Grumble Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Barmy! An ex-optician's assistant who told him off for drinking with the lads... no wonder he dumped her. Interesting to see the gender polarity of the two previous posts...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Greedy, lazy, gold digging bitch! I don't agree with the sums of money footy players get paid for 'playing a game', but I agree with this even less! The stupid bint should get a decent job & try to earn that sort of money herself instead of sponging off an ex. Fair enough there's the kids to provide for but out of the stack she's getting each year - £250,000 only £37,500 goes to the nippers whereas the rest is no doubt to fund some sort of 'footballers wives' lifestyle she'll no doubt have become accustomed to but unable to maintain herself. Thieving witch.
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Greedy, lazy, gold digging bitch! Thought you were picking on me again for a minute there, Cret!
Ripsaw Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Cret, I had to kinda read between the lines there, but I got the impression that you find distaste in the ruling? I could be wrong tho'
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Hee hee! Not quite sure where you get that idea chaps. Seriously though I can't abide scroungers, freeloaders, spongers, ambulance chasers & the like. Assuming they're able to - people should work hard to earn their own money & not expect to live off others. Still, my girlie has her own house & I haven't so I might end up changing my mind.... What do you mean picking on you again Minnie?
Grumble Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 I think it was by Groucho Marx, but seems appropriate: "Madam would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Why yes, I guess I would... Would you sleep with me for one dollar? CERTAINLY NOT - what do you take me for? That we've already established - now we're only haggling over the price"
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 I was gonna steer well clear of this topic but what the hell! "Greedy, lazy, gold digging bitch!" "......stupid bint should get a decent job & try to earn that sort of money herself instead of sponging off an ex." That woman has probably cooked, cleaned, looked after the children (all 4 of them..........8, 6, 4 yrs old and the 31 yr old she was married to ) and will have to continue to look after the children. Why shouldn't she be able to continue the "footballers wives" lifestyle she's accustomed to? It's not just a case of her lifestyle, the children are probably accustomed to a certain lifestyle too and why should they miss out just because their parents divorce? She's played a major, important role in the family and just because she hasn't worked doesn't make her any less worthy than others, it's just that she's been fortunate enough to not have to go out to work. She may not have brought as much money into the household as he has but she's been a mother and a wife, she deserves a bit more respect than people are going to credit her with. Women get a rough deal in cases like this one and they're always made out to be gold diggers.
lectro Posted July 7, 2004 Author Posted July 7, 2004 That woman has probably cooked, cleaned, looked after the children (all 4 of them..........8, 6, 4 yrs old and the 31 yr old she was married to LOL I doubt it. She has probably instructed the cook, cleaner and nanny to do the necessary.
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 That woman has probably cooked, cleaned, looked after the children (all 4 of them..........8, 6, 4 yrs old and the 31 yr old she was married to LOL I doubt it. She has probably instructed the cook, cleaner and nanny to do the necessary. Touché. Ok so gold digging bitch may be a touch harsh but it was a bit tongue in cheek. I wouldn't call getting quarter of a million a year for free a rough deal though Minnie. I know what you're getting at and I agree the kids shouldn't suffer on account of parents splitting up ever but that's not the issue as I think any father worth his salt would see to it that his kids are doing ok, especially when money is no object. To be honest I think the courts often give fathers the rough end of the stick in these cases as I understand it the mothers frequently get to 'keep' the children often when it's not necessarily the best thing for them and this is something which is slowly beginning to be recognised in these kind of situations.
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Reason to get married, I'd say! Marry me Minnie! Then after we get divorced, you can have half my overdraft!
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 I'm not saying she's getting a rough deal financially, but she'll get a rough deal from the press and people like you who don't agree with the settlement she's received. It's not a case of getting all that money for free, she's getting what she's entitled to. She'll still have to look after the children, keep a roof over their heads, feed them, clothe them etc and in order to look after the children she needs to have the money to look after herself and keep them in the manner they're accustomed to............so why shouldn't she get a large share of his earnings? Yes, I agree, in most cases mothers do get to 'keep' the children, but I disagree with your comment that in some cases it's not necessarily the best thing for them. If a judge believed the best thing for a child was to be with the father then that is the decision he would come to, they don't just give the children to the mother because it's what's expected to happen, they do what is best for the children.
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Posted July 7, 2004 Reason to get married, I'd say! Marry me Minnie! Then after we get divorced, you can have half my overdraft! Ask me again when you've got as much money as Ray Parlour and I might consider it. If you were that rich I could possibly get past the fact that you're fat, old and balding
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.