Slash entering studio for SMKC album this month

[russkwtx]

And -- lest we forget -- Slash is officially a hired hand in neo-Guns N Roses.   Axl still owns the name, and Slash is currently a member by contract only, which ultimately means he's at Axl's mercy in terms of creating, recording, and releasing new music.

We don't know what was agreed in regards to that before Slash and Duff rejoined the band. Nor is it any of our business.

Very true. There's nothing to suggest he is "officially a hired hand".

It is true that we are not privy to the contracts that were signed or the terms thereof. But it is also true that there never once was any talk among the band members that NITL was anything more than a reunion tour. There was zero talk of the band back together. To the best of my knowledge there was only the Duff/Axl interview in 2016 but never an interview with all three of them. Neither Slash nor any other member gave any indication that some form of GNR was a "thing" again. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that both Duff and Slash were hired guns or else we would have heard something from someone that it was something more. But we did not.

[Bridge]

We don't know what was agreed in regards to that before Slash and Duff rejoined the band. Nor is it any of our business.

Who gives a fuck whose business it is?    I said it whether it's my business or not.    In context of the discussion that was actually being had, it was perfectly legitimate to mention.

Very true. There's nothing to suggest he is "officially a hired hand".

Actually, common sense suggests it.

Do you think Axl signed the GNR name (or a portion of it) back over to Slash after having spent years and millions fighting to secure the name?  That is HIGHLY unlikely.

No, we don't know EXACTLY what type of agreement was signed, but I highly doubt Axl cut Slash back into the organization as a permanent rights holder or created some new partnership over it.

It is much, much more likely that Slash did indeed sign a "Hired Hand" style agreement that protected all of his interests, and paid him appropriately for the drawing power of his participation.

And, getting the discussion back on track (steering it away from that ridiculous "its none of of our business!"  bullshit), it is also perfectly reasonable to assume this would be a reason Slash wouldn't wait around forever for Axl to make up his mind about new music, if indeed any stalling is taking place.

[allwaystired]

I bet they are all just gonna chill out for the next 6 months, certainly a well deserved break. 

Not without a new record they won't! 

lol wishful thinking

A live album/DVD for this tour would seem like a given if they were like most bands. . .

.....and getting it out for the christmas market would also be a given. As would a deluxe versipn of AFD for it's 30th anniversary.

[allwaystired]

We don't know what was agreed in regards to that before Slash and Duff rejoined the band. Nor is it any of our business.

Who gives a fuck whose business it is?    I said it whether it's my business or not.    In context of the discussion that was actually being had, it was perfectly legitimate to mention.

Very true. There's nothing to suggest he is "officially a hired hand".

Actually, common sense suggests it.

Do you think Axl signed the GNR name (or a portion of it) back over to Slash after having spent years and millions fighting to secure the name?  That is HIGHLY unlikely.

No, we don't know EXACTLY what type of agreement was signed, but I highly doubt Axl cut Slash back into the organization as a permanent rights holder or created some new partnership over it.

It is much, much more likely that Slash did indeed sign a "Hired Hand" style agreement that protected all of his interests, and paid him appropriately for the drawing power of his participation.

And, getting the discussion back on track (steering it away from that ridiculous "its none of of our business!"  bullshit), it is also perfectly reasonable to assume this would be a reason Slash wouldn't wait around forever for Axl to make up his mind about new music, if indeed any stalling is taking place.

Common sense has never been a factor in this band though!

It's all total speculation. It could well be that a deal was struck whereby anything under the NITL banner operateed differently. It could be anything.

[PermissionToLand]

Perhaps Slash has an ongoing contract with the record company and owes albums under the conspirators name.

I was thinking that too.

And -- lest we forget -- Slash is officially a hired hand in neo-Guns N Roses.   Axl still owns the name, and Slash is currently a member by contract only, which ultimately means he's at Axl's mercy in terms of creating, recording, and releasing new music.

Remember why Slash started his own projects to begin with?  He wasn't keen on waiting around for Velvet Revolver.  More directly, he wasn't keen on waiting around for Scott Weiland to get his shit together, so he started doing his own thing.

Even if Axl doesn't have the same issues that Scott did, Slash is still unlikely to wait around for any affirmative signal from Axl.  Life is too short, and I can't blame him.

Slash owns his own record company so it's entirely in his discretion.

And it is demonstrably untrue that he is a hired hand based on the one fact that we do know about the arrangement; they split the profits into thirds. Slash and Duff are not on a fixed salary like Fortus, Ferrer, etc.

