You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
no doubt but as hard core old school fans, we should be VERY disappointed that he didn't do it. I am. He has no ax to grind with anyone and thus, no reason to blow it off.
I think Buzz is right that he is holding out for the real thing, which likely will never happen. His induction statement certainly indicated that he wanted to see how it would play out, aka whether everyone else would show up. He released his statement shortly after Axl's letter came out, so I really do think he would have shown up if it was a legit AFD reunion. I'm disappointed he didn't go because there is enough GN'R material in the vault with him and Duff on vocals that you wouldn't even need Myles. Izzy could have totally saved the day. It was still pretty good, but it could have been amazing.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Aussie wrote:Aussie wrote:Answer me this then KV, Alan Nven got Peter Paterno to draw up a partnership agreement which Axl refused to sign so it sat in a draw. Axl then sacked Niven and post that event took control of the name.
How ethical do you think that was even if not illegal? Why would he not sign it other than the fact he wanted to fuck the other guys over?
Also what was the statute of limitations on them launching a claim for this shit too? Honest question, was it passed before they realized what had happened?
KV?
Niven was G&R manager and, as such, could be sacked at any time. From what I know about Axl and Niven's relationship, there were numerous problems between the two.
Additionally, it is not illegal to refuse to sign a contract. Everyone has a right to walk away; sometimes there are consequences to doing so.
If Axl committed a criminal act in obtaining the name, the statute of limitations would be longer than the civil, if my base legal knowledge is right. S&D could have sought relief based on fraud and coercion anytime up until that statute ended.
Since there is no evidence that the name was obtained through an illegal action and S&D have never commented on the statute running out, we can't conclude that this occurred.
When did the statute end tho?
I know it sounds like nothing, but I think in one of Axls rants he even referenced the fact that they tried to take action " long after the statute of limitations" had expired.
What if they came out of their drug haze after it was too late? It's not illegal but what are the ethics and intentions?
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
Sky Dog wrote:Again, why does Izzy get a free pass? The original 4 with Myles would have been even better.
Because a lot of people think the 1992 Tour lineup was just fine and dandy. I tend to be one of "those" hardliners who feels GN'R died in 1991 when he left.
agree Nov 1991 was the end for me....
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
killingvector wrote:Aussie wrote:KV?
Niven was G&R manager and, as such, could be sacked at any time. From what I know about Axl and Niven's relationship, there were numerous problems between the two.
Additionally, it is not illegal to refuse to sign a contract. Everyone has a right to walk away; sometimes there are consequences to doing so.
If Axl committed a criminal act in obtaining the name, the statute of limitations would be longer than the civil, if my base legal knowledge is right. S&D could have sought relief based on fraud and coercion anytime up until that statute ended.
Since there is no evidence that the name was obtained through an illegal action and S&D have never commented on the statute running out, we can't conclude that this occurred.
When did the statute end tho?
I know it sounds like nothing, but I think in one of Axls rants he even referenced the fact that they tried to take action " long after the statute of limitations" had expired.
What if they came out of their drug haze after it was too late? It's not illegal but what are the ethics and intentions?
S&D could get a hearing to determine if the statute should be waived if they suffered from a debiliating condition which prevented them from making proper decisions.
Read the S&D brief. It explains Axl's powers in taking the name. He had to literally walk out the door and quit the original partnership in order to take control of the new partnership of which he was the sole member. This did not happen until those post UYI tour sessions. Axl drew up documents for S&D to sign making them his employees. These were the docs that Slash grumbled that Axl was pressing him to sign.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
The statute of limitations in Calfornia for written contracts is 4 years...oral contracts 2 years. Thus, the SOL may have ran in 1996. I believe the name fully transferred to Axl on a European tour in 1992.
Axl owned the power to leave with the name, but did not exercise it until 96/97.
S&D could have asked the judge to waive the statute under extraordinary circumstances, but it would have to be part of their original brief. It wasn't.
Re: RRHoF Discussion (Izzy/Slash/Axl Press Statements)
10-30-1996
LIVE!!!! From "Burning Hills", California...
Due to overwhelming enthusiasm, and that "DIVE IN AND FIND THE MONKEY" attitude....
#1. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses tour.
#2. There will NOT be an official Guns N' Roses web site.
#3. There will NOT be any NEW Guns N' Roses videos.
#4. There will NOT be any new Guns N' Roses involved merhandise.
#5. There will NOT be a Guns N' Roses Fan Club.
#6. There will be a new Guns N' Roses 12 song minimum recording with
three original "B" sides.
NOTE: If all goes well this will be immediately repeated.
#7. However*******Slash will not be involved in any new Guns N' Roses
endeavors? as far has not been musically involved with Guns N" Roses
since April 1994 with the exception of a BRIEF feel period with Zakk
Wylde and a 2 week initial period with Guns N' Roses in the late fall
of '95. He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the
Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995.
***************************************************
Nothing here is Subject To Change
Without A PERMANENT SUSPENSION
Of the "Pseudo Studio Musician Work Ethic"
SINCERELY,
W. Axl Rose
Big FD Ent., Inc.
Mike "Duff" McKagan
