You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- DoubleTalkingJive
- Rep: 74
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Greatest Hits is a compilation album by Guns N' Roses. The album was released on March 23, 2004. It hit #1 in the UK and #3 in the US. Despite some criticisms towards the track listing by fans (even Axl Rose and ex-Guns N' Roses members, who filed a joint lawsuit to try and prevent the release of the album), the album has proven a popular seller, selling 3 million copies in the U.S. to date. Greatest Hits became Guns N' Roses second-longest charting album in their homeland (after Appetite for Destruction), finally dropping out of the Billboard 200 chart in November 2006 following a 138-week stay. Universal Records' response to Rose's opposition to the record was that he had been given adequate time to supply them with a record but had failed to do so, and so they had produced their own Guns N' Roses record instead.
Critics of the compilation were somewhat disappointed, as many other popular songs from Appetite For Destruction and G N' R Lies were neglected from this release (including songs such as "Mr. Brownstone", "It's So Easy" and "Nightrain" and Lies tracks such as "Used to Love Her" "Reckless Life," the acoustic "You're Crazy") as well as the Use Your Illusion II single "Estranged".
It's also been noted on the All Music Guide review that the remastering on this album is not notable.
http://huderon.blogspot.com/2008/01/gun … -hits.html
I haven't done the math but 3 million in the US alone would provide them with a decent payback. Now add the UK profits. I could be wrong if they didn't get all the 13 million back but I am sure they got a decent amount off these sales since 2004.
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
It isn't payback. The money for this album has nothing to do with CD. Any money that went towards CD still has to be recouped.
Even if they released a GH vol. 2, it doesn't count towards CD. Only way Axl can get out of this mess is if Uni drops him or he buys out his contract.
- DoubleTalkingJive
- Rep: 74
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Didn't they release this to get some of there money back?
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
they released it cuz gnr already owed them a GH....as well as 3 studio albums...(apparently is what the contract calls for) and they gave axl a stipulation saying relelase CD by dec 2003 or we'll release a GH of our choosing, as a tactic to get CD out...it didnt work and Slash, DUff and Axl didnt have a leg to stand on in court cuz Axl promised geffen a GH
but james is right....the money for CD was dished out for CD....not a GH so as a corporation they will not look at money recouped, CD is still a loss
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Just for the record, there is not one legal document out there to the public that suggests Gnr owes Uni/Geffen three albums of original material plus a GH-PURE SPECULATION and heresay-science fiction in my opinion. All legal documents that we have seen for the GH lawsuit suggest that the album was specifically put out because Axl wouldn't turn over CD. I guarantee you that record was put out to recoup funds lost to CD. No doubt in my mind. The GH documents clearly suggest that they expect Axl to give them one album of original material. In the end, we have no idea what the actual 1998 amendment to the original contract says about what is owed and what is not owed regarding album releases. Facts speak for themselves, they put out the GH against the artists wishes and immediately cut off funds for CD. I think that was their way of saying, we'll chalk this up as a loss and recoup the loss through WORLDWIDE sales of GH. Since worldwide sales are at least 8 million, at a net profit of $2 a disc, they easily make their money back.
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Just for the record, there is not one legal document out there to the public that suggests Gnr owes Uni/Geffen three albums of original material plus a GH-PURE SPECULATION and heresay-science fiction in my opinion. All legal documents that we have seen for the GH lawsuit suggest that the album was specifically put out because Axl wouldn't turn over CD. I guarantee you that record was put out to recoup funds lost to CD. No doubt in my mind. The GH documents clearly suggest that they expect Axl to give them one album of original material. In the end, we have no idea what the actual 1998 amendment to the original contract says about what is owed and what is not owed regarding album releases. Facts speak for themselves, they put out the GH against the artists wishes and immediately cut off funds for CD. I think that was their way of saying, we'll chalk this up as a loss and recoup the loss through WORLDWIDE sales of GH. Since worldwide sales are at least 8 million, at a net profit of $2 a disc, they easily make their money back.
all true but in regards to the bolded part....yes it was put out to recoup the costs of CD, but in reality they could have released GH and CD and been that much farter ahead...i was saying from a buisness point of veiw that the CD money is still a lost expense untill CD is actually released, cuz that money was spent on CD ... not on GH, as you can plainly see from the packaging of the peice of shit
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Here's the only evidence we have of GNR'S contract.....we also know that through all the restructuring of Geffen and changing ownership, that alot of the money from recording in the 90's was written off. In the end, Gnr owes them one album of original material...that is all we know
A. Background Facts Relevant To The Relationship Between UMG And Guns N' Roses
The relationship between Guns N' Roses and UMG's Geffen Records division dates back to 1986, when Geffen's corporate predecessor, The David Geffen Company, entered into a recording agreement with five individuals, Steven Adler, Izzy Stradlin, Michael 'Duff McKagan, Saul Hudson (p/k/a 'Slash') and W. Axl Rose, who were professionally known as 'Guns N' Roses.' Hoffman Decl. ¶ 2. In 1992, Geffen's corporate predecessor entered into a new recording agreement with Messrs. Hudson, McKagan and Rose dated September 1, 1992 (hereinafter the 'Recording Agreement'). Prior to the signing of the 1992 Recording Agreement, Adler and Stradlin had left the band (although they still retained a royalty interest in master recordings created under the original 1986 agreement during their tenure in the band.) Id.