I'd say it's more like Snakepit; Slash was writing material and Axl was sitting on his hands, so Slash wasn't going to let it be wasted.

[PermissionToLand]

via Imgflip GIF Maker



via Imgflip GIF Maker

[Bridge]

And it is demonstrably untrue that he is a hired hand based on the one fact that we do know about the arrangement; they split the profits into thirds. Slash and Duff are not on a fixed salary like Fortus, Ferrer, etc.

It is irrelevant what Slash's salary is and how he receives it (up front pay, gross profits, etc).  I never mentioned anything about whatever he's being paid, nor did I argue what he was getting as opposed to what someone else is being paid.

He's not on a fixed salary?  So what.  So Slash has still been "hired" and put under contract to work for a "third" (or whatever) of the profits made from touring.  As I said, it is extremely unlikely that Slash was granted any percentage of Guns N Roses ownership, which isn't the same thing as being granted by contract a percentage of the "touring profits".  Whatever percentage Slash gets is temporary and conditional upon him touring under the name Guns N Roses.  It doesn't mean he owns anything with the actual entity of Guns N Roses, which is what I said and meant all along.

[PermissionToLand]

And it is demonstrably untrue that he is a hired hand based on the one fact that we do know about the arrangement; they split the profits into thirds. Slash and Duff are not on a fixed salary like Fortus, Ferrer, etc.

You're not offering any real refutation, because Slash's salary -- and how he receives it (up front pay, gross profits, etc) -- is irrelevant.  I never argued about whatever he's being paid, as opposed to what someone else is being paid.

He's not on a fixed salary?  So what.  So Slash has still been "hired" to work for a "third" (or whatever) of the profits made from touring.  As I said, it is extremely unlikely that Slash was granted any percentage of Guns N Roses ownership, which isn't the same thing as being granted a percentage of the "touring profits".  Whatever percentage Slash gets is temporary and conditional upon him touring under the name Guns N Roses.  It doesn't mean he owns anything with the actual entity of Guns N Roses, which is what I said and meant all along.

Axl is making a third of the touring profits, too. Does that make him a hired hand? Does somebody have to own merchandising rights to be a "real" member? Slash and Duff still have a say in old material, as proven by Live Era and the Greatest Hits debacle. The only thing they don't have a say in (as far as we know) is merchandising the brand name of "Guns N Roses".

"Whatever percentage Slash gets is temporary and conditional" That is pure speculation. That's just as valid as if I were to proclaim "Slash gets to dictate what pants Axl wears" with just as much certainty.

[Bridge]

I'm gonna say this as directly as possible since you're not reading me....

AXL SOLELY OWNS THE NAME GUNS N ROSES.

We all know that.  You can argue and kid yourself about it, but he still owns it.  He's gonna own it tomorrow and the next day.  That means ANYONE who works under that name is HIRED HAND, regardless of what percentage/salary/contract/agreement/yadayada they receive.

Slash's and Duff's well-known status as shareholders in terms of royalties, licensing, merchandising, etc is irrelevant to my argument and still is.

My original point about new music remains intact as well.  If Axl owns the name Guns N Roses, he is the one with ultimate say over music that gets recorded under its name, not Slash or anyone else.  So Slash wouldn't wait around.

[draguns]

I'm gonna say this as directly as possible since you're not reading me....

AXL SOLELY OWNS THE NAME GUNS N ROSES.

We all know that.  You can argue and kid yourself about it, but he still owns it.  He's gonna own it tomorrow and the next day.  That means ANYONE who works under that name is HIRED HAND, regardless of what percentage/salary/contract/agreement/yadayada they receive.

Slash's and Duff's well-known status as shareholders in terms of royalties, licensing, merchandising, etc is irrelevant to my argument and still is.

My original point about new music remains intact as well.  If Axl owns the name Guns N Roses, he is the one with ultimate say over music that gets recorded under its name, not Slash or anyone else.  So Slash wouldn't wait around.

Actually, we don't know that. This is similar to when you and I debated about Guns reuniting. You were so negative and stubborn with your reasoning. You didn't want to listen at the time even though all signs were pointing to the reunion.

I'm leaning to the fact that there is a partnership between Axl, Slash, and Duff. If Slash and Duff were "hired hands" they would actually be on salary. They would not arrange a split like this in legal terms..

