You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#731 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Ali wrote:monkeychow wrote:It's a rubbish argument in my opinion.
That in the whole of the United States, there isn't one single promoter that's prepared to stomach Axl's reputation to put on a GNR show - even when the band has played sucessful shows in places like England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
Not one person wants to take a risk? Not one person feels that the GNR brand could make them any money in a live show despite the line up changes and so on? Yet worldwide there's promoters who clearly take such risks, but none can be found anywhere in the usa.
It's just not true.
And if it is true...then I see a massive business opportunity....I should move to the USA and become a promoter....
Well, I'm just saying that I actually agree with you. And after 2002, I heard the same sounding-of-the-death-knell crap when it comes to GN'R and touring. Yet, low and behold, a major 2006 tour was undertaken.
Ali
Yes...4 years later. Hardly a ringing endorsement...and how did that tour end?
You're missing the point. I don't know if you were around on the boards then, but some faction of the fanbase and/or public (including RS with their story "GN'R in Crisis - Is this the end for Axl?") were convinced that Axl and GN'R would never tour again, that they were too much of a risk for any promoter. They were wrong.
The 2006 tour ended just fine with three shows in Universal City, CA.
Ali
#732 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Ali wrote:I heard that argument Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour.
It's a rubbish argument in my opinion.
That in the whole of the United States, there isn't one single promoter that's prepared to stomach Axl's reputation to put on a GNR show - even when the band has played sucessful shows in places like England, Australia, Canada, New Zealand.
Not one person wants to take a risk? Not one person feels that the GNR brand could make them any money in a live show despite the line up changes and so on? Yet worldwide there's promoters who clearly take such risks, but none can be found anywhere in the usa.
It's just not true.
And if it is true...then I see a massive business opportunity....I should move to the USA and become a promoter....
Well, I'm just saying that I actually agree with you. And after 2002, I heard the same sounding-of-the-death-knell crap when it comes to GN'R and touring. Yet, low and behold, a major 2006 tour was undertaken.
Ali
#733 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Axlin08 wrote:All of these people saying GN'R didn't tour the U.S. because they didn't want to are incredibly ignorant.
Azoff is friggin' Christ in the booking business. Total monopoly. Axl HAS to play ball with Azoff. HAS TO.
That's the reason the final agreement including GN'R touring. They'll probably be working with Azoff again, simply because it makes sense, and it helps Axl to have a guy like that FOR HIM and not against him. Trust me.
GN'R are only going to tour if it's profitable, because they aren't pushing a new product in 2010/11.
There's no reason to go into the red ink on a club acoustic tour for hardcores, when GN'R (who can't even maintain a website) are going to try to book an entire tour by themselves. That's what happens when a professional housekeeper does that job.
Azoff made it his life's business to blacklist Axl in the U.S., and guess what? It worked.
I live buisness. Trust me, if Azoff thought he could make money off a tour, it would have happened in a second. The only reason a tour didn't happen is because of Axl or because there was no money to be made.
When's the last time GnR completed a tour in the US? I don't think Azoff blacklisted GnR in the US; I think Axl did. He made it where they were unmarketable and nobody wanted to touch them. THAT is why the touring clause is in there. It wasn't happening any other way...and it still might not happen.
If it's really about making money, then why now would Axl and Azoff strike a touring agreement? Is a GN'R tour more profitable now for some reason I don't see? Nothing has changed to make GN'R more popular.
Axl made it so that GN'R was unmarketable only in the US, where it so happens that Live Nation has a complete stranglehold on ticket sales and concert promotion? If you say so.
I heard that argument of Axl making GN'R unreliable and unmarketable and how no promoter would take a chance on them before, after 2002 tour. Obviously, that did not ultimately prove to be the case.
Ali
#734 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
This is good news.
Nov Dec Jan dates being looked at. Once the US dates pass, then we can move on to new material, I hope.
Sounds good. I hope to see them in the US sooner rather than later. Although, I think perhaps it would be better to tour once new material is released.
Perhaps they'll road-test some new/previously unheard material. 