Since 1992, the parties have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998. One of these amendments, see Froeling Decl. Ex. D, confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as 'Leaving Members' under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose (the only 'Remaining Member'[FN1] of Guns N' Roses) in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 3. Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band. Id In the other May 1, 1998 amendment, see Hoffman Decl. Ex. A, Axl Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return. Hence, although other individuals have joined Axl Rose in performing under the name 'Guns N' Roses' since 1998, Rose is the only principal in the band. Id.
FN1. 'Leaving Member' and 'Remaining Member' are both defined terms as used in Paragraph 17.02 of the Recording Agreement.
B. Plaintiffs Were Notified Of The March 15 And March 23, 2004 Release Dates In January 2004
December 31, 2003 came and went without delivery of the studio LP, as had so many previous deadlines. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 6. Accordingly, in January 2004, Geffen resumed its plans to release the GHLP. At that time, Mr. Hoffman asked Ms. Lori Froeling to send another notice to Guns N' Roses pursuant to the Recording Agreement, informing Guns N' Roses that the GHLP would be released on March 23, 2004 in the United States and Canada, and on March 15, 2004 in other international territories. Ms. Froeling sent such a notice on January 22, 2004. The January 22 notice also indicated that the previously approved track listing and sequence had not changed. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 6; Froeling Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. F.
At no time after January 22, 2004 did Geffen Records ever indicate to Guns N' Roses, or any of its representatives, that Geffen was not intent on releasing the Guns N' Roses GHLP on the respective March 15 and March 23, 2004 release dates mentioned above. Hoffman ¶ 7. The release dates were in fact confirmed in a subsequent letter to Plaintiff Rose dated February 2, 2004. Marenberg Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. B. Froeling Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5. Accordingly, Mr. Rose, the only 'Remaining Member' of Guns N' Roses (as that term is defined in Section 17.02 of the Recording Agreement) was advised no later than January 22, 2004 of the March 23 and March 15, 2004 release dates for the Guns N' Roses GHLP in the United States and Canada and other international territories, respectively. 14. ¶ 6.
In connection with the release of the Guns N' Roses GHLP, Geffen has already paid $1 million dollars in advances to Rose and the four former members of Guns N' Roses. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 8. Specifically, Rose has received an advance of $257,545 for the GHLP; Slash and Duff have received an advance of $568,565 for them to split; and Messrs. Stradlin and Adler, who are not plaintiffs in the present lawsuit (and whose interests could be adversely affected by the issuance of the relief requested by Rose, Slash and Duff), have received advances of $ 136,228 and $37,662, respectively. Notably, plaintiffs did not file this suit until after they received these advances, and none of the three plaintiffs in this case who has received advances on account of the GHLP has offered to return it. Id.
Basically, Axl is probably still (today) working off this 5-1-98 amendment to the original Gnr recording contract that was started in 1986, amended in 1992 after Iz and Steve left, then amended again in 1998 by Axl after Slash and Duff left. I think that is when Axl formally got the name but he also relieved Slash and Duff of any liabilities of the recording costs for the new Gnr album which was allegedly going to be released by Axl on or before 3-1-99! Good for Slash and Duff as substantial recording had been done from 1994 to 1998.
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
all true but in regards to the bolded part....yes it was put out to recoup the costs of CD, but in reality they could have released GH and CD and been that much farter ahead...i was saying from a buisness point of veiw that the CD money is still a lost expense untill CD is actually released, cuz that money was spent on CD ... not on GH, as you can plainly see from the packaging of the peice of shit
I think Neemo's right on this one. The label would have made that much money anyway. So it wasn't worth them investing $13 mil into the project, they already had roughly 3 million GH sales coming to them. Nowadays they probably wouldn't have sold that many but nobody would have predicted that back then, plus it probably would have sold a good amount. It's like ordering a seafood sampler at a resturant that comes with Shrimp, scallops, fish, mussels and king crab legs, and the waiter coming over and telling you there are no more king crab legs left. When you ask for a discount or something he tells you "Why, we're giving you Shrimp, scallops, fish, & mussels aren't we??".
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
6 to 1 half dozen to another....in the end, the Gnr brand and Axl Rose have made Geffen millions upon millions of dollars. Axl owes them nothing and I would imagine he looks at it that way. You have to take the good with the bad when dealing with someone like that. If they ever release Chinese, it will just be icing on the cake.:haha:
ps however, from Geffen's perspective, I don't think I would throw any more money at the project. Therein lies the problem I would imagine.
- DoubleTalkingJive
- Rep: 74
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Thanks for posting that Madagas. 
So by this it was only contracted for 1 studio album.
I understand what you all are saying about how CD and GH are two seperate animals and they still have money lost in CD but they did achieve what they wanted to achieve and did get some money back on profits from that, however they didn't achieve forcing Axl's hand. If Axl would have released CD they could have maybe gotten all the money back on CD and if not, draw up a contract to release GH's and maybe they could have made a profit all together.
