Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
I think he means all the people who've told me I'm wrong then forget to reply to my subsequent rebuttal.
Except the law it would seem.
And common sense.... or anywhere in fact, other than Peter's head.
Pretty sure the circumstance of the breakup is irrelevant, it is in Australia at least.
FYI you are in a full dreamy mode!
You patronising cunt. His names 'the Hague'.
Sometimes the only agenda here feels like you constant attempt to jump any any comment that is in any way anything other than positive about Rodgers.
People are just expressing lots about their own perceptions of marriage, relationships, family, etc being an incredibly complex thing - except maybe for Peter.
Of course none us know what happened - which is probably why no one has said "oh she deserves every penny".
Most are outlining nothing more than possible reasons as to what case she might have - the pair of them couldn't figure it out by themselves- so it's off to court.
You seem to be of the opinion that marriage, or in this case, the role of the wife, is akin to some sort external contractor providing a set range of services fir which they should be remunerated for on a set rate.
That's beyond ridiculous,l.
Wasn't it you who said recently to someone (Ryan, maybe), it's ok to be wrong and admit such from time to time. Better than continuing to defend a position that seems completely illogical.
Marriage, or their life, is more like a cake - they both baked it together, added the various ingredients so that the outcome is the sum total of what they both put in to it.
Now she, rightly gets to make an argument for what slice of the cake she's entitled to.
What's the law's take on marriage pre-fortune and post-fortune?
As in, had the husband already been a multi millionaire before the marriage, rather than in Rodger's case where they started out with little to no money, is the partner likely to get a lesser percentage?
Or is it still 50% (or whatever) of earnings/savings during that marriage? Or could it even precede the marriage?
As in, had the husband already been a multi millionaire before the marriage, rather than in Rodger's case where they started out with little to no money, is the partner likely to get a lesser percentage?
Or is it still 50% (or whatever) of earnings/savings during that marriage? Or could it even precede the marriage?
Now THAT'S a set up..... who's gonna be first?
Well, I can't really put it any other way than that I disagree. The irony seems to me that you and others accuse me of seeing things through a purely financial lens when I'd argue that it's the other way round.
A marriage is not a partnership formed in order to make money and accumulate capital. That just seems so obvious to me that I hardly know what else to add to it. But still: IMO it's a partnership formed to celebrate a human relationship, to demonstrate commitment, and very often to provide a loving shelter for the raising of children. What the two parties earn during the marriage seems wholly incidental, to me. It's not the purpose of the union and it's not the product of the union, either.
I think it's right and just that on a marriage ending each party should be assured of appropriate compensation for any financially deleterious effects of the marriage. But I don't think one of the parties should be entitled to a kind of 'profit on investment' and 'annual dividend' that seems to me a reasonable description of the kind of awards that will be due to Mrs Rodgers for the simple fact that she was canny enough to marry a man with very high earning potential.
It just doesn't really seem to be an obvious moral conclusion.
As has been pointed out to you plenty of times Peter; the view highlighted above is one that only you have. No one in this thread, or in the courts agrees with it. Which is why Brodge's wife will walk away with a fortune from this.
Which is about as useful as saying that you disagree with me because you disagree.
I'm not quite sure what you're after here Peter. A pat on the head? Some recognition that you do indeed have an opinion? Internet kudos?
No one agrees with you. How else do you want this dressed up?
If you want to reply to my argument with an argument then I can respond. Why would I respond to what you seem to imagine to be the gloat that nobody agrees with me?
I already knew that. I already didn't care.
If you end up getting married Peter, you've got to share your prenuptial with us!
It's precisely for many of the reasons you mentioned that it should be treated as more than a functional transaction for services rendered.
You get married - you're sharing your life with someone - good bad and indifferent and I'd imagine as a family unit, the idea is that you can be more successful together rather than separate entities.
It is a complex relationship, I agree, not based on a need for financial reward, but surely success and financial security is something that all parties contribute to.
Rodgers has had a successful career, of which his partner would have undoubtedly helped him achieve given that they none of this was handed to them on a plate.
She, at the very least, deserves the chance to make a case for how much of the rewards of their life together she is entitled to.
Really? So I must have imagined his critics lining up, having already made their minds up to have another go.
Her lawyers would rightly argue that it's there to support their children that she will have predominant custody of. And how do you know she wouldn't have done spectacularly well in her career if she wasn't raising his 3 kids? Would Rodgers have "done spectacularly well in his career" if she hadn't have been there to manage their family for the last 20 years? Unlikely, because he'd have had to do more than put names in fucking envelopes and shag the travel coordinator Peter.
Apart from being completely inaccurate, the last effort is particularly laughable. How do you get custody of a 17 and 20yr old, it's not exactly nappies and baby sick is it? And how does having a 17yr old and a 20yr old amount to having three kids? If people are going to have a pop, I wish they'd at least do their homework.
It's also amazing that no one picked on the point that their marriage broke down in early 2014 and he started a relationship in the Summer of 2014. No? But he's a callous bastard, etc.
Repeatedly stating your opinion as fact does not constitute a rebuttal peter.
You keep saying that Mrs Rodgers' conduct as a wife has got fuck all to do with how much he could earn, but that's patently not the case. Now, we don't know what she was like, and perhaps with or without her he would have been equally successful - we don't know, these are all hypotheticals.
However, it's fair to say that if she was a lazy, miserable, moody cunt who busted his balls if he was even 2 minutes late home from work, that would have an impact on his ability to progress.
If she gave it the "I've been dealing with the kids all day, I'm tired, you've got to do the shopping and the cleaning" then that would place added pressure and stress on him, making him tired and worse at his job.
If he came home from work going "You wouldn't believe the day I've had" and she went "I don't wanna hear about work, you're at work all bloody day, this is family time now, so cheer the fuck up and show me some love and attention" it would probably do his head in and affect his mood and headspace.
Alternatively, she could be the most dutiful wife, who never gave him shit about anything, did every task and chore there was to be done, lent a supportive ear when it was needed (and who knows, maybe even proffered advice), had his dinner waiting when he got in, noshed him off while he watched the footy . . .
The way you're going on about it, it's as if nobody was ever affected at work by shit that was going on at home
While I disagree with most of what he's said Peter is correct in saying she shouldn't profit from the marriage.
And that's the approach that will be taken,her previous standard of living is what guides it. So she should either get a decent maintenance order, a one off lump sum or a share of the property business as a means to preserve her standard of living. Or possibly a mix of all three. Her starting position is seeking half but she'll get nowhere near that
And that's the approach that will be taken,her previous standard of living is what guides it. So she should either get a decent maintenance order, a one off lump sum or a share of the property business as a means to preserve her standard of living. Or possibly a mix of all three. Her starting position is seeking half but she'll get nowhere near that
I couldn't give shit whether his wife gets a fortune or fuck all from Rodgers and i also don't really care who's he's shagging. The only time i'm bothered is when it affects his capability to do his job properly. It's hard to tell if it has affected his job but it can't have helped. He's had far too many front page headlines since he's been our manager. Some of them (his son's court case) weren't his fault and the marriage breakdown may not have been his fault but these haven't been the only headlines he's had. There was the thing with being fined for the neglected house as well.
- Status
