PatrickS77

2 hours ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

 but even DJ Ashba had the decency and brain to figure out what's best for the band (and the fans)

LOL right, as if Ashba left for the band and the fans. He left because Nikki was wrapping up Mötley and he knew that Sixx Am was gonna become Nikki's main band. And obviously as a creative guitarist being a member and performing in your own band and your own songs is preferable to being an employee doing somebody elses song, with no album release on the horizon. I'm sure he wouldn't have left, had Sixx AM remained a side project. And those other two have nothing lucrative going on, so they will never leave on their own, why would they when now they even get to play stadiums around the world?

51 minutes ago, StrangerInThisTown said:

I sure wish Slash would post more stuff relevant to what he does instead of all the scary stuff lol.

@Gibbo

Actually, he's got one of the coolest and interesting account (IG) out there and doesn't just use it for selfpromotion, like the GNR account.

3 minutes ago, Billsfan said:

You have some incredibly and probably unjustly hate for Chris Pitman and typing those words and just triggering you.

I would have to care about the guy to hate him. But I don't. He's a meaningless, useless douche. After the first show I did my best to ignore the clown on the right hand side on all the subsquent shows I saw and I was very successful with that. So no hate for anyone.

Just now, xBrownstonex said:

The one percent is being split by frank and richard

LOL no, those percents was what the '93 agreement supposedly stated. Haven't seen it though, just a summary one person posted here.

9 minutes ago, The Holographic Universe said:

Maybe he was offered a decent amount per show. The Izzy expert said that perhaps the issue was an equal distribution of the merchandise revenue. Someone here stated that Axl receives a bigger cut than Slash and that Slash gets a bigger cut than Duff. If that is true then there was never an equal distribution of money to begin with for this tour, which makes Izzy's "equal loot" comment pointless if Slash and Duff aren't getting equal revenue either. Did Izzy say "if we can't split it four ways equally then fuck it" ? 

Someone else posted some facts from the '93 agreement and supposedly Axl gets 36 %, Slash 33 % and Duff 30 %. Don't know what about the remaing last 1 %.

27 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

They didn't really move on well without him. There was the rest of the UYI Tour, then you had TSI?, and Sympathy for the Devil before they broke up. So... big deal?

Yeah that. Some of the comments really are comical.

27 minutes ago, Billsfan said:

Well, there's no reason to believe that he was fired. I presented evidence that he quit, and now you have nothing to prove otherwise. Thanks pat. Also, one can easily notice that I didn't put anything in the post that you chose to respond to about Slash and Duff being Axl's bitches, even though this is Axl's band and that appears to be fact. So, you're a big fan of my posts and you're still riled up over something I typed weeks ago then...? Well, thanks for that but, you're contributing nothing to the discussion so

There is every reason to believe he was fired. He posted crap on Twitter or whatever, realized his mistake, deleted it and apologized for it, but someone was not having it and he was never seen with GNR again. You presented no evidence for him quitting, just your wishful thinking. You claimed in this thread that this is Axl's band, I responded to that. You should keep up with what you're posting. As for your other posts, I have no idea who you are and what you ever posted about. Don't care either. So keep your condescending to yourself.

1 hour ago, Silent Jay said:

is it because he claimed the reunion was boring because it was a money grab that they just want to repeat the oldies over and over? I mean he has a point.

It's the same thing he was a part of for 14 years... no complaints from him then. But when the original songwriters come back and do the cash grabbing, he complains and is upset that no one gives a shit about him. That makes him a douche. And if you need further proof, just watch the interview Brownstone mentioned.

34 minutes ago, Słash said:

Both of them are different songs 

And one is great and the other sucks.

5 hours ago, Sosso said:

I will tell you why Izzy and Steven aren't there. This was never supposed to be a AfD reunion. Slash and Duff rejoined GN'R and the line-up was complete with that step.

I don’t care what it was supposed to be. It’s the fact that it could be and is not that's frustrating. Each and every one of them would be willing and able, if all 5 of them could come to terms with certain things. If there still wouldn’t be ego, resentments and shit involved, it could be the greatest thing ever. Now it’s the half… well 3/5ths, greatest thing ever.

9 hours ago, MADDOGJONES said:

But it's a settled matter, izzy was bought out. None of the others took that route. Which is why they hold all of the cards. They don't need izzy, which is why he's not there. They tried but he wanted more than they were willing to pay and seem happy to move on without him at this time. If they needed him they would pay whatever.

If it was Axl who sold his share he could probably get away with demanding a big slice of the pie, because without Axl, they don't have the shows. Same with slash, they are the big draws. 

Whether izzy had to sell or whatever is not really the point. The others new the value and held on to it and in 2016/2017 this has worked out well for them, izzy wanted nothing to do with GNR, again, for whatever reason, it isn't important contactually that he needed to save his life, he wanted out and sold up. Bad business move if he wants back in now on the same footing, but it seemed to be what he needed to do at the time. Let's no feel too sorry for multimillionaires and the few business stumbles they have.

