Proof that Slash & Duff lied about signing over the GNR name.

[kyrie]

That document proves nothing other than Duff and Slash signed a MOA on those dates.  That may have been the 2nd document that Slash or Duff signed.  Or the 3rd.  Management could've easily presented bullshit papers to Duff and Slash backstage, and the matter could've been pursued later... perhaps in October 1992.  Obviously the matter of Axl acquiring the name took time regardless of the semantics.

So true! The document only proves a document was signed on those dates. It doesn't prove Slash or Duff didn't sign simular documents earlier when they were on tour in 1992.

If that were the case I would have expected it to be

A) also submitted in the lawsuit
B) mentioned in one of their books
C) mentioned in an interview at some point that they had to re-sign later

Imo it's possible but not likely.

[suicide]

If that were the case I would have expected it to be

A) also submitted in the lawsuit
B) mentioned in one of their books
C) mentioned in an interview at some point that they had to re-sign later

Imo it's possible but not likely.

A) Maybe Duff and Slash didn't have those documents if Axl still had to sign them
B / C) Reconfirming something you already agreed isn't as important as the original agreement so maybe it wasn't worth mentioning.

I don't know what happened in 1992 but this document doesn't "proof" Slash or Duff lied.

[Ali]

If that were the case I would have expected it to be

A) also submitted in the lawsuit
B) mentioned in one of their books
C) mentioned in an interview at some point that they had to re-sign later

Imo it's possible but not likely.

A) Maybe Duff and Slash didn't have those documents if Axl still had to sign them
B / C) Reconfirming something you already agreed isn't as important as the original agreement so maybe it wasn't worth mentioning.

I don't know what happened in 1992 but this document doesn't "proof" Slash or Duff lied.

No, but it is proof that they were incorrect in their recollections IMO.

If there was a revised partnership agreement in 1993, that would render the 1992 agreement null and void.  So, Slash and Duff's legal team would not present a null and void partnership agreement into evidence in their lawsuit against as the standing, binding agreement.

Ali

[Bridge]

A) Maybe Duff and Slash didn't have those documents if Axl still had to sign them
B / C) Reconfirming something you already agreed isn't as important as the original agreement so maybe it wasn't worth mentioning.

Yeah, the only sentiment worth expressing is that Slash and Duff believe Axl forcibly imposed the agreement upon them (or that GNR management led them to believe he was).  In the end, that notion is more important than when and where it happened, whether it was backstage, at their houses, or on the eve of a tour as Tom Zutaut claimed (see below).

I don't know what happened in 1992 but this document doesn't "proof" Slash or Duff lied.

Exactly... people can believe this document constitutes proof of "lies" all they want, but it doesn't.  The truth is buried under so much discord both privately between the band, and publicly among warring fans, that we'll never know exactly what happened.

No, but it is proof that they were incorrect in their recollections IMO.

I'll offer no disagreement there.  Obviously time/place aren't consistent through any of Duff's and Slash's recollections... though we can't forget Tom Zutaut either.  He claimed in July 1999 in Spin magazine that "on the eve of the tour" Axl demanded ownership of the name or he wouldn't play.  Zutaut doesn't say what year this was, but his comments could've easily referred to the November 1992 worldwide leg, which was imminent at the time Slash and Duff signed the document presented in this thread.  It's interesting that in some ways, Zutaut may have a more plausible theory than Slash or Duff.

Either way, despite the hazy recollections of a then-alcoholic (Duff) and a then-junkie (Slash), the one constant is their belief that Axl had some forcible influence over it -- or at least management led them to believe he did.  Personally, I find it easier to believe that both sides have valid points, as opposed to accepting either of the two polar opposites stories told by Axl and Duff/Slash.

Doug Goldstein and his underlings may very well have put pressure on Duff and Slash.  Duff and Slash said in their books that Goldstein was a major brown-noser who did anything to please Axl and keep his job.  So it's perfectly believable that Goldstein could've orchestrated something where he said or implied Axl was going to quit, not go onstage, etc, and in their impaired states, Duff and Slash believed it.  On the other hand, this theory does exonerate Axl personally from making explicit threats and blackmailing the band.  So on Axl's side, he's pissed off that Duff and Slash would say that, and on the Slash/Duff side, they are pissed off at what they believed Axl did (or had a hand in doing).

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Thanks for posting that.... I'd actually read it some time ago, and then again when I saw you post it on the other site.  It's interesting reading.

