Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2013 6:32:31 GMT -5
Either way Liam's not going to be sleeping on the streets.
|
|
|
Post by skinfullofdope on Oct 2, 2013 6:43:47 GMT -5
if i was liam i would flog the pretty green label,since that bloke from ted baker took over designs its going down the pan!!(apart from the odd jacket-but being very overpriced!!) surely he's made a few quid selling the overpriced t-shirts!!??that shrink/or go baggy in the wash-so you have to buy another(smart move!)...get out while the going's still half decent! and make a few quid to pay nic!
|
|
|
Post by Nyron Nosworthy on Oct 2, 2013 14:41:00 GMT -5
Even IF true - which I highly doubt - he won't exactly be handing over a cheque for £10m. It'll be assets, property, maintenance, etc spread over god knows how many years.
|
|
|
Post by collibosher on Oct 2, 2013 20:38:25 GMT -5
Re-establishing contact with an estranged younger sibling who is going through a lot in his life (even if it is all his own doing) doesn't mean there will be a professional reunion.
|
|
|
Post by paperbackwriter on Oct 3, 2013 8:25:55 GMT -5
doesnt really sound like noel to call liam and say "sorry for what you're going through, bro..."
|
|
|
Post by GIMH on Oct 3, 2013 12:01:42 GMT -5
Wouldn't Nic only be entitled to half of what Liam had earned in their time together?
Would have thought the vast majority of his wealth was earned before then. Not sure how these things are calculated of course.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 3, 2013 21:01:14 GMT -5
A lot depends on how assets are legally set up, placed in declarations, trusts, etc. If Liam has been planning this divorce for awhile before he sprang it on the world, he's had time to "lawsuit-proof" some things to keep the solicitors from these various women away from them. Here's hoping he gets ironclad prenuptial agreements before his third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighteenth weddings. He should make sure all his future wives know beforehand that they won't be walking away with one cent more than they brought to the latest unholy union.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Oct 3, 2013 23:25:22 GMT -5
Wouldn't Nic only be entitled to half of what Liam had earned in their time together? Would have thought the vast majority of his wealth was earned before then. Not sure how these things are calculated of course. That is usually part of what a prenup is for. Otherwise claims can be made on any of the wealth. The point is that, particularly in cases of infidelity, the wronged party shouldn't undergo financial hardship or a massive downgrade in lifestyle. If that means that she gets a larger proportion of his wealth than 50% of his earnings since 2001 then that could happen to. I think that would be the least she'd get though but I would think her lawyer would logically go for more because it's all negotiation. That why rich people sign prenups...even trust fund babies. Those type of rich people sometimes may not "make" any money but if they get divorced their spouses can sue for quite a bit even though they brought all that money into the marriage
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Oct 3, 2013 23:29:24 GMT -5
A lot depends on how assets are legally set up, placed in declarations, trusts, etc. If Liam has been planning this divorce for awhile before he sprang it on the world, he's had time to "lawsuit-proof" some things to keep the solicitors from these various women away from them. Here's hoping he gets ironclad prenuptial agreements before his third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighteenth weddings. He should make sure all his future wives know beforehand that they won't be walking away with one cent more than they brought to the latest unholy union. From what I've heard a lot of pre nuptials still have large penalties for infidelity if it can be proven. He'd have to marry supremely stupid women to get them to sign anything that doesn't entitle them to monetary restitution in the event Liam has a string of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 8, 2013 17:30:43 GMT -5
I hope Our Kid gives up on future nuptials; he's just not marriage materail. Some people can never settle down. Debbie shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if she does succeed at nagging him into marrying her, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HER turn to get kicked out.
|
|
|
Post by lastfanstanding on Oct 8, 2013 23:07:52 GMT -5
Who gets the kids? Id guess they would choose to live with mom. Over/Under on how many kids n baby mommas Liam ends up with when all is said and done? I'll set it at 5 kids/5 baby mommas.
|
|
|
Post by shinealight on Oct 9, 2013 4:47:09 GMT -5
I hope Our Kid gives up on future nuptials; he's just not marriage materail. Some people can never settle down. Debbie shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if she does succeed at nagging him into marrying her, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HER turn to get kicked out. Who the fuck do u think u are to say who should be "rewarded with wedding ring"? Destroying a family? U' re a twat. She didn' t force Liam to do anything. We know ( I mean u, me & any outsider ) one big shit about their marriage, so spreading this bullshit based on The Sun and gossip news. Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Boy with the Blues on Oct 9, 2013 5:45:46 GMT -5
I'm more concerned about young Gene than anyone else to be honest, poor kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 7:39:45 GMT -5
I hope Our Kid gives up on future nuptials; he's just not marriage materail. Some people can never settle down. Debbie shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if she does succeed at nagging him into marrying her, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HER turn to get kicked out. You really are a misogynistic idiot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2013 16:06:55 GMT -5
What's misogynistic about him stating the obvious? No self respecting woman would touch a married man. You know what they say: "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy". The only misogyny on display has been Liam's treatment of his wives.