Ali
#735 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Not touring the US was Gn'R's decison and Gn'R's decision alone. It had nothing to do with Live nation, ticketmaster or Azof. Like they'd help them book tours and venues all over the world but just not the in the US. Yeah right.
Just my opinion but it seems like the common sense opinion to me.
The number of Live Nation owned and operated venues in the US is almost double that number in the rest of the world, as of 2005. Live Nation's reach is much, much farther in the US than in the rest of the world.
And, again, I'll say if the issue Axl raised in the countersuit about Azoff blackballing artists that don't do what he says by using his influence over artist management, ticket sales and concert promotions was not significant, then why would the settlement include a stipulation about a touring agreement? The only way that's relevant is because of Azoff's position with Live Nation, as he is not GN'R's manager anymore, obviously.
Ali
#736 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
i'm more inclined to think that AZOFF was more concerned about the possibility to make MORE money if there was a Classic reunion...I wouldnt find it outside the realm of possiblity that Azoff would say yeah i could make x amout of cash with GnR touring the states right now but i could make X amount times 10 or even 100 if the classic lineup was together...so lets mess with Axl's head and see if we can make him cave...lets see how much he wants the $$$...in europe people are rabid for gnr in any form...the US is more of a nostalgic thing these days....in essence live nation trying to push buttons...and who looked like the bad guy in the end? Axl cuz the current gnr didnt tour the US...even though it probably wasnt even his fault since Azoff may have said classic lineup or no lineup...crue claimed the same thing happened to them when Corabi was in the band...label and promoters leaned on them til they caved and reunited
I think it's possible that Azoff wanted to keep open the possibility of making money from a potential GN'R reunion tour down the road, thereby motivating a settlement. I don't see a repeat of the Motley situation though, as there still are no indications of a reunion anytime soon.
Ali
#737 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
I think it was one sided. If Azoff didn't want a tour, it was because he felt he wouldn't make money. Axl would be the one to make it personal. It's pretty clear from the lawsuit which side took things personally.
I didn't oversimplify it, I explained it for what it was. Axl wanted that verbage included so he could deflect blame and claim victory. Azoff would have let him tour anytime that he could make him money, so why would he care about including the wording?
I think you did oversimplify it because you are assuming that Azoff would have let him tour anytime despite this professional/legal issue ongoing. It seems as if you are completely dismissing that as a potential complication in doing a major tour given Azoff's position and his company's virtual monopoly over the touring/concert industry. Without putting words in Neemo's mouth, I think that was the point he was getting at as well.
Ali
#738 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Ali wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Does anybody really think that they couldn't have used TicketMaster/Live Nation if there was a demand for the product? Really? Come on guys, you're smarter than that.
Are you aware the Irving Azoff is the Executive Chairman of Live Nation Entertainment, of which Live Nation and Ticketmaster are subsidiaries?
Ali
I am well aware of that. Are you aware that businesses are out to make money and will sell out anybody to do it? Business is business. If there was money to be made, it would have happened.
Again with the oversimplifications.:laugh:
Sure, business is about making money. But, it wouldn't be the first time personal/professional/legal issues have presented hurdles if not complete impediments to doing business.
I'll say it again, I can't see any reason why a touring agreement would be mentioned in the settlement terms unless touring or the ability to tour was a point of contention or concern.
Ali
#739 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
and for the record, they have been using Live Nation across the globe for multiple shows on the 2006, 2009, 2010 tours....I really don't think this means much.
If it doesn't mean much, then why did Axl's lawyers specifically mention it in papers filed in regards to the settlement? Why have that stipulation, that point mentioned? Anyway, the 2006 and 2009 shows aren't really relevant because those predate the legal battle.
Ali
#740 Re: Guns N' Roses » Azoff-Axl Lawsuit Settled: Includes "comprehensive touring agreement" » 732 weeks ago
Does anybody really think that they couldn't have used TicketMaster/Live Nation if there was a demand for the product? Really? Come on guys, you're smarter than that.
Are you aware the Irving Azoff is the Executive Chairman of Live Nation Entertainment, of which Live Nation and Ticketmaster are subsidiaries?
Ali