[overmatik]

After reading the scanned pages and the opinions of various people here and on other boards, I just hope Slash and Duff will come out and say something. Yes, they might have signed the contract under some kind of pressure, but the story that was told by them was that the contract was presented backstage and that they could hear the crowd noise outside...

I never believed Axl would do something like that, but the idea that someone from the management would was never a doubt in my head. Now, if even that is not true, than all the bad feelings Axl have towards Slash and Duff would be justified...

[Ali]

A) Maybe Duff and Slash didn't have those documents if Axl still had to sign them
B / C) Reconfirming something you already agreed isn't as important as the original agreement so maybe it wasn't worth mentioning.

Yeah, the only sentiment worth expressing is that Slash and Duff believe Axl forcibly imposed the agreement upon them (or that GNR management led them to believe he was).  In the end, that notion is more important than when and where it happened, whether it was backstage, at their houses, or on the eve of a tour as Tom Zutaut claimed (see below).

I don't know what happened in 1992 but this document doesn't "proof" Slash or Duff lied.

Exactly... people can believe this document constitutes proof of "lies" all they want, but it doesn't.  The truth is buried under so much discord both privately between the band, and publicly among warring fans, that we'll never know exactly what happened.

No, but it is proof that they were incorrect in their recollections IMO.

I'll offer no disagreement there.  Obviously time/place aren't consistent through any of Duff's and Slash's recollections... though we can't forget Tom Zutaut either.  He claimed in July 1999 in Spin magazine that "on the eve of the tour" Axl demanded ownership of the name or he wouldn't play.  Zutaut doesn't say what year this was, but his comments could've easily referred to the November 1992 worldwide leg, which was imminent at the time Slash and Duff signed the document presented in this thread.  It's interesting that in some ways, Zutaut may have a more plausible theory than Slash or Duff.

Either way, despite the hazy recollections of a then-alcoholic (Duff) and a then-junkie (Slash), the one constant is their belief that Axl had some forcible influence over it -- or at least management led them to believe he did.  Personally, I find it easier to believe that both sides have valid points, as opposed to accepting either of the two polar opposites stories told by Axl and Duff/Slash.

Doug Goldstein and his underlings may very well have put pressure on Duff and Slash.  Duff and Slash said in their books that Goldstein was a major brown-noser who did anything to please Axl and keep his job.  So it's perfectly believable that Goldstein could've orchestrated something where he said or implied Axl was going to quit, not go onstage, etc, and in their impaired states, Duff and Slash believed it.  On the other hand, this theory does exonerate Axl personally from making explicit threats and blackmailing the band.  So on Axl's side, he's pissed off that Duff and Slash would say that, and on the Slash/Duff side, they are pissed off at what they believed Axl did (or had a hand in doing).

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612223614/http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

Thanks for posting that.... I'd actually read it some time ago, and then again when I saw you post it on the other site.  It's interesting reading.

What the partnership agreement does prove, is that Slash and Duff signed it on different days in October of 1992 (the 15th and 21st) according to the dates next to their signatures and that on GN'R was not on tour on either one of these days (GN'R played in Seattle on 10/6/92 and they didn't play their next show until 11/25/92 in Caracas).  Therefore, the story that were strong armed into signing the agreement on the day/night of a show, cannot be accurate.

But, I agree that the document doesn't prove Slash and Duff lied.  To know that, you'd have to know whether they deliberately said something that was inaccurate, or were simply just mistaken in their recollections.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt knowing that they were heavy drug and alcohol users, and say that they probably mistook signing one document before a show with the partnership agreement they signed between tour legs.

Ali

[Hudson]

I don't think that the document shows that Duff or Slash lied. I also believe that the Axl is not lying about his position that it was presented to them before a concert. Although, who knows if a different document was presented to them before a concert that is not tis one. Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a missing piece of the puzzle and that there were people on both sides probably pressuring and manipulating Axl, Slash, and Duff into to doing certain things which were probably neither in the interest of the Axl, Duff, Slash, or GNR but in the interest of those individuals that were trying to position themselves on what they believed would be the winning side.

Originally, I used to believe that Axl did force the issue before the concert as a power move over the other members, but not personally, but by a third party. However, after all these years and with this new information, I believe at the time his intention was more along the lines of being overly concerned with Slash and Duff's drug and alcohol abuse and if something happened to them that it would be a huge legal battle to sort out the rights to the name. Slash and Duff being in a constant state inebriation probably did not give a fuck when they signed the documents because they just wanted to get back to playing and/or addictions at the time then deal with this shit, and never considered the ramifications this could have down the road.

