GNR Finish CD?

[ShotgunBlues1978]

Just some food for thought on album sales for the year 2007 from an AP article I saw:

Eagles fly high. The top-selling album of 2007? Josh Groban's Christmas set, "Noel," at 3.7 million. Second was the soundtrack of "High School Musical 2" with 2.96 million. That means the Eagles' "Long Road Out of Eden," in third with 2.6 million sold, was the top-selling album of new material by a single artist/entity. The top 10 albums of 2007 are about evenly spread among genres (rock, hip-hop, pop, R&B and country). The remaining top 10 albums include: No. 4 -- "As I Am," Alicia Keys; 5 -- "Daughtry," Daughtry; 6 -- "Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley" soundtrack; 7 -- "Minutes to Midnight," Linkin Park; 8 -- "Dutchess," Fergie; 9 -- "Taylor Swift," Taylor Swift; 10 -- "Graduation," Kanye West.

Rap was rocked, rock rules. Rap/hip-hop experienced the biggest decline in album sales of any genre, down 30 percent (from sales of 60 million in 2006 to 42 million in 2007). Rock albums fell 12.5 percent, from 171 million to 149 million. Almost all genres -- country, R&B, jazz, alternative, Latin, etc. -- were each down by at least a double-digit percentage.

Of that list, the Eagles would be about the only artist close to the GNR situation in terms of being a big name middle aged rock band releasing new material for the first time in years. The rest of that list is populated with artists who have access to top 40 and adult contemporary formats GNR won't, and those are the 2 biggest platforms on radio.

Assuming a 10% decline in rock sales this year alone in keeping with the trend, if GNR were the top selling rock act of the year they are most likely looking at a ceiling of 2.3 million copies, and that is in the best case scenario. To assume that some how GNR will be completely immune to the retail realities facing the genre given the challenges they will face is just not realistic. 2 million in sales would be a tremendous showing all things considered.

Apparently this is a somewhat describing breakdown of where the money goes from a new album with a list price of $15.99:

- $0.17 Musicians? unions
- $0.80 Packaging/manufacturing
- $0.82 Publishing royalties
- $0.80 Retail profit
- $0.90 Distribution
- $1.60 Artists? royalties
- $1.70 Label profit
- $2.40 Marketing/promotion
- $2.91 Label overhead
- $3.89 Retail overhead


Now we know most albums don't retail for that much so some cuts need to be made....



/jarmo

According to Jarmo's chart (assuming that it is somewhat accurate and it seems very likely looking at the breakdown), with a minimum capital investment by the company of $13 million dollars (the money spent just to record the album) the would need to sell an astronmical number of CD's to even get to break even (based on the chart #'s provided it looks like they see maybe $3.00-$4.00 revenue on every album after all the other non-recording costs are considered, and that is assuming a 15.99 retail price which is completely unrealistic). When you then consider the additional money they will have to spend to promote, distribute, pay Axl, and all other new costs associated with a release that $13 million climbs even higher. 

Any way you look at it there is almost no viable scenario in which this thing can be seen as being worth putting even 1 more dollar into, as the additional money spent from here on out won't bring in the incremental sales increases to make it worth doing compared to the opportunity costs of not using the money elsewhere. This thing will sell at least 1-1.5 million regardless of whether it is promoted or not, so putting in another million or two promo to gain at most a 500,000-700,000 incremental sales increase (under the most optimal projection) is just not worth the risk to a financially strapped company considering the downside potential if everything doesn't fall into place perfectly.

Axl has to much riding on this to just take his chances of a release with no promo. He is better off not releasing it considering how catastophic failure would be to his and Guns legacy and everything he has spent a decade doing. If the hypothetical numbers are true based on Jarmo's chart and the known 2007 year end albums sales statistics, there is little chance in the near future of the label making the financial committment Axl needs based on their likely ability to break even on this (much less be profitable).

Just like with Axl, based on their risk they are better off sitting on the album in the hopes that a more viable financial model may develop in the future as digital sales are at least showing signs of continued growth and more people become comfortable with the notion of actually paying for music again. For almost a decade now people have essentially been able to get music for free, and convincing people to buy something they can still get for free currently is a hard sell. Things are improving slowly, but at least there is finally some semblance of hope for the record companies on the horizon potentially.