Well, yes. It is the point, because that’s your only reasoning for why he’s not worthy to get equal pay. But if the valid agreement they had in 1991 said that any leaving member has to give up their shares to the remaining shareholdes, then he had no other choice and did what they all had agreed a leaving member would have to do and that’s to give up their shares and get the fuck out. If that agreement was changed later on and thus enabled Slash and Duff to leave (or they left and never dissolved things, which could have led Axl to start up a new legal entity to run Guns N’Roses), but still keep their shares, then your whole reasoning is off, as they were in a much better position and dealing with different facts than Izzy.
 
And you still haven’t pointed me to where I can see what it says what would happen, when a member decides to leave. So I/we still don’t know whether it was a voluntarily decision by Izzy to get rid of his share (which yes, could be considered a bad business move) or if that’s what he was obligated to do upon leaving (which, if it was possible a leaving member could just keep their shares, could be considered a bad business move by the others) per their agreement when they formed the partnership.

1 hour ago, Billsfan said:

Maybe some like yourself want to believe that but, there's zero evidence that would be true. When was the last time Axl fired somebody?

Go ahead...no rush

Hmm. Well. Pitman? There is no reason to believe that he left on his own. Unless you absolutely want to. And just because some left on their own, doesn't mean that no one would have been let gone to have Slash and Duff back. Axl right now is making the business of his life and with no new music no the horizont, there was not all that much left for Nu-GNR to go. While they were still playing to respectable audiences in many places, they were playing to smaller audiences in others. Also there is no real evidence that suggests that Slash and Duff are Axl's bitches.

7 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

I don't care if it is a cash grab, I enjoyed the show I saw, and they should be able to make as much money as people are willing to pay them.

They are one of the greatest bands of all time and deserve the fruits of their labour. I don't care  if that is their primary motivation, they still rock and I'm happy my favourite band is still on the road. 

Does Izzy deserve that too? The fruits of his labour? Well, no, he doesn't. He jumped ship and was paid out,

Don't get me wrong. I did and will enjoy the shows too, but would enjoy it more if Izzy and Steven would be there.

And yes. Izzy would deserve that too. He jumped ship, supposedly to safe his life. Axl got out of the spotlight for many years too and took GNR with him, why is nobody else allowed to do that? Of course, Izzy's only way to do that, was to leave the band.

5 minutes ago, Lio said:

So how about Izzy demanding an equal part of the loot? Is that rock n roll or a cash grab? You can't accuse the rest of doing a cash grab tour and pretend Izzy is all about rock n roll when he said himself he's not there because they didn't want to split the loot equally.

And now he's getting no money at all. He rather gets no money, than being disrespected and getting the feeling of being treated unfairly. He stood by his principles. I'd say that's rock n roll.

11 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

If the tour revenue is being split by the terms of the partnership and he isn't in it there's no way he can expect equal pay.

im not holding anything against izzy. He doesn't think he is getting paid his worth so he declined to take part. That's cool. That should be the end of it, people should be disappointed if that's how they feel, but what's with all the pointing finger nonsense?

He was crucial to guns but chose to leave for whatever reasons. But the fact remains, he isn't in the partnership, so no matter how important people think he is to guns, why would duff, slash and Axl just forget THEY bought him out? Because he is a OG? That's nice in the world of the fans but this one of the biggest bands of all time and is a business and they know publicly the face of guns is Axl, slash and to a lesser extent but before izzy, duff. The tour is proof of that, so why would they give him equal? They have a bunch of reasons not to and not much on the other side.

What i don't like is all the attacks against the others for NOT giving him equal pay. It's a crazy logic, they won't pay someone who is demanding more than they think he his worth, but they are the greedy ones?

Yes and this brings us back to the fact why it is viewed as a cash grab by many, which, as great as it is to see Axl and Slash back together, does taint the whole thing quite a bit. It's sad when as a justification for Izzy and Steven not being there you have to bring up partnerships and legal crap, which is not what rock n roll is about. And if per their agreement any leaving member has to be bought out by the remaining members, then Axl/Slash/Duff don't have to "just forget THEY bought him out?" or be stingy about it, because that is what the all agreed would happen in the case any member leaves. And if one leaves, it should be possible for that person to come back, unless of course "they don't want to share the loot" and are in it only for the money, thus the accusation of this tour being a "cash grab".

4 minutes ago, MADDOGJONES said:

The details of the partnership are a matter of public record, they were released into the public domain during a law suit against Axl from slash and duff. If you are interested in facts you should search out that mumbo jumbo instead of pretty much accusing me of lying, despite you clearly not being informed on the matter.

i don't care if he HAD to sell his partnership stake or not, we aren't talking about that, the fact remains that he did and accepted that and took the money. Deal done, case closed, more than 20 years ago. I haven't heard izzy complaining about selling his partnership and he still retains all of his publishing and royalties. So what is the point? Are you claiming izzy was stiffed out of the partnership? That they fucked him over and that they should forget they paid him for his share and just give him equal? Why do you care about izzy's wallet more than the others? Fair is fair and that's not what you're selling here.