[draguns]

With that being said, I'm hoping for a new GNR album in  late 2018/early 2019.

[russkwtx]

The fact that the big 3 may or may not have split revenue three ways (which I highly doubt) has nothing to do with whether Slash was a hired hand or not.

To me, the issue is simple and clear. A person is either an owner or not. If not, then he is an employee.

Since we heard nothing about a transfer or division of ownership, it is reasonable to assume that there was none.

Therefore, Slash, Duff, and the rest are employees.

[draguns]

The fact that the big 3 may or may not have split revenue three ways (which I highly doubt) has nothing to do with whether Slash was a hired hand or not.

To me, the issue is simple and clear. A person is either an owner or not. If not, then he is an employee.

Since we heard nothing about a transfer or division of ownership, it is reasonable to assume that there was none.

Therefore, Slash, Duff, and the rest are employees.

Don't make assumptions!  Since I do work for a financial news and information company, I can tell you that if a company is private, it is very tough to find out who are the legal owners. Private companies do not have to disclose. Guns N' Roses is a private company. They do not have to disclose who owns  it.

[russkwtx]

Since this is the entertainment industry it is reasonable to assume that a division or transfer of ownership would leak out one way or another.

[GNR4LIFEJD]

Who really cares what each member made i don't think they will be eating out of garbage cans any time soon. Most important thing was everyone seemed to get along and had great camraderie. Lets all be thankful for the last 2 years of touring we got that people who didn't get to see this band in their heyday got to see them multiple times like myself.

[draguns]

Since this is the entertainment industry it is reasonable to assume that a division or transfer of ownership would leak out one way or another.

Not necessarily. It 's still a business that requires legal  documents, which are confidential. Those documents are handled by attorneys and business managers. Attorney and business managers are bound by client privilege. If anything leaks, they can be sued since this is a private company.

Considering Axl has not been shy of using the court system, I'm sure those attorneys and business managers  would protect their own business interests.

Look we can't go by assumptions. Even the split is based on hearsay. No one knows exactly what the business relationship is between Axl, Slash, and Duff nor should we since that should be between the three of them.

All I can say is that if the split is true then that is an indication that there is a legal partnership between the three of them. If not then maybe Slash and Duff  are hired hands. However, no one should be making any assumptions since no one knows.

[russkwtx]

^The key word is not "assumption" but rather "reasonable."

You are making assumptions that I think are not reasonable.

The word partnership is a backdoor way of saying partial ownership.

IMO it is simply silly to assume, believe, or assert that Axl gave up any ownership in order to do a reunion tour.

In other words, I do not buy for one nanosecond that there is any partnership other than agreeing to play together on stage.

My "assumptions" are a polite way of saying common sense. Your assumptions lack reasonableness and common sense.

Believe what you want. I don't care if you want to engage in delusions. They do not change reality.

And for the record: splitting revenue does not in any way imply anything like a legal partnership. That simply is not true. It can be, as I have stated before, an owner-employee relationship.

I think you need to read some labor and contract law.

[Bridge]

^The key word is not "assumption" but rather "reasonable."

You are making assumptions that I think are not reasonable.

The word partnership is a backdoor way of saying partial ownership.

IMO it is simply silly to assume, believe, or assert that Axl gave up any ownership in order to do a reunion tour.

In other words, I do not buy for one nanosecond that there is any partnership other than agreeing to play together on stage.

My "assumptions" are a polite way of saying common sense. Your assumptions lack reasonableness and common sense.

Believe what you want. I don't care if you want to engage in delusions. They do not change reality.

And for the record: splitting revenue does not in any way imply anything like a legal partnership. That simply is not true. It can be, as I have stated before, an owner-employee relationship.

I think you need to read some labor and contract law.

Aces on all points there, russkwtx.  Glad to see at least one other person understands what I said -- and further understands that what I said was reasonable.

I wasn't even going to respond again because it's like talking to a brick wall.  They don't like what I said about Slash being a hired hand so they concoct all these ridiculous fantasies, none of which are plausible.  But your last post definitely nailed it on all fronts.  The fact that they keep assuming that the revenue (allegedly) being split MUST mean that there MUST have been a shift in Guns N Roses ownership is particularly outlandish.

[PermissionToLand]

I'm gonna say this as directly as possible since you're not reading me....

AXL SOLELY OWNS THE NAME GUNS N ROSES.