What is also clear is that these documents were not signed with all the parties in one room at the same time over a formal discussion as to why these clauses were being presented to the parties. As such I'm sure whoever, presented those documents to Duff and Slash also sold them the myth that who cares, there is no GNR without you guys as a selling point.

I also believe that after the illusions tour wrapped up and things settled down, and the time came around to get back in the studio and talk business Axl realized that he had all the power and may have tried to impose his authority on the others members with regards to the musical direction of the band and other business decisions. This is where Slash and Duff also started having issues with Axl because of the music direction of the band and then this is where matters escalated to a boiling point. I think thats when Slash and Duff did there solo projects probably thinking they could take a break come back and get back to how things used to be, but Axl may have been offended by their actions and dug his heels in, for his vision of the band. I do think Axl wanted to keep Slash and Duff around but on his terms and on his time table. When Slash saw Axl taking this position I think he also decided to say fuck it, I'm not compromising on my vision for GNR either, resulting in him leaving. I think he believed that when he left Axl would cave in and tried to call Axl's bluff, but Axl did not cave in and took it personal. Everybody's egos where at an all time high and not willing to compromise which ultimately lead to the band imploding. In doing so, I would say everybody has a side to the story and partially to blame. Clearly it did not end on good terms at the time and feelings were hurt on both sides.

I understand Axl has been upset as to Slash and Duff's versions of the events, and that they left the band because he believes that they did not care. However, I would say Slash and Duff, Izzy, and Steven still care to this day about GNR, not because of money but because I do believe that they felt like brothers and a gang when they were together and were able to accomplish something great together as a band.

The issue I do take with Axl, is that whatever happened with Duff and Slash happened a long time ago when these guys were drug addicts and alcoholics and in their twenties. Therefore, I can understand how Axl grew tired of dealing with whatever shit he had to put up with when these guys where constantly high and probably difficult to work with. However, everyone has grown up and roughly 50 years old now with families and kids. These guys have done a complete 360 with regards to their lifestyles and addictions. Its also apparent that Slash and Duff would probably like to squash things with Axl just to put this behind them and move on regardless of any reunion. I think its apparent by now they are not trying to reunite. However, Axl is still holding a grudge against them over this, after all these years.

In the end it is his prerogative not to forgive or forget, but at this point I think it would be better even for the sake of the new band to completely put all this shit behind him and move forward. No one knows if these guys ultimately mend their fences but as a fan of GNR, I feel this would be good not only for the old members, but will greatly benefit Axl and the new band going forward.

[The Wight Gunner]

I don't think that the document shows that Duff or Slash lied. I also believe that the Axl is not lying about his position that it was presented to them before a concert. Although, who knows if a different document was presented to them before a concert that is not tis one. Nevertheless, I do believe that there is a missing piece of the puzzle and that there were people on both sides probably pressuring and manipulating Axl, Slash, and Duff into to doing certain things which were probably neither in the interest of the Axl, Duff, Slash, or GNR but in the interest of those individuals that were trying to position themselves on what they believed would be the winning side.

Originally, I used to believe that Axl did force the issue before the concert as a power move over the other members, but not personally, but by a third party. However, after all these years and with this new information, I believe at the time his intention was more along the lines of being overly concerned with Slash and Duff's drug and alcohol abuse and if something happened to them that it would be a huge legal battle to sort out the rights to the name. Slash and Duff being in a constant state inebriation probably did not give a fuck when they signed the documents because they just wanted to get back to playing and/or addictions at the time then deal with this shit, and never considered the ramifications this could have down the road.

What is also clear is that these documents were not signed with all the parties in one room at the same time over a formal discussion as to why these clauses were being presented to the parties. As such I'm sure whoever, presented those documents to Duff and Slash also sold them the myth that who cares, there is no GNR without you guys as a selling point.

