt flame! 

[elmir]

fair enough, up to a point i agree with you both. but they make more out of them ONLY if there are more releases - CD or otherwise, if you discount the relatively small income from the back catalogue.

but you both talk a lot of sense and you didnt flame! 

stop talking out of your ass....how the fuck would you know how much they make out of gnr's back catalogue?

"a relatively small income"...?....what is a relatively small income to you?

[sami ben tovim]

the only album that is going to come out is g'nr
2002/2006 era..
we can all kiss new g'nr ass goodbye..

[RageNirvanaNIN]

Just to weigh in on why they haven't dropped GNR , i think it's been stated. They've already spent so much money on this project , dropping it would make a big loss. If CD is released and its makes a dollar its still better than dropping the band and not getting anything...

[Voodoochild]

Dind't they just recovered the money with Greatest Hits already?

[elmir]

Dind't they just recovered the money with Greatest Hits already?

yeah, they did, but corporates don't work like that...they got their cash back, but they will still consider CD to be the one which has to "repay" itself....sneaky bastards....but that's business...