I don't understand your point, izzy isn't complaint about selling his stake in the partnership and he took the money and I presume lived nicely off it. Why are you defending that on his behalf when he hasn't said anything about that in regards to the shows?

Yes, he played on a lot of guns n roses songs, I know that. He used to be in GNR and wrote some great stuff. GNR are playing GNR songs each night. If izzy isn't there should they not play songs that he was on? I saw a great cover band tonight, should they not play any songs either?

I'd be glad if you would point me into the direction of that.

Well, if he had to sell, then that's that. That's what was agreed on by everyone involved and that's what he did, so that is not to be held against him. But I find it pathetic how some people do. For Axl/Slash/Duff it was easier to move on, with Izzy making a clear cut, than still having to deal with him, despite him not being in the band anymore. So I'm not sure, how him leaving the partnership is a bad thing for the remaining partners, that should be held against him now. And really, I don't care about anyone's wallet but mine.

That point is, that that is being held against him by some. The fact that he sold his shares back in the day is used as a justification for some to view him as outrageous for demanding equal pay. But that was then. This is now. Him wanting (somewhat) equal money for a tour happening in 2016/17 has (or should have) nothing to do with him selling his shares 26 years ago. But I'm willing to concede that we don't really know what was offered and what he actually demanded. I'm just going on his one sentence on Twitter here.

I never said that. But he shouldn't be treated as an employee with a lesser pay cut or just a salary.

Just now, MADDOGJONES said:

I don't know how many times I have to say this. They don't get the same because they are not in the partnership. Duff and slash didn't walk away from the partnership, they retained their respective splits. Steven was never in the partnership and was FIRED, izzy sold his share. What is hard to understand about that? Are Facebook and apple giving away their shares to people who were fired or were bought out? What business is doing that right now? 

The show is mostly based on izzy songs? Mostly? As in most of the songs they play are izzy songs? How can you say that when it isn't true. Please get back to me with some proof that they play mostly izzy songs. 

Sorry, but that is legal mumbo jumbo. None of us knows their legal arrangements. None of us knows if it was possible for Izzy to leave the band (touring and recording) and yet retain his legal partnership or if leaving also meant, he had to give up his partnership. None of us knows how or why it was possible for Duff and Slash to walk away (stop touring and recording), but retain their legal partnership (was there something changed in the time between Izzy's and Slash/Duff's splits). But the understanding is, that Axl created a new legal entity, so he could continue with GNR. So maybe it was possible for them, but not for Izzy? I don't know and I doubt anyone else here knows, so I'm kinda tired of people holding that against him. And when I say "his songs", I mean songs he was involved in helping creating, as in the Appetite and UYI songs.

4 hours ago, MADDOGJONES said:

Regardless, they offered them to come back, but they fucked it up for you. They aren't there because they chose to not be there, they were given the opportunity. But let's all just blame evil Axl instead.

So and by not accepting whatever Axl/Slash/Duff were offering them, they fucked it up? We know that they offered Steven 2 songs at select shows and Izzy a minor cut, even though the show mostly is based on his songs. Why exactly should they accept that??? Just because they walked away/were fired 25 years ago? Slash and Duff also walked away and still they supposedly get what Axl is getting. Why should it be different for the other two, just because they walked earlier? This tour is founded on what all 5 of them did together 30 years ago.

2 hours ago, Billsfan said:

Agreed. And according to DJ, it would have probably been a 3 guitar player lineup since Axl wanted him to be a part of it. I mean seriously, cmon people. 

Sorry, but Slash never would have went with the 3 guitarist aproach. You seriously think he would have stood on stage watching someone else do his parts? He's not Steven.  And there is no need for 2 rythm guitarists. Also a third guitarist just to play the 3 CD songs is overkill.

2 hours ago, Billsfan said:

Well, it's hard to get Izzy back if Fortus doesn't quit.

If they wanted Izzy and Izzy would agree to their terms, Fortus would be gone quicker than you could say "cashgrab".

19 minutes ago, highvoltage said:

I suppose I would like him to play guitar and sing like he actually gives a shit?  

The guy mumbles his way through the song and barely plays it. Come on! There are people that have paid to be there and see a performance. Perform!

Even if what you claim would be true, he'd still be infinitely cooler than Fortus. And thanks for posting that clip. Now I miss Izzy even more. Such a shame that they managed to piss of the one guy, who was constantly playing with everyone.

3 minutes ago, Słash said:

Steven makes a huge differnce too, can't you hear how obnoxious the drums are being played right now

That's what I said, Steven would make a bigger difference in the live sound than Izzy.

39 minutes ago, gnr5 said:

No it should. GNR is a two guitar band, those guitarist being Slash and Izzy. 

I can't like anymore, but this. They got Slash back in tne band. They don't need a third guitarist. And should they have Izzy, then there is no space for Fortus.

4 minutes ago, Sosso said:

I would rather see Izzy than Steven at one of the reunion gigs. 

Well, in terms of playing the live shows, I guess Izzy makes less of a difference than Steven. But of course, should they decide to write new songs, Izzy would be preferrable.