It's not immaterial, it strongly suggests it was added later.  If it was put in at the time the original document was prepared why was it not formatted exactly the same?  Why is the right hand margin bigger.  Why is it squished in, why does it go over the footnote in one copy and the page number in another.  I would suggest so they could fit all the text in because it wasn't in there when the original document was done.

Go back and read my posts I haven't claimed that as proof that it was added in 1993, I simply suggested it might have been, but I have no idea when.   My guess is Slash and Duff and Goldstein would say 1993.

Even the page number "5" is squashed in between those two * sections.  If that section was truly there in the original document surely they would have just shunted that stuff to the next page, not tried to squeeze it in which it obviously has been.  I think it's clearly been inserted after the original document was first completed.

When I obviously couldn't say with certainty.

So how often do documents have crucial information written below the page number at the bottom?  Or in fact in the case of Snooze's version even have the text slightly going over the top of the page number.  How is that even possible if not for the stuff being added later?

Ok thinking about this some more and looking at those 2 docs.  The original document was prepared on 15th October 1992. Each document has that date in the footnote of each page.

However, those asterixed sections appear to have been added at a later date.  If you look at Snooze's copy the font looks different and it clearly seems to have a wider margin on the right hand side.  It appears to me that they were typed onto the document at a subsequent time, then the parties were asked to initial the addition.

So why would there by multiple copies, my understanding is that this is not altogether uncommon.  Sometimes not everyone is in the same location or documents need to be signed with a sense of urgency.  Perhaps this was the case when the original document was prepared in 1992.  There might have been 2 or 3 copies prepared??

Fast forward to 1993 and backstage in Barcelona.  The lawyers have added those two asterixed sections into the 1992 dated document.  Axl himself in his chats told us that the lawyers were with them in Europe working on the Adler case.

These additions have been manually typed into each document.  If you carefully look at the wording there are 2 slight differences in the "**" section.  The word "the" is missing in MSL's version in the sentence "Duff shall be THE Terminated Partner" .  This suggests to me that it was manually typed in to each and human error crept in.

So possibly this section about the name was added to the original document backstage in Barcelona in 1993 and the guys were told to initial it by John Reese or Axl wouldn't go onstage.  Did Axl tell Reese to give that directive, did Reese explicitly state it to get them to sign or just intimate it.  Or did he not even need to do that, given the previous history Slash and Duff knew what was likely to happen if they didn't sign it.

Who knows, but well done MSL in your quest to demonise Slash and Duff you appear to have started a process which ultimately seems to lend support to them and Goldstein's version rather than expose them as liars.  Does this mean Axl lied - not necessarily, but he wasn't there when the documents were given to Slash and Duff so who knows what they were told.  They all could be telling the truth - just their side of what happened.

Perhaps he is pushing them to fire him.  Maybe it releases him from a contract if they do that, if they don't he can't leave without breaching it?

I also read that Ron's father passed away today.  Very sad, hope he and his family are doing ok!

I see Ashba weighed into the discussion judging by this tweet of his: