Just wondered what people thought about the fact that Ray Parlours Ex has received soooo much money through the divorce settlement - she was already getting £250,000 a year from the settlement plus two houses worth £2million but she wanted more and she got it yesterday at the appeal court - surely what she had was suffice to provide for her and her kids :loopy:

the thing that seems to have swung it was that she 'proved' pivitol in his 'successfull' football career by providing a secure and stable family home - but surely if they got divorced it couldn't have been THAT stable!! contrary to that is the opinion that she may have actually held him back - who's to say he may have been more successfull by not being with her - say by moving to another club or country to further his career

why doesn't she just get a job (not that she needed one after what she was already getting) rather than sponging off him, being an 'independent' woman - yea right :roll:

i know this only relates potentially to high earners but i wonder if this will have consequences in the future for earners and their divorced 'homemakers'

In my opinion, men get such a bad deal with divorce, especially when it comes to kids. No matter who has the more stable life or would be the better parent, if the mother wants them she is more than likely going to get them!!
Basically the woman has the upper hand, and if it means that the guy ends up with very little money for himself, she'll still get all her money.
Basically, I think its disgusting how men get treated in divorces.

PS - Obviously i know this isnt true in "ALL" cases and there is times when it will be the other way round, but the majority of cases are like this.

I think the Court's decision here was disgusting.

Why should he continue to pay for her once they are divorced. He should be making payments for his children but why should he support his ex wife. The payments for the kids amount to over £37,000 a year, most people don't even earn this much yet alone have that much just to spend on the children (yes I know its for food, clothes, school etc but even so).

The former Mrs Parlour should get off her backside and find someway of supporting herself. She is no longer a footballer's wife and should no longer expect the lifestyle that goes with it handed to her on a plate. No doubt she'll earn a packet from selling her "story" to OK or Hello too.

Originally posted by Ollie
In my opinion, men get such a bad deal with divorce, especially when it comes to kids. No matter who has the more stable life or would be the better parent, if the mother wants them she is more than likely going to get them!!
Basically the woman has the upper hand, and if it means that the guy ends up with very little money for himself, she'll still get all her money.
Basically, I think its disgusting how men get treated in divorces.

PS - Obviously i know this isnt true in "ALL" cases and there is times when it will be the other way round, but the majority of cases are like this.

and that my friend is what makes yesterdays ruling even more infuriating - women already get the kids - (or at least the assumption is in their favour) and this is appropriate in most cases, but in some cases the men make the better parent and they're given very few rights in even being able to see their kids let alone being allowed custody - it's always slanted in favour of the mother as a starting point

Its crazy isnt it!!

"Why should he still have to pay for her after they are divorced" -

Spot on! Even if it was the woman who instigated the divorce and the guy didnt really want one, he still has to give her money!!
If it is a "one sided" divorce then whoever instigated shouldnt get a bean i think. Like the old saying goes....."you cant have your cake and eat it"

At the end of the day we live in an aparently "equal rights" world, so why is it that divorce isnt up to speed yet??

Well this case is unusual in that the majority of people who get divorced aren't dealing with such vast amounts of money.

If I get divorced and also get custody of the children I think that I have every right to expect a cut of my husbands future income not only while the children are grown up but also afterwards.

I gave up a well paid career to bring my husbands children up. As a result not only have I given up 10 years salary but also 10 years pension contributions and a step down from the promotion ladder. Until men can have babies women will suffer that financial disadvatage

There has to be some legal recognition of this in divorce settlements.

Originally posted by Mo
Well this case is unusual in that the majority of people who get divorced aren't dealing with such vast amounts of money.

If I get divorced and also get custody of the children I think that I have every right to expect a cut of my husbands future income not only while the children are grown up but also afterwards.

I gave up a well paid career to bring my husbands children up. As a result not only have I given up 10 years salary but also 10 years pension contributions and a step down from the promotion ladder. Until men can have babies women will suffer that financial disadvatage

There has to be some legal recognition of this in divorce settlements.