Any way you look at it this is a major recipe for gridlock. We don't know anything for sure, but based on the tone of Jarmo and Mysteron's posts the past few months regaurding things "the ball being in the label's court", coupled with all the rumors from outside sources like Rolling Stone and Eddie Trunk essentially echoing the same thing it seems entirely plausible and probably likely. Without knowing the nuts and bolts it is not terribly difficult to come up with a somewhat reasonable guestimate as to the financial realities surrounding the album from the labels standpoint in regards to the desirability of it being financially worth further investment. The outlook is not rosey(pardon the pun) at all for any sort of release in the near future. It is hard to even see how any compromise to break the gridlock could be reached because both sides have entirely legitimate and reasonable grounds for the positions they appear to be taking regarding and not backing down from their current stance.

I know it's sort of apples and oranges, but if you look at the movie industry, they regularly spend a ton of money marketing movies they know they won't make a profit on.  They take some movie that cost $70 million to make, spend $30 million marketing it, and their only real goal is to make back what they spend on the marketing while it's in the theater then hope to break even or lessen the damage once it's out on DVD.  They'll spend $100 million to release and market a movie that they realistically can only hope to make $80 million off of after everything, ticket sales and DVD sales, is accounted for.  Why?  Because losing $20 million dollars is not as bad as losing $70 million. 

[GNR_Green]

Someone on the megadeth forums said something about Eddie Trunk's show.  Apparently whoever was on it said the label won't release it, even though it's finished, because of the prospect of not making profit.  The label must be stupid if that's what they think.

It's amazing that this stuff still gets talked about in all honesty.  The band's great, the new songs are great, just bloody release it.  I've been coming on HTGTH for years now and nothing changes, except my anticipation slowly wanes with each passing year!  I want to take this opportunity to say "keep up the good work Jarmo"!  You have the patience of I don't know what!

[Naupis]

The idea of this "3-4 albums worth of material" thing is moot if GNR doesn't have an existing contract with the label to release 3-4 new albums worth of original material. Say 2 more new releases satisfies their contract, they will have to sign Axl to another big deal if they ever dream of releasing those 3 or 4th albums. So he may have recorded all that material, but if they can only release half of it without having to give him a new contract then it puts a whole new spin on how much revenue would need to be generated with however many albums GNR have left to satisfy their current contract. If anyone knows it would be appreciated to add to the discussion.

Further, this myth that GH somehow pays the label back for CD is absolutely not true. In the band's recording contract it is a near certainty that there was to be at least one GH hits release, as most artists of that stature have the same thing. If the label signs you to a 6 album deal, they expect expect to earn the projected revenues from those 6 individual albums. The bean counters aren't accounting profits/and losses in the aggregate, but based on the financial success and viability of each individual project. Doing at or above expectations in one is not going to entail throwing money at a bleak financial situation in another just because they made more than they expected off of one. Any company's management has a fidicuiary responsibility to shareholders to maximize shareholder value, so they are not going to make a risky financial decision in regards to the CD project nor call things even in regards to the 13 million in debt just because GH did well.

Let's say you had a sales job at a bank, and also had your home mortgage through them. Then let's say you are a star earner for the bank and beat your projections every month. For some reason or another though you are completely unable and unwilling to make your mortgage payment and are in danger of forclosure. Does anybody in their right mind think the bank would forget that you refuse to make a mortgage payment and not forclose on your house just because you are an above average earner for the company?

The argument some of you try and make applying CD to that logic is that somehow the bank would say "well, he is this far delinquent on his mortgage and owes us X dollars, but he did beat his sales quota by X dollars the last few months, so we will just consider his mortgage paid for that money even though we still paid him his full salary and commision. Everyone understands that would never ever happen in the real world as those are considered entirely separate entities from a business standpoint is that there is an expectation by the bank that you perform all of the duties of your employment and pay your mortgage in full every month as is the expectation when a loan is made. They don't just call it even because you are succeeding at one and failing at the other when the expectation from their end is that both tasks should be completed as specified.

That is the nature of finance. Maximize revenue on every project, and make decisions based on the merits of each individual situation. Just as a bank doesn't consider a mortgage that isn't paid back forgiven because you are an outstanding sales leader for the company, the record label is not applying the excess financial gain from GH to the CD debt. They expect to see full performance on each individual project, not an aggregate of everything combined. No financial model on the planet will do something they know is going to lose money just because they had one that did well.

