Turn on thread page Beta

Divorce Settlements watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Having watched the news today I was horrigfied when I heard the Ray Parlour's ex-wife has been given a court settlement of £406,500 each year. She has also been given "two mortgage-free houses worth more than £1million and a £250,000 lump sum, plus the £12,500 a year Parlour is paying for each of the children, aged eight, six and four". Does anyone else think that it is unacceptable that this woman can now basically live of her ex not having to work.

    I personally feel that Parents should have to support their children, but I think that is it. I don't see why you should be entiled to some huge percentage of your partners furture earnings just because you were married to them. It just seems unfair to what is usually the man. I think by claiming this much Money Ray Parlours wife seems greedy and manipulative and is giving women a bad name.

    So what do people feel are divorce settlements like the one detailed above fair or are the richer Men and women being unfairly treated by the court.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    two words. PRE NUP
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    two words. PRE NUP
    4 some stupid reason, they're not recognised in english law (as far as i know)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaZyGaL)
    4 some stupid reason, they're not recognised in english law (as far as i know)
    Are you serious? My God! Thats really strange. If you're curious check this out. A signed contract by the two parties should be legally binding should it not? Just like a receipt of purchase. The seller gives details and signs if there is a lack of a registered business number. That receipt goes only to that particular customer. Odd.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read the story in great detail, but if some woman tried to do that to me, I'd go ****ing ballistic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is pretty shocking how far the family law and divorce systems have swung in favour of women. I think this case is disgusting, even more so in that it sets a legal precedent. Does anyone seriously think that if a man married to a high earning women made such a demand it would be accepted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Correct me if i'm wrong, but did the case today not outline that some Ray Parlour's future earnings were awardable to the woman. The case has set precident because it shows that future earnings are an "asset of the marriage". how ridiculous is that ?

    If i get married, then subsequently divorced, and then win rollover on the lottery, does that mean that me ex-wife is entitled to a proportion of my winngs or what. This is pathetic. The family law courts have swung far to much in favour of divorce, which its now all too easy to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Correct me if i'm wrong, but did the case today not outline that some Ray Parlour's future earnings were awardable to the woman. The case has set precident because it shows that future earnings are an "asset of the marriage". how ridiculous is that ?

    If i get married, then subsequently divorced, and then win rollover on the lottery, does that mean that me ex-wife is entitled to a proportion of my winngs or what. This is pathetic. The family law courts have swung far to much in favour of divorce, which its now all too easy to do.
    All I can say is that it is pretty obvious that it is not same-sex marriages that is the greatest threat towards marriage today. Cmon, if the courts can pass a verdict like this then how horrible can it be if two men / wommen decided to marry ? The whole thing is ripping apart anyways.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Reading the article actually put me off getting married, but they were trying to say that the reason she is entitled to all that is that she is the one who got him where he is, she drug him out of alcoholism, she supported him and nurtured him on his way to the top, and the judge considers *but for* her actions would he have all this money and then he gave a judgement. I still do not think emotional support is worth millions of quid though, and she does seem to be very manipulative and I feel sorry for that man.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A top football player is going to be very well-paid in a short career, then, unless they have other special qualities or skills, very little for the rest of their life. They have to put the money they get then in their rich years aside to see them through. This settlement simply ensures that he puts enough money by in the few years left in his career to support his ex-wife and his children until the latter are old enough to look after themselves. It's a guarantee that he won't behave like an irresponsible fool.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its absolutely disgusting the way people can leech off their former spouses (as an aside, doesnt it always seem to be the women who suck the blood from an ex husband and never the other way round - possible bias in the legal system?)
    I dont see how the judge can justify that ruling in the favour of Parlours wife unless it also states he can take the same percentage of her earnings because from what i understand theres no adultery or anything like that on his part, so why has he been punished?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Its absolutely disgusting the way people can leech off their former spouses (as an aside, doesnt it always seem to be the women who suck the blood from an ex husband and never the other way round - possible bias in the legal system?)
    I dont see how the judge can justify that ruling in the favour of Parlours wife unless it also states he can take the same percentage of her earnings because from what i understand theres no adultery or anything like that on his part, so why has he been punished?
    actually- i think he admitted adultery (thats what it said in todays times) but still the future earning thing should be taken both ways. so if she becomes a multi-millionaire business women or comething similar then he should be entitled to a share

    and back 2 the pre-nup thing, even if they are upheld they can be appealed against
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What the...
    The kids don't need millions to support them!
    Child support I can understand, but this is too far.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaZyGaL)
    actually- i think he admitted adultery (thats what it said in todays times) but still the future earning thing should be taken both ways. so if she becomes a multi-millionaire business women or comething similar then he should be entitled to a share

    and back 2 the pre-nup thing, even if they are upheld they can be appealed against
    Id have thought adultery or something similiar would have been needed for a result like that. The thought of a pre nuptial agreement sickens me, but if this is the kind of culture people marry in i suppose its inevitable.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The Appeal judges did highlight that this was an extraordinary case as they judged that Parlour's wife played a large part in the success of his career.

    The money only comes in for her whilst she still has their children to bring up.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Its absolutely disgusting the way people can leech off their former spouses (as an aside, doesnt it always seem to be the women who suck the blood from an ex husband and never the other way round - possible bias in the legal system?)
    That is as much because more men are prominent in the world of business and sport.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    The Appeal judges did highlight that this was an extraordinary case as they judged that Parlour's wife played a large part in the success of his career.

    The money only comes in for her whilst she still has their children to bring up.
    Yes that makes sense. At first i felt angry for Parlour but his wife had some really valid arguments in terms of her influence in getting him to stop drinking etc and thus contributing to his current success.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Yes that makes sense. At first i felt angry for Parlour but his wife had some really valid arguments in terms of her influence in getting him to stop drinking etc and thus contributing to his current success.
    I don't think that it is worth the amount of money that she has got however. I believe that the original settlement in which she got 200,000 a year plus the houses and child support was reasonable. Also I don't think it can be said that just because she stoped him from going out an partying ect that it made him a good footballer. I mean look at Tony Adams (I think it was him anyway) he went out partying ect and was still a great footballer. I don't think that it can deffinately be said that she was the main reason he is successfull. I mean he wouldn't be anyway without his footballing talent. It isn't even like this money is child support it is on top of child support. It just makes me so angery when I read about things like that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    HOLY S**T, if that sponge can afford to raise her children financially shouldnt the husband raise them, why should a person pay soo much for a child? that woman should be killed
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Yes that makes sense. At first i felt angry for Parlour but his wife had some really valid arguments in terms of her influence in getting him to stop drinking etc and thus contributing to his current success.
    oh so helping out the person taht you love i.e. your husband, requires money??? think about it! if you helped youe mum beat smoking would you expect a large sum of money? even if parlour wanted to end his career by drinking aint that his choice!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.