|
Post by pphillipsukuk on Dec 18, 2015 17:21:25 GMT -5
A judge raises concerns about the amount of money the couple spent on lawyers while arguing over how to divide their assets. Liam Gallagher and his ex-wife Nicole Appleton racked up a legal bill of more than £800,000 while arguing over how to divide assets worth around £11m after their divorce, a judge has said. Judge Martin O'Dwyer has ruled the assets should be split in half and said the pair should each get about £5.5m. He said the level of spending on legal costs had been "manifestly excessive". The judge said ex-Oasis frontman Gallagher and All Saints singer Appleton had started living together around 15 years ago, had got married in 2008, separated in 2013 and they have a son together. Judge O'Dwyer said they had "lived a very good lifestyle". He raised concerns about the amount of money the couple had spent on lawyers, and said: "The level of costs in this case, totalling over £800,000, are manifestly excessive for the determination of the dispute, which involves capital sums not much greater at the end of the day than £10m." Judge O'Dwyer concluded that Gallagher and Appleton had assets totalling £10.8m and each should get £5.4m. Gallagher and Appleton had argued over money at a private family court hearing earlier this year. Restrictions were placed on what the public could be told about that hearing, but Judge O'Dwyer has now ruled much of his judgment can now be reported. The judge has published a ruling after analysing the issues around reporting at a hearing in the Central Family Court in London. Judge O'Dwyer had analysed the dispute at a hearing in the same court a few months ago. Gallagher, 43, and Appleton, 41, were not at Friday's hearing. They had attended the earlier hearing. news.sky.com/story/1608524/gallagher-and-appletons-huge-divorce-bill
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 18, 2015 17:38:47 GMT -5
A judge raises concerns about the amount of money the couple spent on lawyers while arguing over how to divide their assets. Liam Gallagher and his ex-wife Nicole Appleton racked up a legal bill of more than £800,000 while arguing over how to divide assets worth around £11m after their divorce, a judge has said. Judge Martin O'Dwyer has ruled the assets should be split in half and said the pair should each get about £5.5m. He said the level of spending on legal costs had been "manifestly excessive". The judge said ex-Oasis frontman Gallagher and All Saints singer Appleton had started living together around 15 years ago, had got married in 2008, separated in 2013 and they have a son together. Judge O'Dwyer said they had "lived a very good lifestyle". He raised concerns about the amount of money the couple had spent on lawyers, and said: "The level of costs in this case, totalling over £800,000, are manifestly excessive for the determination of the dispute, which involves capital sums not much greater at the end of the day than £10m." Judge O'Dwyer concluded that Gallagher and Appleton had assets totalling £10.8m and each should get £5.4m. Gallagher and Appleton had argued over money at a private family court hearing earlier this year. Restrictions were placed on what the public could be told about that hearing, but Judge O'Dwyer has now ruled much of his judgment can now be reported. The judge has published a ruling after analysing the issues around reporting at a hearing in the Central Family Court in London. Judge O'Dwyer had analysed the dispute at a hearing in the same court a few months ago. Gallagher, 43, and Appleton, 41, were not at Friday's hearing. They had attended the earlier hearing. news.sky.com/story/1608524/gallagher-and-appletons-huge-divorce-billPretty Green share IPO or holdings dilution, or a reunion tour to follow presumably then, unless at least half of that is liquid cash or he isn't too bothered about downsizing, etc. It's either one of those or following that time (dis)honoured route of guest and reality TV appearances a la Shaun Ryder, Bez, et al.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Dec 18, 2015 18:54:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 18, 2015 19:00:23 GMT -5
Wouldn't read too much into that mossy as it was for divorce court purposes- If there is a reunion or other musical project planned he can still do it but could be taken by to court for a further settlement by Nicole at that time. The reason for "no prospect" type statements is to try and get a more favourable settlement in most cases, in this case 50/50 as opposed say 70/30 in her favour. It also makes no mention of a monthly alimony, which is usually a sign that this is a full and final settlement, although recent rulings and the fact they have a child means Nicole can go back to court for a new settlement in the future if Liam's wealth increases via music or outside revenue sources.
|
|
|
Post by mossy on Dec 18, 2015 19:11:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't read too much into that mossy as it was for divorce court purposes- If there is a reunion or other musical project planned he can still do it but could be taken by to court for a further settlement by Nicole at that time. The reason for "no prospect" type statements is to try and get a more favourable settlement in most cases, in this case 50/50 as opposed say 70/30 in her favour. It also makes no mention of a monthly alimony, which is usually a sign that this is a full and final settlement, although recent rulings and the fact they have a child means Nicole can go back to court for a new settlement in the future if Liam's wealth increases via music or outside revenue sources. Yes the thought had crossed my mind that the divorce might be the reason Liam has been keeping a low musical profile recently. Had to laugh at the judge scoffing at Liam's paltry £10m!
