You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
yeah the thing with companies isnt if they make a profit....its how much profit they make....and dont even talk about breaking even
for instance a company could project that they will make a certain percentage of profits for a fiscal year....if they make less profit then they anticipated, even though it may still be a profit at the end of the year, if its not as high as they anticipated they basically consider it a loss, and layoffs and spending cutbacks and whatever else could occur.
greedy bitches 
corporations piss me off
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
According to UNI/Geffen, as of May 2004, the last contract renegotiations occurred on 5-1-1998. Read the document I posted. Obviously nothing has happened since then because Axl and Merck both talked of renegotiating their contract in Dec 2006.:headbang: Which is probably what is holding up the release now-a stalemate with the label over contract renegotiations. It really is pretty simple if you take actual factual documents and pit them against circumstantial evidence and interviews with various people over the last year.:thumbup:
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
According to UNI/Geffen, as of May 2004, the last contract renegotiations occurred on 5-1-1998.
Dear sir, while I do agree with you on many things you've said in this thread, I must stress that the 05/01/98 was not indisputably the latest contract revision as of early 2004. In the legal document it was merely singled out as the most significant one after the '92 amendment, in which Axl, Slash and Duff were confirmed as sole controllers of the back catalog.
It's also been noted on the All Music Guide review that the remastering on this album is not notable.
The re-mastering is non-existent, actually. The GH lawsuit was based on the erroneous assumption that the recordings were tampered with without the direct consent of Axl, Slash and/or Duff. One of the main reasons they lost was because of this - not to mention the information was retrieved from a website(!) in the first place.
As has also been pointed out in this thread, GH and CD are two completely different beasts.
Geffen were within their rights to release GH, and they would've gotten atleast the same revenue out of it even if CD would've come out within a reasonable timeframe. I'd say that GH doesn't or didn't have as much to do with the CD saga as one might think, although they're certainly intertwined. More synchronicity than causality.
To understand Geffen's insistence to put out a GNR release in that particular time in the first place, one must look at the situation in which they were in. All n' all, I maintain it was part of the boards marketing plan when Geffen was relaunched as a fully-fledged label and they basically needed to line up all the impeding big guns in their roster. GNR was at the top of the list, as it had been for nearly a decade. See long post here.
Geffen punished Axl for the delays by cutting his funding, not by putting out GH. However, I'm afraid all this pissing in the wind made it very difficult for Axl to ask for any sort of benefits from the label in subsequent negotiations, no matter how good his music is.
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Neemo wrote: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??".
but, again, we don't know for sure what the contract says. if it is for 1 cd and axl broke the contract by not completing chinese democracy by '02 (for example), forcing a greatest hits out to recoupe the costs not only makes sense but is really there only oprtion in that case. what else can they do, get a studio professional to fill in the incomplete parts of the album, including axl's vocals? obviously not. axl not approving the g.hits release would also support this theory, although it would support other theories as well and we are speculating again about what we do not know for sure. never the less, i think dtj could be correct on this one.
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
Sic, we are definitely pissing in the wind...BUT, Merck's comment on this issue on 12-15-06, coupled with reading the document I posted, suggests I am right about no negotiations since 1998.
Merck...12-15-06
"The record company refused to conclude the renegotiation until we were ready to hand over the finished album and refused to prepare a marketing campaign or commission video treatments until they had it in their hands. This is still their position as of this week."
if something significant would have happened between May 98 and Dec 2003, the legal brief would have mentioned it because it would have been an alteration to the contract that they based their entire lawsuit on! Think about it..plus you really have no other factual comments to base anything on. I will take a legal document and the manager's comments (not to mention Axl's same comments the day before Merck's), over blind speculation and news articles such as the Times piece.
" 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.
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. Accordingly, in January 2004, Geffen resumed its plans to release the GHLP. "
ps, and before anyone says, we have no evidence to suggest something didn't happen in regards to renegotiation between 2004 and 2006, think about it again. Geffen cuts off funding to CD, releases GH against the band's wishes, makes an ass load of money....why in holy hell would they discuss anything with Axl until they had a finished record in hand that THEY approved of? It would make no sense since Geffen was back in a position of power after the GH release.....seriously, no changes have been made since 98...it just doesn't make since for Geffen to do that without an album.:peace:
Re: Universal Definitely Got Most If Not All Their Money Back
i wouldnt doubt that axl requested negotiations be made to amend the contract after 2004....i also would doubt that Geffen told him to take a flying leap until he handed in an album that was acceptable to the board
- Mikkamakka
- Rep: 217
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.
GH was only an (unexpected) extra income for the label. They not only want their money invested into CD back, but want it back multiplied. They've already lost a lot of money cause they could have invested in better projects or anything else. They'd have much more if the only put the money in te bank... GH's success isn't enough for Uni, cause they would have the same success with zero investement.
good thread everyone 