We all know that.  You can argue and kid yourself about it, but he still owns it.  He's gonna own it tomorrow and the next day.  That means ANYONE who works under that name is HIRED HAND, regardless of what percentage/salary/contract/agreement/yadayada they receive.

Slash's and Duff's well-known status as shareholders in terms of royalties, licensing, merchandising, etc is irrelevant to my argument and still is.

My original point about new music remains intact as well.  If Axl owns the name Guns N Roses, he is the one with ultimate say over music that gets recorded under its name, not Slash or anyone else.  So Slash wouldn't wait around.

I'm gonna say this as directly as possible since you're not reading me...

I never said otherwise. In fact, I made it very clear that I knew that in my post:

The only thing they don't have a say in (as far as we know) is merchandising the brand name of "Guns N Roses".

Is that not obvious enough for you? You must be a terrible listener in conversation. Having ownership of the band name is just your personal arbitrary definition of what makes a "real member", it is not incontrovertible fact. There are bands with not a single member who owns the rights to their name, because the record company does. Are those bands with no "real members" at all?

And, I included the qualifier "as far as we know" because, for all we know, they could have once again split ownership of the name.

The fact that the big 3 may or may not have split revenue three ways (which I highly doubt) has nothing to do with whether Slash was a hired hand or not.

To me, the issue is simple and clear. A person is either an owner or not. If not, then he is an employee.

Since we heard nothing about a transfer or division of ownership, it is reasonable to assume that there was none.

Therefore, Slash, Duff, and the rest are employees.

Do regular employees get a share of the profits (and we're not talking about occasional bonuses)? At the end of the day, your definition of what constitutes a "real member" is your own arbitrary determination, not a fact.

^The key word is not "assumption" but rather "reasonable."

You are making assumptions that I think are not reasonable.

The word partnership is a backdoor way of saying partial ownership.

IMO it is simply silly to assume, believe, or assert that Axl gave up any ownership in order to do a reunion tour.

In other words, I do not buy for one nanosecond that there is any partnership other than agreeing to play together on stage.

My "assumptions" are a polite way of saying common sense. Your assumptions lack reasonableness and common sense.

Believe what you want. I don't care if you want to engage in delusions. They do not change reality.

And for the record: splitting revenue does not in any way imply anything like a legal partnership. That simply is not true. It can be, as I have stated before, an owner-employee relationship.

Your assumptions are just as unreasonable as ours because we both have ZERO conclusive evidence to base them on. The difference is that you seem to lack the humility to admit this. All we are saying is that the one piece of partial evidence we do have is that they are splitting the touring profits. If anything, that would make it MORE REASONABLE to assume they are also splitting the ownership as well, than assuming otherwise. Simple common sense.

I think you need to read some labor and contract law.

That is a weak and transparent attempt to claim authority. Hell, if you really know how complex labor and contract laws can be, you'd know that Axl could be considered an employee of the record company despite owning the name. Does that make him a hired hand? Again, "real band member" and "hired hand" are not legal terms, they're arbitrarily defined terms.

You should really drop the hubris, it's not a good look.

[draguns]

^The key word is not "assumption" but rather "reasonable."

You are making assumptions that I think are not reasonable.

The word partnership is a backdoor way of saying partial ownership.

IMO it is simply silly to assume, believe, or assert that Axl gave up any ownership in order to do a reunion tour.

In other words, I do not buy for one nanosecond that there is any partnership other than agreeing to play together on stage.

My "assumptions" are a polite way of saying common sense. Your assumptions lack reasonableness and common sense.

Believe what you want. I don't care if you want to engage in delusions. They do not change reality.

And for the record: splitting revenue does not in any way imply anything like a legal partnership. That simply is not true. It can be, as I have stated before, an owner-employee relationship.

I think you need to read some labor and contract law.

Ha. No offense dude, but you obviously don't know anything about labor and contract law since you previously stated that something would have leaked out due to it being the entertainment industry. To me, it shows that you don't have knowledge of how legal and business works.

I work at Bloomberg LP. I've had numerous amounts of jobs there over the last 17 years. I have done legal research. I do know something about labor law as a result.  Part of my current responsibilities is to research executives in the Private Equity industry.  I can tell you from working at this, it's not easy to find as to who the executives are and who owns some of the General and Limited Partnership entities. They do not have to disclose since  they are privately owned. Ditto with GNR.

As far as common sense, it is common sense to assume that the three of them compromised along with agreeing to things on both music and business. What that is we don't know nor should we know since that is their business.  With that being said, I'm done with this.