[HungerForChaos]

Someone on the megadeth forums said something about Eddie Trunk's show.  Apparently whoever was on it said the label won't release it, even though it's finished, because of the prospect of not making profit.  The label must be stupid if that's what they think.

It's amazing that this stuff still gets talked about in all honesty.  The band's great, the new songs are great, just bloody release it.  I've been coming on HTGTH for years now and nothing changes, except my anticipation slowly wanes with each passing year!  I want to take this opportunity to say "keep up the good work Jarmo"!  You have the patience of I don't know what!

I doubt that's true at all...

[downzy56]

It's kind of an interesting move on the label's part to now start shopping the album around to other labels.  If you think about it, why would anyone want to buy the recording rights to a band like Guns N' Roses unless there's proof that the album is finished?  Geffen might have been stringing Axl and the band along, and once the album was completed and turned in, they look to shop it around. 

Seems like it comes down to math.  If you've invested $13 million into something but only expect a return of $6 million, why not try to sell it for $7-10 million to someone who thinks a $6 million return is undervalued. 

I never understood why the label would considering selling the recording rights away, but now I'm starting to see the logic.


And whoever pointed out that tour and merch revenues could offset losses from cd sales is obviously unaware that labels rarely get a piece of that pie.  The industry is moving to '360 deals' where a label will give an artist higher royalty fees for recordings in exchange for a piece of the revenues made off tours and merchandise. 

If the fate of the album is now being decided by lawyers and accountants, well, we could have a much longer wait than we thought.

Cheers,

Andrew

[olschoolboro]

Logically, the investers want a profit from this music, but regardless it will be a great album no matter if it outsells afd or illusions.  I just keep asking why not tour a hell of a lot more to regain some of that investment? I know that it may not be that simple but there are plenty of promotional things that can create cash, alot without spending too  much for it.  idk just ramblings.

[Chief]

hold on.. i may have missed it but who said the label was shoppin the album around??

It's kind of an interesting move on the label's part to now start shopping the album around to other labels.  If you think about it, why would anyone want to buy the recording rights to a band like Guns N' Roses unless there's proof that the album is finished?  Geffen might have been stringing Axl and the band along, and once the album was completed and turned in, they look to shop it around. 

Seems like it comes down to math.  If you've invested $13 million into something but only expect a return of $6 million, why not try to sell it for $7-10 million to someone who thinks a $6 million return is undervalued. 

I never understood why the label would considering selling the recording rights away, but now I'm starting to see the logic.


And whoever pointed out that tour and merch revenues could offset losses from cd sales is obviously unaware that labels rarely get a piece of that pie.  The industry is moving to '360 deals' where a label will give an artist higher royalty fees for recordings in exchange for a piece of the revenues made off tours and merchandise. 

If the fate of the album is now being decided by lawyers and accountants, well, we could have a much longer wait than we thought.

Cheers,

Andrew

[mrbucketfoot]

Eddie Trunk suggested it and seemingly been perpetuated since.

[Smoking Guns]

If it is being shopped around, its a good thing.  If no good offer comes in, they will be forced to release it. Its judgement day now.

[Ali]

The idea of this "3-4 albums worth of material" thing is moot if GNR doesn't have an existing contract with the label to release 3-4 new albums worth of original material. Say 2 more new releases satisfies their contract, they will have to sign Axl to another big deal if they ever dream of releasing those 3 or 4th albums. So he may have recorded all that material, but if they can only release half of it without having to give him a new contract then it puts a whole new spin on how much revenue would need to be generated with however many albums GNR have left to satisfy their current contract. If anyone knows it would be appreciated to add to the discussion.

Further, this myth that GH somehow pays the label back for CD is absolutely not true. In the band's recording contract it is a near certainty that there was to be at least one GH hits release, as most artists of that stature have the same thing. If the label signs you to a 6 album deal, they expect expect to earn the projected revenues from those 6 individual albums. The bean counters aren't accounting profits/and losses in the aggregate, but based on the financial success and viability of each individual project. Doing at or above expectations in one is not going to entail throwing money at a bleak financial situation in another just because they made more than they expected off of one. Any company's management has a fidicuiary responsibility to shareholders to maximize shareholder value, so they are not going to make a risky financial decision in regards to the CD project nor call things even in regards to the 13 million in debt just because GH did well.