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 18, 2015 19:14:31 GMT -5
Wouldn't read too much into that mossy as it was for divorce court purposes- If there is a reunion or other musical project planned he can still do it but could be taken by to court for a further settlement by Nicole at that time. The reason for "no prospect" type statements is to try and get a more favourable settlement in most cases, in this case 50/50 as opposed say 70/30 in her favour. It also makes no mention of a monthly alimony, which is usually a sign that this is a full and final settlement, although recent rulings and the fact they have a child means Nicole can go back to court for a new settlement in the future if Liam's wealth increases via music or outside revenue sources. Yes the thought had crossed my mind that the divorce might be the reason Liam has been keeping a low musical profile recently. Had to laugh at the judge scoffing at Liam's paltry £10m! I laughed at that as well, although I take his point, spending 8-10% of your net worth on legal fees alone strikes me as highly priced, even for a good solicitor! I suppose the previous reported net worths had been seen by the judge, although ignored as they are speculation and, as proved, inaccurate to date.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Dec 19, 2015 2:53:07 GMT -5
I had Liam's net worth pegged far higher. I mean 10 million pounds is about 9.9 million more than I have to my name, but it doesn't seem like a ton considering all the big Oasis albums, tours and PG. Me too, was pretty surprised at that. Sure, this is his second divorce and he has two lovechilds to pay for, but still. 10 million doesn't seem like a lot (but more than I'll ever have )
|
|
|
Post by frogerz on Dec 19, 2015 4:35:46 GMT -5
I'm sure his lawyer has done well to 'downplay' his wealth. Looking at rich lists he as a lot more!
|
|
|
Post by Rolo on Dec 19, 2015 6:45:23 GMT -5
We should all be waiting for the third Beady Eye album to come out soon. Really saddens me that we might not hear anything from him for ages.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Dec 19, 2015 7:21:47 GMT -5
Once this is finalised he'll be free to do whatever he wants. This is a lot of court talk I suspect in order to limit financial damage. Even though the Judge has ordered spilting it in half which I would question based on there respective contributions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 7:28:05 GMT -5
Sure Liam has some stashed , plus I've never been married. But this may be the wealth they amassed during marriage , , if Liam only has 11 million for that success that's pathetic
They just released prince net worth. Over 300 million. That's a buisnesssman
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Dec 19, 2015 7:31:09 GMT -5
Sure Liam has some stashed , plus I've never been married. But this may be the wealth they amassed during marriage , , if Liam only has 11 million for that success that's pathetic They just released prince net worth. Over 300 million. That's a buisnesssman Paul McCartney has 1.2 billion. BILLION.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 7:37:31 GMT -5
Sure Liam has some stashed , plus I've never been married. But this may be the wealth they amassed during marriage , , if Liam only has 11 million for that success that's pathetic They just released prince net worth. Over 300 million. That's a buisnesssman Paul McCartney has 1.2 billion. BILLION. Makes sense if prince is worth over 300 million. I mean macca was selling records two decades longer , and had way more better selling albums than prince who knows maybe the fact Noel wrote the tunes made the majority of money on them , led to a source of friction between them as well as there other woes ......I may not have been married but I lived with three woman. And they all like to keep up with joneses I'm sure Nicole , patsy , were whispering in his ear , your brother has this , has that , Why are you getting shorted .....human nature
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Dec 19, 2015 7:44:16 GMT -5
I think its safe to say Noel recieves the lion's share because he wrote all the songs. In fairness to Liam he has never really seemed a flamboyant spender, if anything he has seemed quite careful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 7:52:18 GMT -5
Wouldn't read too much into that mossy as it was for divorce court purposes- If there is a reunion or other musical project planned he can still do it but could be taken by to court for a further settlement by Nicole at that time. The reason for "no prospect" type statements is to try and get a more favourable settlement in most cases, in this case 50/50 as opposed say 70/30 in her favour. It also makes no mention of a monthly alimony, which is usually a sign that this is a full and final settlement, although recent rulings and the fact they have a child means Nicole can go back to court for a new settlement in the future if Liam's wealth increases via music or outside revenue sources. Wouldn't read much into that either ......but I just read Noel has plans tnru 2019 his words. So he said if he ever changed his mind it would 2021 at the earliest anyway , by then it will be a decade Sorta the perfect storm for a reunion The kids who grew up on oasis will break there old piggy banks open to see them. Me too if I'm still alive
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 8:01:20 GMT -5
We should all be waiting for the third Beady Eye album to come out soon. Really saddens me that we might not hear anything from him for ages. probably a reason why Liam left beady eye though he probably knew this wouldnt all be sorted in a few months, dont think he couldve totally invested himself in a new album / tour when he would have to be dealing with all this court stuff, wouldve likely just ended up with another BE stop and start cycle.