Yeah but look at it on the flipside. Men have to sacrifice seeing their kids grow up in the way that you do and slave away for 10 years not only to support him and you but the kids as well!

And also the way you say "gave up my career to have his babies" is wrong i think. Surely it was a mutual decision? And also, you could have decided that after you had given birth, he could stay at home and you go out to work.....but you would still then have the upper hand if it came to divorce! That is where the system falls down, on this matter there is one rule for women and another rule for men!
The only good news for men is that if they are divorced, as soon as the women is living with another partner, he doesn't have to pay her anymore. But obviously still pays for his kids.

Does anyone know if any of Elizabeth Taylors ex's, for example, have ever got a huge chunk of her money? That would be interesting to know as it is the same as the Parlour case but with the roles reversed?? My GUESS would be they didnt get a bean!!

Originally posted by Ollie
And also the way you say "gave up my career to have his babies" is wrong i think. Surely it was a mutual decision? And also, you could have decided that after you had given birth, he could stay at home and you go out to work.....but you would still then have the upper hand if it came to divorce! That is where the system falls down, on this matter there is one rule for women and another rule for men!
The only good news for men is that if they are divorced, as soon as the women is living with another partner, he doesn't have to pay her anymore. But obviously still pays for his kids.

Does anyone know if any of Elizabeth Taylors ex's, for example, have ever got a huge chunk of her money? That would be interesting to know as it is the same as the Parlour case but with the roles reversed?? My GUESS would be they didnt get a bean!!

Why are you soooo bitter? Have you had a bad experience thats made you turn against womanhood or something?

Yes it was a mutual decision and one that I've never ever regretted for one second.

So lets say that I continued working and my husband gave up his job. What then happens when baby number two comes along. Do I give birth and go to work the next day perhaps popping home every two hours to dare I say it...breastfeed. Or do I take my maternity leave and recover from what only a woman would appreciate is one of the most emotionally and physically exhausting experiences of life. Where does the family income come from during this time?

With few exceptions men earn more money than women so it is usually the woman who gives up her job.

Im not "against womanhood" at all!! I never said it was the "womans" fault, i said that the way it is looked on in court is wrong!
Im sure if a man had the same oppertunity to get money out of an ex he would take it also.
I just think that system is wrong! There is without doubt alot more going in the favour of the women in divorces. And to be honest, while women but the time in at home (and obviously giving birth) the man puts his efforts into providing for his family. But does that mean he still has to pay his ex if lets say she has had an affair and then left him?? Why should he have to support that??

Got to say I agree with Mo on this one. Women, generally, give up far more then men when raising a family. Who's to say Mo, or the footballer's wife to remain on topic, would not have gone on to become millionaire business women had they not given up work?

As to women always getting the better deal that's rubbish. A close friend of mine receives money from his wife as the children decided to live with him. As in so many cases, I think it's down to the ability of the lawyer as to who gets the better end of what is, in reality, the ****ty stick.

of course i agree that the principle is sound when it comes to men providing for his kids when divorced and to some extent his wife if he was the breadwinner - i'd want to provide for my kids if i ever had any - i'd also like like to think that men were given an equal hearing when it came to gaining custody (which they so aren't - apparently)

i'm sure there are specific circmustances to warrant each case on its merits but the Parlour case is a farce - why the f**k should he fork out such a sum for her. All she was before he met her was an opticians assistant.
opportunist money grabbing B****

He got his money based on his talent and not from having a 'stable' home environment which is a flawed argument based on the fact that they in any case got divorced

Fair point about the lawyer Max, but does your friend recieve payments specifically for him? As i believe in most cases there is one payment for the kids and one for the ex.
Also, what happens if the kids are too young to decide who to live with? That is when the woman would get the better chance of getting them, unless she is on drugs maybe?