Let's say you had a sales job at a bank, and also had your home mortgage through them. Then let's say you are a star earner for the bank and beat your projections every month. For some reason or another though you are completely unable and unwilling to make your mortgage payment and are in danger of forclosure. Does anybody in their right mind think the bank would forget that you refuse to make a mortgage payment and not forclose on your house just because you are an above average earner for the company?

The argument some of you try and make applying CD to that logic is that somehow the bank would say "well, he is this far delinquent on his mortgage and owes us X dollars, but he did beat his sales quota by X dollars the last few months, so we will just consider his mortgage paid for that money even though we still paid him his full salary and commision. Everyone understands that would never ever happen in the real world as those are considered entirely separate entities from a business standpoint is that there is an expectation by the bank that you perform all of the duties of your employment and pay your mortgage in full every month as is the expectation when a loan is made. They don't just call it even because you are succeeding at one and failing at the other when the expectation from their end is that both tasks should be completed as specified.

That is the nature of finance. Maximize revenue on every project, and make decisions based on the merits of each individual situation. Just as a bank doesn't consider a mortgage that isn't paid back forgiven because you are an outstanding sales leader for the company, the record label is not applying the excess financial gain from GH to the CD debt. They expect to see full performance on each individual project, not an aggregate of everything combined. No financial model on the planet will do something they know is going to lose money just because they had one that did well.

Very well written, but the one problem with your statement that the GH album doesn't help to at least recoup some of the costs for CD is that no money was spent recording GH. ?None. ?All the tracks were already recorded. ?For that reason alone, you can't compare it to the cost and profit made off of an original studio album. ?If nothing else, the timing of the GH release indicates it was done to recoup costs.

Ali

[Ali]

Eddie Trunk suggested it and seemingly been perpetuated since.

Yes, but let's keep in mind that just because Eddie Trunk heard something that doesn't make it so.

Ali

[Bartlet]

why would they shop it around now just for cost reasons, when they have known the cost got silly years...? They could just have dropped 'em.How does their contract lie just now, anyone know...?

[mrbucketfoot]

Eddie Trunk suggested it and seemingly been perpetuated since.

Yes, but let's keep in mind that just because Eddie Trunk heard something that doesn't make it so.

Ali

Thats my point. I was trying to explain the economic side and Jarmo elaborated.

It's still a rumor.

[ShotgunBlues1978]

The idea of this "3-4 albums worth of material" thing is moot if GNR doesn't have an existing contract with the label to release 3-4 new albums worth of original material. Say 2 more new releases satisfies their contract, they will have to sign Axl to another big deal if they ever dream of releasing those 3 or 4th albums. So he may have recorded all that material, but if they can only release half of it without having to give him a new contract then it puts a whole new spin on how much revenue would need to be generated with however many albums GNR have left to satisfy their current contract. If anyone knows it would be appreciated to add to the discussion.

Further, this myth that GH somehow pays the label back for CD is absolutely not true. In the band's recording contract it is a near certainty that there was to be at least one GH hits release, as most artists of that stature have the same thing. If the label signs you to a 6 album deal, they expect expect to earn the projected revenues from those 6 individual albums. The bean counters aren't accounting profits/and losses in the aggregate, but based on the financial success and viability of each individual project. Doing at or above expectations in one is not going to entail throwing money at a bleak financial situation in another just because they made more than they expected off of one. Any company's management has a fidicuiary responsibility to shareholders to maximize shareholder value, so they are not going to make a risky financial decision in regards to the CD project nor call things even in regards to the 13 million in debt just because GH did well.

Let's say you had a sales job at a bank, and also had your home mortgage through them. Then let's say you are a star earner for the bank and beat your projections every month. For some reason or another though you are completely unable and unwilling to make your mortgage payment and are in danger of forclosure. Does anybody in their right mind think the bank would forget that you refuse to make a mortgage payment and not forclose on your house just because you are an above average earner for the company?

The argument some of you try and make applying CD to that logic is that somehow the bank would say "well, he is this far delinquent on his mortgage and owes us X dollars, but he did beat his sales quota by X dollars the last few months, so we will just consider his mortgage paid for that money even though we still paid him his full salary and commision. Everyone understands that would never ever happen in the real world as those are considered entirely separate entities from a business standpoint is that there is an expectation by the bank that you perform all of the duties of your employment and pay your mortgage in full every month as is the expectation when a loan is made. They don't just call it even because you are succeeding at one and failing at the other when the expectation from their end is that both tasks should be completed as specified.