I also believe that after the illusions tour wrapped up and things settled down, and the time came around to get back in the studio and talk business Axl realized that he had all the power and may have tried to impose his authority on the others members with regards to the musical direction of the band and other business decisions. This is where Slash and Duff also started having issues with Axl because of the music direction of the band and then this is where matters escalated to a boiling point. I think thats when Slash and Duff did there solo projects probably thinking they could take a break come back and get back to how things used to be, but Axl may have been offended by their actions and dug his heels in, for his vision of the band. I do think Axl wanted to keep Slash and Duff around but on his terms and on his time table. When Slash saw Axl taking this position I think he also decided to say fuck it, I'm not compromising on my vision for GNR either, resulting in him leaving. I think he believed that when he left Axl would cave in and tried to call Axl's bluff, but Axl did not cave in and took it personal. Everybody's egos where at an all time high and not willing to compromise which ultimately lead to the band imploding. In doing so, I would say everybody has a side to the story and partially to blame. Clearly it did not end on good terms at the time and feelings were hurt on both sides.

I understand Axl has been upset as to Slash and Duff's versions of the events, and that they left the band because he believes that they did not care. However, I would say Slash and Duff, Izzy, and Steven still care to this day about GNR, not because of money but because I do believe that they felt like brothers and a gang when they were together and were able to accomplish something great together as a band.

The issue I do take with Axl, is that whatever happened with Duff and Slash happened a long time ago when these guys were drug addicts and alcoholics and in their twenties. Therefore, I can understand how Axl grew tired of dealing with whatever shit he had to put up with when these guys where constantly high and probably difficult to work with. However, everyone has grown up and roughly 50 years old now with families and kids. These guys have done a complete 360 with regards to their lifestyles and addictions. Its also apparent that Slash and Duff would probably like to squash things with Axl just to put this behind them and move on regardless of any reunion. I think its apparent by now they are not trying to reunite. However, Axl is still holding a grudge against them over this, after all these years.

In the end it is his prerogative not to forgive or forget, but at this point I think it would be better even for the sake of the new band to completely put all this shit behind him and move forward. No one knows if these guys ultimately mend their fences but as a fan of GNR, I feel this would be good not only for the old members, but will greatly benefit Axl and the new band going forward.

All of what you said may have its merits, but your last paragraph is the nub of the problem, once the "forgiveness" was to take place, then there would be the "how about giving it ago....." Steven defiantly would be buzzing around like a wasp, Izzy  wouldn't give a fuck, Duff likewise, has built his bridges and is cool at that. Add Slash to the mix and not necessarily by him, but certainly with his sympathizers would be giving it large that the cash grab bullshit is on. Axl could have used the RRHOF to put this to bed but has chosen the  path that suits him and his vision.

[JDA]

Who cares? This subject is old and is irrelevant.

[D-GenerationX]

Who cares? This subject is old and is irrelevant.

People claim that they aren't trying to re-write history, but I don't see any other motivation here.

You are either very, very emotionally invested in proving/disproving Axl is a power mad monster, or very, very emotionally invested in proving/disproving Slash and Duff are just big liars.

Once you tell me that you accept that none of this will change anything big picture, I just don't know what else your motivation could be other than trying to change perceptions.

[jarmo]

Who cares? This subject is old and is irrelevant.

People claim that they aren't trying to re-write history, but I don't see any other motivation here.

What do you mean?
It's not a case of rewriting history any more than people writing books with inaccurate accounts of events is.

Is it a piece of the puzzle or just a piece of another puzzle? That's something that's being discussed here.




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Who cares? This subject is old and is irrelevant.

People claim that they aren't trying to re-write history, but I don't see any other motivation here.

What do you mean?
It's not a case of rewriting history any more than people writing books with inaccurate accounts of events is.

Is it a piece of the puzzle or just a piece of another puzzle? That's something that's being discussed here.

Its just like I said.

You are either super emotionally in trying to correct the thinking that Axl is power mad monster, or you are super emotionally invested in "proving" Slash and Duff are liars.

End of the day, does it matter? 

The reality is that if you are still pissed over the break-up in 2013, you blame Axl.  You likely always will.  This thinking that if a few things could be "clarified", you would have a better view of him is just not going to happen.  So all this effort to say "See?  See?  Its not like Slash and Duff said!  Axl is not a bad guy!" is wasted effort.  That's very inside baseball stuff.  Far more people are simply bummed the band is no more.  Who said what, when...who cares?  What does it change?  They still don't have a band anymore.

[jarmo]

But aren't most people often claiming they want the truth?
No matter what the issue is, they want to know the truth. Like when watching the news...




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

But aren't most people often claiming they want the truth?
No matter what the issue is, they want to know the truth. Like when watching the news...

The truth?  I'd say it more that people want their pre-conceived notions confirmed.