I know a instance where the guy had his own succesful company, therefore money and ability to take as much time off as he liked, and a large stable family around him. The woman worked part time in a clothes shop and her family had moved away (so she was basically on her own). Yet the guy was told that if it went to court she would still win. Granted she could still be a good mother but if you step back and look at the big picture, the guy could provide a more stable / secure life for the kids and be just as much a good parent.

It is cases like these that i find unfair!

this shouldn't degenerate into an argument about gender but be about what's right and just

If I was him I would quit football and sign on!! It must have been worth the 2 houses and original sum of cash to get rid of the moose, I found it hard enough seeing her face on BBCNews site all day, but the rest of the settlement is just mad as toast!

Originally posted by Bedhead
this shouldn't degenerate into an arguement about gender but be about what's right and just

I agree, if someone gives up their career to support someone else's, raise their children and give them a stable environment it doesn't matter what their gender is. In this instance it happens to be the wife who gave up any chance of an independant life so, to my mind, she is justified in claiming a large chunk of his future earnings. The judge made it clear that had there been more 'in the kitty' the settlement may not have been so large.

Originally posted by Bedhead
He got his money based on his talent and not from having a 'stable' home environment which is a flawed argument based on the fact that they in any case got divorced
He was an alcoholic and she helped him clean-up. There are two sides to this coin, as with most things.

I know everyones having a big debate here but i doubt it'll ruin Ray Parlour's lifestyle one tiny little bit. He'll still have a huge mansion to live in an numerous sports car - i'd happily swap with him.

Chris.

As a woman I am disgusted by how greedy some women get when a relationship breaks up. I agree a man should support his children but why should any woman expect to claim such ridiculous amounts as the one given in court in the last few days.

As for a woman giving up her career to have children, thats part of being a mother. I gave up several years to bring up my children and I don't regret a minute of it.

I.ve been divorced and I never asked for maintainance for myself.

i consider myself as relatively pragmatic and to be honest i had a fair degree of apathy when it comes to divorce settlement issues, well i would, i'm not married - don't have kids but the Parlour decision rubs me up the wrong way - it's women like you dollypeg that restore my faith

I just think its time women stopped wanting their bread butered on both sides. Liberated one minute and poor defenceless female the next. If we want to be equal with men, then we've got to be prepared to make our own way in the world.

It just means that more pre-nups will happen. Who will benefit from that?

Originally posted by max
I agree, if someone gives up their career to support someone else's, raise their children and give them a stable environment it doesn't matter what their gender is. In this instance it happens to be the wife who gave up any chance of an independant life so, to my mind, she is justified in claiming a large chunk of his future earnings. The judge made it clear that had there been more 'in the kitty' the settlement may not have been so large.

I can't agree with this Max. His wife will have had a life of luxury living of those earnings. What was her career and how much would she have been likely to earn? Parlour is coming up to the stage in his career where his earnings will be decreasing.

Personally, I think that the judge should have ruled that she only gets the payments until she meets someone else and starts living with him (of course, he should still pay reasonable maintenance for his children). Then she should put the money in a bank and live off the interest. Many many women raise children on not even a fraction of what that women has managed to acquire, and so maybe it would do her good to become more responsible with her money, and possibly save it for her children's future?

On the other hand, however, I heard of a man once who, to avoid paying maintenance to his three children and ex-wife (he divorced her - he was having an affair) he had all his pay diverted to his new girlfriend's bank account, so that he could make out he wasnt earning anything. He still picked up his kids from their mother's council house in his Merc tho. What about those people?? :loopy:

Originally posted by Lickszz
I can't agree with this Max. His wife will have had a life of luxury living of those earnings. What was her career and how much would she have been likely to earn? Parlour is coming up to the stage in his career where his earnings will be decreasing.

We'll never know how much she would have earnt will we? What nobody has mentioned is that this settlement is only for 4 years and she has to save enough in that time to ensure the children will enjoy a lifestyle equal to that if their father hadn't gone for the latest model.