That is the nature of finance. Maximize revenue on every project, and make decisions based on the merits of each individual situation. Just as a bank doesn't consider a mortgage that isn't paid back forgiven because you are an outstanding sales leader for the company, the record label is not applying the excess financial gain from GH to the CD debt. They expect to see full performance on each individual project, not an aggregate of everything combined. No financial model on the planet will do something they know is going to lose money just because they had one that did well.

The label themselves stated that the reason GH was released without the approval of current/former GnR members because, at least in part, because CD had yet to be delivered and so they went ahead and released GH in an effort to recoup some of the money spent on CD.  That's straight from the label themselves.  And in fact with around 8 million copies sold worldwide, they succeeded in that regard.  You can dig up the legal documents relating to Axl, Slash and Duff's lawsuit against Interscope over the GH album and you will see the label mentions this in those legal documents

And while you're right that in the ordinary business world nobody is going to invest money into a project they know is going to lose money from the get go, that's not necessarily true in the entertainment industry.  I use the film industry as an example because I know more about it than the music industry, but since both are entertainment I think they're more closely tied than they are to the home loan industry.  The film studios at times greenlight projects that they believe will improve their artistic reputation, even knowing 99.9% for sure won't be profitable but will raise the studio's "credibility".  They will give a $25-30 million advertising budget to a film they know isn't going to recoup production costs, because they want to at least recoup SOME of the investment.   Take for example Beowulf, which had a budget of $150 million and an advertising budget of $35-40 million.  The film grossed about $190 million worldwide.  The studio will rake in about 55% of that, or $104.5 million on $185-190 million invested, plus distribution costs which push that total even higher.  Now where the movie industry differs is that they'll still get a lot of money off of DVD sales and in the end Beowulf will probably break even eventually or come close to it.  But the point is they had a film they had to know realistically was not going to make back its production costs, much less the overall production, marketing and distribution budget.  So why did they pour huge $ into promoting and advertising for it?  Because they would recoup $105 million than recoup $75 million.  They realized that if they skimped on the advertising budget that they would actually lose more money

Even if the label realizes the obvious, which is that they probably won't recoup all of the $13 million on CD at least with the first album, they also must realize that with a proper release and the right promotion, they will recoup SOME of that money, which is better than recouping none, in any industry.

[downzy56]

why would they shop it around now just for cost reasons, when they have known the cost got silly years...? They could just have dropped 'em.How does their contract lie just now, anyone know...?

Why would you drop an artist if you can sell them to another label and at least recoup some of your losses.  Remember that this album has been under production for a better part of 10 years.  My bet is that most of money spent by the label on recording was done earlier on, when cd sales were still viable and not in the tailspin that they're now in. 

Furthermore, I wasn't suggesting in my previous post that this is actually happening, but that I can now start to see the business sense of such a move.  What label in their right minds would take GNR off the hands of Geffen without physical proof that the album is done and ready for production and distribution.  The value of the recordings jump enormously once they've been turned in. 

Cheers,

Andrew

[downzy56]

This is an article I just noticed on the troubles Robbie Williams has been having with his label, EMI.  Now, I didn't post this to start a war of words about Robbie Williams, his music, or whatever.  Just take away from this article that it sounds like a lot of big artists are taking issues with their respective labels. 

Perhaps GNR is in the same predicament as Robbie Williams and Cold Play.


Also interesting is his record deal with EMI.  From the sounds of things, we might have our facts wrong about revenues.  If Robbie Williams is getting 80 million pounds for 4 records, then at 20 million pounds per record, there's plenty of money to be made off an album that sells 4 million copies. 


Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080111/wl_uk_afp/entertainmentbritainmusicwilliams_080111204133

 LONDON (AFP) - Pop star Robbie Williams has gone on strike against his record label, with his manager accusing British music publisher EMI's new boss of acting like a "plantation owner," a report said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The singer, who has sold 70 million albums for EMI, will not deliver his new album to the label, manager Tim Clark told The Times.

"The question is, 'Should Robbie deliver the new album he is due to release to EMI?' We have to say the answer is 'no'. We have no idea how EMI will market and promote the album.