|
|
|
Post by pphillipsukuk on Dec 19, 2015 8:03:43 GMT -5
I assumed that this eleven million was the cash amount they had and didn't factor in his business ventures, properties and the rest. Either way I'm pretty sure that Liam isn't going to be starving or running out of money p anytime soon. Even if he never records another song he has pretty green, the oasis movie, be here now reissue and Knebworth CD/DVD release in the next twelve month to top him up. For a man with his lifestyle and unfortunate habit of getting divorced/making illegitimate babies he is probably doing alright,
|
|
|
Post by pedrobrasil on Dec 19, 2015 8:07:40 GMT -5
Liam net worth is much higher than that.Only his stakes in Pretty Green worth 6 millions.I dont know how the judge said is 11 millions.Better for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2015 8:13:00 GMT -5
be here now reissue release in the next twelve month to top him up. Im pretty sure thats not happening anymore, they are making that oasis film though so im sure his wallet will get something for that.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 19, 2015 8:14:05 GMT -5
Once this is finalised he'll be free to do whatever he wants. This is a lot of court talk I suspect in order to limit financial damage. Even though the Judge has ordered spilting it in half which I would question based on there respective contributions. They divorced in a UK court which means the Judge is bound to go on length of marriage as opposed to financial contributions during the period they were married- unlike certain US states pre-nuptial agreements can easily be challenged in the UK, as can initial rulings on settlements so that would explain the 50/50 verdict. Liam's solicitor can talk down potential future earnings but what he cannot do, nor can Nicole's, is deny or hide assets legally as this is against civil law, and can lead to a court deciding to award all costs against the guilty party, make a more favourable settlement to the other party or even transfer the hidden assets to the other party. I think I have posted before that during Oasis peak between 1995-1999 Liam received 22.5% of all income excluding publishing royalties, which were instead paid to the songwriters at the time, i.e. Noel (plus any claims he had had against him). This would mean on a royalty rate of £0.60 which was fairly standard at the time that on a 23,000,000 selling album the total sales royalties due would be £13,800,000, minus 20% for management and you get £11,040,000 of which Liam's share is £2,484,000. This is on their highest selling album, and also does not take into account contractual costs such as recording, marketing, etc. depending upon the band's terms with Sony Music Entertainment. Equally it does not account for merchandising or tour income, which Liam would have had the same percentage of, and which can vary drastically depending on the promoter, territory, etc. It is also worth noting that these figures are pre-tax, and as Liam is a British domiciled resident (i.e. lives here more than six months a year) he would have been liable for a tax bill, the size of which depends upon how good his accountant was. The potential wealth of Liam is another matter entirely- as it stands he is worth what a court has decided based upon full financial disclosures made by both parties. This cannot take into account however assets such as his roughly 1/3 stake in Pretty Green rising substantially in 2016/17 as new deals for the USA and other overseas territories come into play, as a value cannot be placed until their success or otherwise has been proven. Similarly at the time of the judgement Liam is perfectly entitled to say he sees "little or no chance" of an Oasis reunion or solo career at this particular time, but again whether pre-planned anyway or if either arises in the future then his personal net wealth will increase, particularly with the almost guaranteed money spinner that would be an Oasis reunion tour. In this instance Nicole Appleton would be legally entitled to challenge for a further share of this based upon the current settlement and their child, but this would be down to a new judge to decide. A final point is things like The Times Rich Lists, these are generally based on a mixtures of Companies House reports,which are public unlike personal income tax returns, and estimates. They invariably do not take into account, especially with bands, the idea that there are different earnings rates within the group, that one or two people only may be entitled to the lucrative publishing royalties, or that tour earnings given out are gross rather than net. This can lead to overvaluing people's net worth as well as undervaluing others. In both cases it is better to go along with it as the former makes you look more financially successful than you are to not just the public but potential business partners, etc. whilst the latter allows privacy in dealing with high earning assets that are out of the public spotlight, although in both cases for legal purposes HMRC & Companies House should* have had full relevant disclosures made by these people or their representatives. *- Read- "Not everyone does, but this is a) illegal and b) at their own risk
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 19, 2015 8:16:45 GMT -5
