Please lose!

Russ · 11-05-2004, 17:37

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...088173,00.html

I really hope she loses otherwise it will set a very dangerous precedent in marriage.

kronas · 11-05-2004, 17:51

how does she think she is 'owed' something ?

i mean he uses his ability to do his work ?

and she already has 2 houses and income off him!!

Shaun · 11-05-2004, 17:52

If she's had half his assets then she won't be getting any more. She is entitled to a lump of his salary each year toward the upkeep of his kids but thats it. I thought the law was already fairly strict on this kind of thing, I don't then the appeals court will give her any more.

MovedGoalPosts · 11-05-2004, 17:55

I really don't follow the apparent greed behind many divorce settlement claims.

Fine the wealth and assets created during the marriage should be split reasonably, but this should be proportional to the risks and effort involved. In this case we have a high earning footballer, but whose ability to command high wages is limited to a very few years, or less if he has an injury. Many footballers suffer long term injury later in their life. The high salary earnt today must compensate for that future risk. The wife does not have that risk.

The case is reported as requiring an ongoing yearly salary. Why is anyone entitled to that? His earnings may well drop, unless he is very fortunate with investments, or finds a lucrative managerial career.

And why shouldn't she be expected to start to earn a living to create her future assets. Or if she does do so, will he be entitled to a proportion of that future earnings?

I do agree that where there are dependents involved (kids) proper allowance must be made to keep the dependents in the style to which they are accustomed. And of course if the partner looking after the dependents is entitled to funds related to the effort they have to put into the care, but this has to be proportional to the earnings made by a party.

Simple the relationship has ended. Frequently, even if only one party is named as at fault, the other will have played their part in the split. If they are to split, future potential shouldnt really come into the equation, only what was jointly created and earnt.

kronas · 11-05-2004, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Simple the relationship has ended. Frequently, even if only one party is named as at fault, the other will have played their part in the split. If they are to split, future potential shouldnt really come into the equation, only what was jointly created and earnt.

this is what i agree with also, personal assets gained before marriage should be kept to the respective parties not split, however if collateral is owned/bought under joint ownership and a 'split' of the relationship arises then a 50/50 ruling should entail.

**Damien** · 11-05-2004, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronas

this is what i agree with also, personal assets gained before marriage should be kept to the respective parties not split, however if collateral is owned/bought under joint ownership and a 'split' of the relationship arises then a 50/50 ruling should entail.

i agree

she is just a money grabbing moo

Defiant · 11-05-2004, 18:26

I can see her getting her way.

MovedGoalPosts · 11-05-2004, 18:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant

I can see her getting her way.

So can I - The law is an ass

deadite66 · 11-05-2004, 18:36

their is no justice in this country only law.

**Damien** · 11-05-2004, 18:41

I don't think see will get her way

**Maggy** · 11-05-2004, 19:37

I'm certainly dubious about her claim.

Personally I can't see why she can't go out and work. and have some dignity for goodness sake.It's not like she has recieved nothing at all.It's hardly a good example for the children.

Incog.

**Damien** · 11-05-2004, 19:38

I agree, she should just stop trying to cash in. Personally I hope the judge reduces the money he has to pay

Defiant · 11-05-2004, 19:45

I'd just like to see a story were the guy comes off better for a change.

**Damien** · 11-05-2004, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant

I'd just like to see a story were the guy comes off better for a change.

would be nice for a change i hate all this PC crap i treat everyone equally but i dont see why it doesn't apply the other way.

How come it cant be 50/50 and when the marriage is finished thats it. How come its always the man who has to pay maintenance? it bloody stupid yet we are still lectured about equal rights

**Maggy** · 11-05-2004, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant

I'd just like to see a story were the guy comes off better for a change.

I have watched across the years from the 50's and early 60's when women were lucky if they got any fair deal from a divorce to a wholeswing around to where they appear to get everything.Not all do of course because they are running from an abusive relationship and would rather have nothing,but in most normal cases men are being treated somewhat unfairly.

I think Sir Bob Geldolf has some very interesting things to say on where the situation now settles.That BOTH parents get equal custody and equal share in the family resources to bring up said children.

However there will always be those parents both male and female who use their children as levers against partners.They don't deserve to have any children at all in that case.That said all sides in a case do have to be viewed on merit.

Incog.