Originally posted by max
We'll never know how much she would have earnt will we? What nobody has mentioned is that this settlement is only for 4 years and she has to save enough in that time to ensure the children will enjoy a lifestyle equal to that if their father hadn't gone for the latest model.

I've read that her profession was an opticians assistant. She admitted in court that her husbands profession had made her rich beyond her wildest dreams.

So, if she sets up a business with this money (like she is expected to do) and it turns out to be very successful will Ray Parlour get a third of it?

A share of his past earnings is right enough. Adequate maintenance for their children is certainly essential, But a third of his future earnings to maintain a lifestyle to which she has become accustomed?

Originally posted by Lickszz
It just means that more pre-nups will happen. Who will benefit from that?


The Lawyers

:clap: :clap:

Many women go into marriage just for the sake of co-depency, they want/need someone to look after them ( as do many men), its high time women/men became independent and looked after themselves.

Originally posted by micksheff
Many women go into marriage just for the sake of co-depency, they want/need someone to look after them ( as do many men), its high time women/men became independent and looked after themselves.

And how many men do you know who take an equal share of the domestic chores then? I think that you'll find that on the whole it's the male section of society who very much depend on women here.

I think that you need to meet some modern men Mo. Your opinion is in the dark ages, as are some men incidently.

Originally posted by Tony
I think that you need to meet some modern men Mo. Your opinion is in the dark ages, as are some men incidently.

Tony this is not just my opinion, there was a report out yesterday that said what we girls knew all along.... most men do very little on the domestic front.

Anyway where are these so called New Men that we hear so much about? I've never met a woman with one yet.

;)

I think that report was about cleaning. Now if you include washing the car, doing the garden, painting the fence, doing the decorating, etc, etc I think the balance mught be a bit more even.

There are a few new men about, mind you, I'm not much cop at dusting or hoovering. :D

Originally posted by Tony
I think that report was about cleaning. Now if you include washing the car, doing the garden, painting the fence, doing the decorating, etc, etc I think the balance mught be a bit more even.

There are a few new men about, mind you, I'm not much cop at dusting or hoovering. :D

I must have the got the real s****y end of the stick then as I do all those chores as well.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mo
I must have the got the real s****y end of the stick then as I do all those chores as well.:rolleyes:

who's fault's that then?!

Originally posted by Mo
Anyway where are these so called New Men that we hear so much about? I've never met a woman with one yet.

That's because New Men have all got their own boyfriends

:heyhey:

Originally posted by Abdul
The Lawyers

:clap: :clap:

Precisely Abdul.

Lawyers virtually have a licence to print money. :)

Originally posted by Abdul
That's because New Men have all got their own boyfriends

:heyhey:

cheeky monkey :D

Bedhead is right, this settlement is obscene as this woman in question is young enough to work and support herself. She has to take 50 % of the blame for the marriage breakdown, why should men be the fall guys every time and be penalised in favour of women, the high court judges should get real and live in the real world instead of cloud cuckoo land.
ONCE BITTEN SHEFFIELD.

Let's all recognise that Ray Parlour's weekly pay is obscene (and that of all those other spoilt brat Premiership players) If he earned a reasonable amount this outrageous settlement couldn't have been handed down and football would be in a far healthier condition as well............I blame Rupert Murdoch!

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I blame Rupert Murdoch! Hehe, as much as I like Mr Murdoch’s domination of the worlds media, I don't think we can blame him, or Mr Parlour for setting precedent in divorce settlements ;)

Originally posted by Tony
Hehe, as much as I like Mr Murdoch’s domination of the worlds media, I don't think we can blame him, or Mr Parlour for setting precedent in divorce settlements ;)

Tony, I think Ned was talking about Sky influence over the Premiership, not the quality of News International reporting :D

Yes, I understood that Abdul... my tongue was firmly in my cheek :P