I assumed that this eleven million was the cash amount they had and didn't factor in his business ventures, properties and the rest. Either way I'm pretty sure that Liam isn't going to be starving or running out of money p anytime soon. Even if he never records another song he has pretty green, the oasis movie, be here now reissue and Knebworth CD/DVD release in the next twelve month to top him up. For a man with his lifestyle and unfortunate habit of getting divorced/making illegitimate babies he is probably doing alright, Unfortunately not for Liam, it is the full net wealth based on financial disclosures. His solicitor may have managed to get accountants to perhaps undervalue the true potential of Pretty Green for the future and other such activities, but otherwise that's his full wealth. As you say based on his track record of marriages and children he probably has had to make some sizeable contributions/settlements, but still appears to be doing better than the average 9-5 to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by pphillipsukuk on Dec 19, 2015 8:21:09 GMT -5
I assumed that this eleven million was the cash amount they had and didn't factor in his business ventures, properties and the rest. Either way I'm pretty sure that Liam isn't going to be starving or running out of money p anytime soon. Even if he never records another song he has pretty green, the oasis movie, be here now reissue and Knebworth CD/DVD release in the next twelve month to top him up. For a man with his lifestyle and unfortunate habit of getting divorced/making illegitimate babies he is probably doing alright, Unfortunately not for Liam, it is the full net wealth based on financial disclosures. His solicitor may have managed to get accountants to perhaps undervalue the true potential of Pretty Green for the future and other such activities, but otherwise that's his full wealth. As you say based on his track record of marriages and children he probably has had to make some sizeable contributions/settlements, but still appears to be doing better than the average 9-5 to say the least. Ah right thanks for clearing that up as I didn't know that. Still if this is his rock bottom I'd love to start rebuilding my life with five million in the bank and a successful and growing buisness. Pretty sure he'll be more than alright.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 19, 2015 8:21:31 GMT -5
be here now reissue release in the next twelve month to top him up. Im pretty sure thats not happening anymore, they are making that oasis film though so im sure his wallet will get something for that. Talking of the Oasis film I assume "The Longest Cocktail Party" has been shelved- the last I saw of it was in November 2014 when Jesse Armstrong from Peep Show gave an update on it's progress- NME The article does mention though issues relating to licensing The Beatles music dating back to 2011, so unless that and any other issues get resolved I assume it's off.
|
|
|
Post by Mean Mrs. Mustard on Dec 19, 2015 8:43:30 GMT -5
Im pretty sure thats not happening anymore, they are making that oasis film though so im sure his wallet will get something for that. Talking of the Oasis film I assume "The Longest Cocktail Party" has been shelved- the last I saw of it was in November 2014 when Jesse Armstrong from Peep Show gave an update on it's progress- NME The article does mention though issues relating to licensing The Beatles music dating back to 2011, so unless that and any other issues get resolved I assume it's off. I think he's talking about the one made by the same people as the Amy one, the documentary that covers the peak years.
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Dec 19, 2015 8:51:06 GMT -5
Sure Liam has some stashed , plus I've never been married. But this may be the wealth they amassed during marriage , , if Liam only has 11 million for that success that's pathetic They just released prince net worth. Over 300 million. That's a buisnesssman You and me both pal, though possibly for different reasons i.e. me looking like Shrek and Wayne Rooney's love child playing Brando in Apocalypse Now Liam and Prince are apples & oranges as a comparison to be honest. Prince has sold over 100,000,000 where he is the copyright owner in some cases, the publisher or co-publisher in most and songwriter in virtually all cases. Add to this that he is a solo artist with an array of hired hands for each project rather than band members as a partnership, and minus expenses and professional fees all revenue accrued is paid to him. Liam by contrast has sold fewer records, albeit still a very substantial amount, and as part of a band where he is not the main songwriter or the highest earner from the partnership. The copyrights to the recordings are owned by third parties, and so his income is purely royalties based, which can actually be one of the lower revenue streams depending on the terms of your deal. He is also at a critical stage of his non-music business career with Pretty Green, whereby the next two years and potential deals in place could see Pretty Green easily go from an eight figure to nine figure valuation, which would increase the value of Liam's roughly 1/3 stake by a very significant amount. A final point is alot of assets such as bonds, properties and shares are based on market value. The two things to consider here is that firstly each one can take a different time to realise the value, e.g. if you have a house valued at £5,000,000 you have £5,000,000 in assets, but to get that into liquid cash means selling it over the period of time that it takes, and also minus professional fees and potentially taxes. The second is valuations of such assets can change with market forces, meaning Prince or anyone on the list can see a major fall or rise in the value, which is why you see people moving numerous places down and up the lists each year.
|
|