Unless they have a prenuptial agreement it's the way of the law. It's totally fair.
Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Unless they have a prenuptial agreement it's the way of the law. It's totally fair.
Sounds like he'd be due the salary of a maid, then.
Not half of everything she earns.
But you're talking about *measuring* financial assets. How else is one supposed to think about such things????
I'm not talking about putting pound signs on the feeling of watching their kids grow up or romantic walks in the rain.
You're right. One had the daily responsibility for protecting and educating 2 children. The other one seemingly can't formulate a strategic player transfer plan, coach his defence or decide on a coherent team selection, never mind letting them play in their preferred positions. OK that's it, give her the lot !
Hang on......
If she divorces then she's single.....
She's got kids so she's a mother.....
That means ....... SHE'S A SINGLE MOTHER!!!!!!
Burn her!!!! Burn her now!!!!
The Horror! The horror.....
I would assume considering their lives together as a whole and not base the complete argument on earnings and assets. Which is what the law seems to do.
Imagine the benefits she's receiving for sitting on her fat arse all day. It truly is the end of days.
I don't understand. What part of sharing their lives and love leads to her deserving millions of pounds of his money? Isn't the first its own reward and totally separate from the second?
It seems almost like a joke to me.
Shut up, Peter.
Anyway I bet she spends it all on food
Anyway I bet she spends it all on food
I think it should depend on the circumstances. However, in this case I'm fairly sure she has enough dough to live very comfortably for the foreseeable future.
In general, yes, whichever spouse moves out (usually the man) he should provide for his kids, give her a few quid to keep her ticking over and pay his share of the mortgage. The thing is, that will probably cost most people half their earnings anyway.
You are separating elements that belong together, like modern society does, worshiping the monetary.
Question, would it be fair if she got the kids and he kept his cash then?
I'm appealing to your "Tory" sensibilities.
Next we can talk about how society (ie the tax payer.... or you, for short) can subsidise her instead of Rodgers.
In most cases I would not advocate that the party not responsible for the majority of the family income (even if they are the wronged party) should be entitled to 50% of everything, there would however be many considerations ; family, years together, potential future earnings of both partners (as a result of the marriage), career progression (or lack of), the wronged party (if any), and in this case who was responsible for the investments / property (this could come down to house by house and profit gain on each) etc. etc.
It would obviously be grossly unfair to say she is not entitled to anything, and if she is entitled to something then that amount needs to be properly calculated by evaluating contributions to the marriage (no matter how each of us would value them). Demanding anything less than 50% of assets at the outset would be to demonstrate to the court that you feel your contribution was less than 50%.
No I'm not. Stop saying I am.
No, I think it'd be fair if he was offered a choice between compensating her for raising the children and letting her keep them.
I'm not a Tory, and I'm certainly not a conservative, or the type of person to much care about single mothers or benefit claimants etc. I'm remarkably enlightened and liberal on such issues.
He hardly had an equal role in those kids.
Yep..... Tories don't care much about single mothers or benefit claimants either.....
I'm messing with you...
There are so many sacrifices, compromises, disappointments, moments of pure bliss which are critical to a success or failure of a marriage. The internal dynamics are way more important than some of the external things which we see. Reducing it to he earned all the money so she should not get any or she deserves half of the money is simply denigrating this institution.
Two of my close friends got married 3 years ago. If they ever split up ( hopefully not), I dont think I will ever be in a position to comment on who was right or who deserves what even though I know both of them very well. I am not sure how people are in a position to comment on whether Brendan is right or his wife is the victim in this case.
Two of my close friends got married 3 years ago. If they ever split up ( hopefully not), I dont think I will ever be in a position to comment on who was right or who deserves what even though I know both of them very well. I am not sure how people are in a position to comment on whether Brendan is right or his wife is the victim in this case.
Not half necessarily, but if they have kids together & she has been staying at home to look after those kids whilst he works then it's easy to argue that without her doing so he couldn't have worked.
A wife who stays at home whilst the husband is working (or vice versa), is effectively enabling the other partner in their work. When both parents work it's hard for either to succeed as both need to regularly take time off & work less hours.
By that logic any stay at home mum should be entitled to 51 houses and a share of a PL manager's salary on getting a divorce.
Or about 10,000% of most husband's earnings, in other words.
That's only cos he's molested them, though
And that's why Anton ended up like he did
Indeed. Bringing up children is far harder and more worthwhile.
Erm, no. By that logic it's feasible to say any stay at home mum who's husband works at a career for the length of their marriage with kids is entitled to some of the financial benefits that career has given him, no matter what that career is.
It's a very logical argument, I'm surprised you don't agree.
- Status
