SOME women are snakes!!

Permabanned
Joined
23 Jun 2009
Posts
4,742
If he's the celebrity, why should she be entitled to his money? what has she done to deserve any fame and fortune?

Because she gave 10 years of trust and love to a man who didn't reciprocate? She had two children by him.


It's a MASSIVE deal giving up a large chunk of your life like that, just to have some guy throwing it all away over a few shags.

Definitely entitled to his cash.



Don't get me wrong there are LOADS of cases that make me seething mad about unfair this area of the law/life is, but this is not one of them.


You cannot get lower than a cheater.
 

fez

fez

Caporegime
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Posts
25,133
Location
Tunbridge Wells
Because she gave 10 years of trust and love to a man who didn't reciprocate? She had two children by him.

It's a MASSIVE deal giving up a large chunk of your life like that, just to have some guy throwing it all away over a few shags.

Definitely entitled to his cash.

I'm sure that it was 10 years of hell living the life of absolute luxury. Im sure that she worked tirelessly without any help from nanny's to raise those children.

I don't get this at all. She would have earned sweet FA over those last 10 years and she gets half of everything that he has earned.

I can't see how on earth this is fair in the slightest. Give her 10 million and set her up for life but to give her half his earnings is taking the pee.

I know that its the law but I don't have to agree with it.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Sep 2006
Posts
3,553
Location
West Ewell, Surrey
With all of these celebrity break-ups I think it is ridiculous that the other 'non-celebrity' half gets anything at all, however in this case I think what he has done, or supposedly done is bang out of order and she is certainly entitled to something.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Oct 2008
Posts
6,665
I'm sure that it was 10 years of hell living the life of absolute luxury. Im sure that she worked tirelessly without any help from nanny's to raise those children.

I don't get this at all. She would have earned sweet FA over those last 10 years and she gets half of everything that he has earned.

I can't see how on earth this is fair in the slightest. Give her 10 million and set her up for life but to give her half his earnings is taking the pee.

I know that its the law but I don't have to agree with it.

This.

Silly man didn't sign a pre-nup! I will be when I get married, don't give a damn how much it de-romanticises the wedding.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Posts
3,593
I agree with the OP. $75 mil plus 3 houses is way too much compensation for 10 years of marriage and two children.

He definitely should be supporting his children and providing a roof over their heads, but that certainly doesn't require $75 mil.

Kobe just f'ed up by not sorting a pre-nup out.
 
Permabanned
Joined
23 Jun 2009
Posts
4,742
I'm sure that it was 10 years of hell living the life of absolute luxury. Im sure that she worked tirelessly without any help from nanny's to raise those children.

I don't get this at all. She would have earned sweet FA over those last 10 years and she gets half of everything that he has earned.

I can't see how on earth this is fair in the slightest. Give her 10 million and set her up for life but to give her half his earnings is taking the pee.

I know that its the law but I don't have to agree with it.

You are missing the point, or maybe I'm being too emotive about a situation I haven't experienced (marriage).

It is a lifelong commitment. The woman decided that out of the billions of blokes on the planet, that she was going to spend her days with this guy, give up a degree of autonomy, have children by him and support and love this man.

And then he goes and ****s some random women. That's a complete breakdown of everything the marriage stood for, and thus saying that she might have had nanny's (?? :rolleyes:) or a nice lifestyle dosen't really change the fact that she has invested a portion of the only life she will have in this man.

Could have been easily avoided on his part. ;)



P.s haven't read the full thing, so I'm not sure as to what influence she had on his success. Unless you suggest that marital happiness, stability and trust don't filter through into other area's of life........
 
Man of Honour
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
25,821
Location
Glasgow
I'm sure that it was 10 years of hell living the life of absolute luxury. Im sure that she worked tirelessly without any help from nanny's to raise those children.

I don't get this at all. She would have earned sweet FA over those last 10 years and she gets half of everything that he has earned.

I can't see how on earth this is fair in the slightest. Give her 10 million and set her up for life but to give her half his earnings is taking the pee.

I know that its the law but I don't have to agree with it.

Fair? What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine - isn't that a part of the whole getting married business?

The basic argument is that without the partners contribution the main breadwinner would not have been as successful i.e. they've contributed directly or indirectly to the success that their partner has enjoyed. It may also be that they've given up the potential of a very successful career themselves to look after a family home so they've foregone their "own" material wealth for this purpose - to share the household earnings equally seems fair enough to me.

This.

Silly man didn't sign a pre-nup! I will be when I get married, don't give a damn how much it de-romanticises the wedding.

I guess you're hoping that the law changes in the UK to actually count pre-nuptial agreements in all cases then? At the moment it's only persuasive in certain cases and definitely not in all circumstances.
 
Associate
Joined
17 Feb 2011
Posts
1,114
Fair? What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine - isn't that a part of the whole getting married business?

The basic argument is that without the partners contribution the main breadwinner would not have been as successful i.e. they've contributed directly or indirectly to the success that their partner has enjoyed. It may also be that they've given up the potential of a very successful career themselves to look after a family home so they've foregone their "own" material wealth for this purpose - to share the household earnings equally seems fair enough to me.

+1. Who is to stay that without the encouragement and support of his wife that he would have been so successful.

NB: I'm pretty sure my wife vowed "what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own":D
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Posts
3,593
+1. Who is to stay that without the encouragement and support of his wife that he would have been so successful.

NB: I'm pretty sure my wife vowed "what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own":D

As long as she said the part where she has to obey you then it's all good :)
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Aug 2006
Posts
4,117
Location
In a world of my own
The basic argument is that without the partners contribution the main breadwinner would not have been as successful i.e. they've contributed directly or indirectly to the success that their partner has enjoyed. It may also be that they've given up the potential of a very successful career themselves to look after a family home so they've foregone their "own" material wealth for this purpose - to share the household earnings equally seems fair enough to me.

This basic argument is TOO basic if you ask me, Bryant was very successful before he met her and it was always clear that his talent was huge and (barring injury) he was going to be massive in his field - with or without her. She on the other hand was a "background dancer" - a career that may or may not have taken off, but which had no strong pedigree like his.

In my honest opinion the potential/actual earning of the two should be taken into account - whereupon it would likely become massively clear that he was hugely more capable than her of generating wealth and her entitlement to his fortune reduced accordingly.

She would still be massively wealthy (for a background dancer) with $10million and one mansion.

EDIT: Frankly if you give up the goose that lays the golden eggs, you have to adjust and learn to live without them!
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,277
They have been married for 10 years, raised 2 kids. You think that everything she ever done in a relationship is worthless? I do not see a problem here, in fact I am glad she's getting payout, it is only fair.

God have mercy on your soul OP.

im sure they raised those kids together...

why do people act like she became a monk for 10 years and lives atop a mountain raising 2 kids with no outside contact
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Aug 2011
Posts
5,307
Location
Sheffield, UK
You are missing the point, or maybe I'm being too emotive about a situation I haven't experienced (marriage).

It is a lifelong commitment. The woman decided that out of the billions of blokes on the planet, that she was going to spend her days with this guy, give up a degree of autonomy, have children by him and support and love this man.

And then he goes and ****s some random women. That's a complete breakdown of everything the marriage stood for, and thus saying that she might have had nanny's (?? :rolleyes:) or a nice lifestyle dosen't really change the fact that she has invested a portion of the only life she will have in this man.

Marriage used to be "for life" now especially in the celebrity world, it's hardly even a year

If divorce didn't exist then I'm sure people would think a lot harder about who they want to spend their life with
 
Back
Top Bottom