I never got into taking sides in the classic line-up's break-up.  I thinks it ridiculous that we have segments of this fanbase that hate any of these guys.  But let's fact it, its out there.

So if you are one of those "Axl the big bad meanie took it all away from me" types, you want it confirmed that he got the name in some underhanded way.  If you are all pro-Axl all the time and feel he does no wrong, you want it confirmed he has been painted in an unfair light.

The truth?  Well, I'd ask this.  Those 2 factions I just described, will they ever concede the point to the other side?  I'd say no.  The "truth" will be what they want to hear.

[jarmo]

Sure, there's people who want to be told they're right.

But what about the ones who aren't in those groups?




/jarmo

[D-GenerationX]

Sure, there's people who want to be told they're right.

But what about the ones who aren't in those groups?

I don't think they care about this supposedly big story.  I'd say the only ones interested have their own agenda and are unlikely to budge.

The thread at MYGNR went on for an eon.  I didn't see too many people without a dog in the fight.

[pilferk]

I am one of the first ones that tell the reunion zealots to move the hell on already.  Its over and done and not coming back.  The same could be said to Axl.  Tell me about your new band.  Tell me about your new album.  Don't tell me that you or Slash will be in a coffin before you speak again.  Who gives a fuck?  Was there some sort of doubt about how much Axl hates Slash?

Late to the party, a bit, but...

The people who keep asking the questions obviously do.  Because the media, and the fans, do keep asking.  All you have to do is listen to the interviews that Slash and Duff do, or to look back at the chat transcript from Axl's chat, or look at listen to the Eddie Trunk tapes (and, more specifically, AFTER the Axl piece was over) or a hundred other sources.

Now, we can debate whether they should, or whether you do, or whether I do (hint: not really).

But there are obviously those that still do give a fuck...for better or for worse.

[pilferk]

Had Axl gotten an album out quicker, built up more of a rep touring with a consistent band, he might have pulled it off.  it was never going to be what it was, but he could be doing well.

Here's where you an I largely part company with our opinions.

I think the only person who can guage whether he's "doing well" is Axl.  Because...well...he's the one setting the benchmark for success.  You're assigning goals to him (getting an album out quicker or building up a rep wtih a consistent bannd) that may not actually be anywhere near HIS goals or aspirations.

You could say "he could be more prolific than other bands are", or even "putting out music as frequently as other bands I like" and I might, at least, give you the litmus.

But  you're gauging HIS success...a guy who is reportedly pretty well off, seems to be happy in what he does for a profession, is famous around the world for it (some would say infamous..I don't think he discerns between the two), and seems to be living in a style he's happy with.

My guess?  He thinks he's doing pretty well for himself.

[D-GenerationX]

My guess?  He thinks he's doing pretty well for himself.

Oh, I don't think he's unhappy with his set-up.  I call the "anything good that happens is gravy" approach. 

The accepted approach to releasing a new album it to market it, promote it, all in the hopes of maximizing its success.  Axl?  He throws it out there with no promotion, and whatever it sells...hey, look at that.  Gravy.

The accepted approach to launching a tour is a press release, perhaps even a press conference.  Interviews with national publications, and maybe even some glad handing of local radio or TV.  Axl?  He throws dates out on the internet, and whoever shows up...hey, look at that.  Gravy.

He hates doing all the established promotional activities anyway, so he skips them.  I doubt he misses it.  But we, the fans, wind up following a half ass operation.

[pilferk]

As I said, I've been going to the Ocean City boardwalk my whole life.

The Surf Mall sells all sort of rock stuff like t-shirts, hats, posters, etc.  They have one from the 'Slipper When Wet' tour which is listed as Bon Jovi, special guest, Van Halen.

http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/33000972/images/vintage-rocknroll-144.jpg

No such show was ever played as part of the Slippery When Wet Tour.

Bon Jovi was in Thomville, Ohio on May 24th, and then in Detroit on the 26th - 27th, and 29th - 30th.  No show was scheduled on the 25th.   The opener for all 5 shows was Cinderella (as they were for most of the NA leg...Queensrych opened for most of the Euro shows).

I'd be shocked if they flew to Philly (out of the way) to play a one off with Van Halen...even as some sort of charity or award show. It DEFINITELY was not part of the tour, thoguh. And if they did, I can't find any record of it happening (other than the linked poster) and given it's "special nature", you'd think there'd be some, somewhere.