"They do not have anyone in the digital sphere capable of doing the job required. All we know is they are going to decimate their staff."

Clark accused the new EMI boss of acting like a "plantation owner" who had stumbled into the record industry via a "vanity purchase", the paper said.

Guy Hands, head of Terra Firma, which won control of EMI in August, pledged last year to drop recording artists who were not working hard enough for the label, and change the pay system for executives at the company, according to the Financial Times.

The group Coldplay has expressed concern over changes at the label as well and may decide not to deliver its next album, the rock group's manager, Dave Holmes, told The Times.

British rock legend Sir Paul McCartney split with EMI last year, and released his latest album "Memory Almost Full" with coffee giant Starbucks's newly launched Hear Music label.

McCartney lamented the amount of time it took for EMI to develop a marketing strategy for his songs, also telling The Times he would ask the label for a song to be released the week after he wrote it, only to be told by executives that it would take six months instead.

Williams is also seeking greater control over his past releases and over digital sales of his music, his manager said.

The star could decide to sell his next album or certain songs himself online, according to his manager.

EMI refused comment when contacted by AFP.

Williams signed a four-album contract in 2002 that media reports at the time said was worth 80 million pounds (106 million euros, 157 million dollars).

[gunns1]

This is an article I just noticed on the troubles Robbie Williams has been having with his label, EMI.? Now, I didn't post this to start a war of words about Robbie Williams, his music, or whatever.? Just take away from this article that it sounds like a lot of big artists are taking issues with their respective labels.?

Perhaps GNR is in the same predicament as Robbie Williams and Cold Play.


Also interesting is his record deal with EMI.? From the sounds of things, we might have our facts wrong about revenues.? If Robbie Williams is getting 80 million pounds for 4 records, then at 20 million pounds per record, there's plenty of money to be made off an album that sells 4 million copies.?


Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080111/wl_uk_afp/entertainmentbritainmusicwilliams_080111204133

 LONDON (AFP) - Pop star Robbie Williams has gone on strike against his record label, with his manager accusing British music publisher EMI's new boss of acting like a "plantation owner," a report said Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

The singer, who has sold 70 million albums for EMI, will not deliver his new album to the label, manager Tim Clark told The Times.

"The question is, 'Should Robbie deliver the new album he is due to release to EMI?' We have to say the answer is 'no'. We have no idea how EMI will market and promote the album.

"They do not have anyone in the digital sphere capable of doing the job required. All we know is they are going to decimate their staff."

Clark accused the new EMI boss of acting like a "plantation owner" who had stumbled into the record industry via a "vanity purchase", the paper said.

Guy Hands, head of Terra Firma, which won control of EMI in August, pledged last year to drop recording artists who were not working hard enough for the label, and change the pay system for executives at the company, according to the Financial Times.

The group Coldplay has expressed concern over changes at the label as well and may decide not to deliver its next album, the rock group's manager, Dave Holmes, told The Times.

British rock legend Sir Paul McCartney split with EMI last year, and released his latest album "Memory Almost Full" with coffee giant Starbucks's newly launched Hear Music label.

McCartney lamented the amount of time it took for EMI to develop a marketing strategy for his songs, also telling The Times he would ask the label for a song to be released the week after he wrote it, only to be told by executives that it would take six months instead.

Williams is also seeking greater control over his past releases and over digital sales of his music, his manager said.

The star could decide to sell his next album or certain songs himself online, according to his manager.

EMI refused comment when contacted by AFP.

Williams signed a four-album contract in 2002 that media reports at the time said was worth 80 million pounds (106 million euros, 157 million dollars).

so then really,

If this is true, then Geffen has made a bargain for 15-20 mill they have spent,
if their is 4 Chinese Democracy albums..

whats that 5-7 million an album?

thats not so bad when you break it down,

I think only once axl has released 2-3 albums, will he then start making profit for geffen/himself...


Which begs the question, I wonder how much  Money Axl has invested in chin dem, when Geffen stopped the funding?

[mrbucketfoot]

It's good to hear something about the album I suppose, but rumors only get you amped up for pretty much nothing which is troubling.

Just more good old GNR fan speculation. 

[AxlsMainMan]

Let's just hope the album is released before albums become extinct.

[Chief]

I wonder if Axl selling publishing to Sanctuary has any impact on any of this stuff?