|
|
|
Post by gdforever on Oct 9, 2013 16:37:47 GMT -5
What's misogynistic about him stating the obvious? No self respecting woman would touch a married man. You know what they say: "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy". The only misogyny on display has been Liam's treatment of his wives. Even assuming that the tabloids are telling the truth about Liam currently being in a relationship with his former aid (I've not seen any pictures of them together since she got let go so we'll have to take the word of the a tabloids unnamed sources) there is no evidence that they started before Nic left him when the love child story broke in the news. This relationship with Debbie doesn't seem to have been the one that broke up the relationship regardless. And even if they did cheat and history repeats itself later...Liam would be the one choosing these women and making a commitment to them...he doesn't have to marry anyone. He's shown he can get enough women without marrying them. If he cheats again on the next wife...why should he get off free next time and Debbie get nailed to the wall? There is a certain amount of misogyny in that.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 9, 2013 17:12:44 GMT -5
What's misogynistic about him stating the obvious? No self respecting woman would touch a married man. You know what they say: "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy". The only misogyny on display has been Liam's treatment of his wives. Even assuming that the tabloids are telling the truth about Liam currently being in a relationship with his former aid (I've not seen any pictures of them together since she got let go so we'll have to take the word of the a tabloids unnamed sources) there is no evidence that they started before Nic left him when the love child story broke in the news. This relationship with Debbie doesn't seem to have been the one that broke up the relationship regardless. And even if they did cheat and history repeats itself later...Liam would be the one choosing these women and making a commitment to them...he doesn't have to marry anyone. He's shown he can get enough women without marrying them. If he cheats again on the next wife...why should he get off free next time and Debbie get nailed to the wall? There is a certain amount of misogyny in that. yeah, well, that may be. but at least Liam never slept with Lumbergh... God bless.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 12, 2013 21:26:40 GMT -5
"What's misogynistic about him stating the obvious? No self respecting woman would touch a married man. You know what they say: "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy". The only misogyny on display has been Liam's treatment of his wives."
First, BDI's management should NEVER have assigned an attractive young woman to "assist" a notorious philanderer like Liam. And even if they did, she should have had the professional dignity to stay out of bed with the talent (she should address him as "Mr. Gallagher", make sure she is never alone with him, certainly not out drinking and partying with him and letting him cry on her shoulder in private). Same thing if Liam had been a bird and she'd been a bloke. No misogyny here. Any woman or man who breaks up a marriage deserves whatever they get. And Liam deserves whatever the legal system dishes out at him. My point is that he should learn from his expensive mistakes and forget about marriage: He doesn't seem to have a problem with scoring women (especially stupid ones) and it's MUCH cheaper to dump your ex if you're not hitched to her/him. Otherwise, I'd suggest he move to a country that recognizes polygamy and marry them ALL.
|
|
|
Post by Let It 🩸 on Oct 12, 2013 21:30:27 GMT -5
"What's misogynistic about him stating the obvious? No self respecting woman would touch a married man. You know what they say: "When you marry your mistress, you create a job vacancy". The only misogyny on display has been Liam's treatment of his wives." First, BDI's management should NEVER have assigned an attractive young woman to "assist" a notorious philanderer like Liam. And even if they did, she should have had the professional dignity to stay out of bed with the talent (she should address him as "Mr. Gallagher", make sure she is never alone with him, certainly not out drinking and partying with him and letting him cry on her shoulder in private). Same thing if Liam had been a bird and she'd been a bloke. No misogyny here. Any woman or man who breaks up a marriage deserves whatever they get. And Liam deserves whatever the legal system dishes out at him. My point is that he should learn from his expensive mistakes and forget about marriage: He doesn't seem to have a problem with scoring women (especially stupid ones) and it's MUCH cheaper to dump your ex if you're not hitched to her/him. Otherwise, I'd suggest he move to a country that recognizes polygamy and marry them ALL.Utah... God bless.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 12, 2013 21:35:53 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 12, 2013 21:44:28 GMT -5
Instead of the Beehive State, Utah could become known as the BE Live State. Lisa, Patsy, Nicole, Liza, Debbie, and the rest of the Groupie Nation can all be Sister Wives, and it'd be cheaper than all these divorces. Five women, five kids, ten wiener dogs (two apiece, 890 dogs to go=440 more wives), each with a house, a car, and Liam's credit cards. Perfect. God bless you, too.
|
|
|
Post by nataliemckinney on Oct 12, 2013 22:10:02 GMT -5
Debbie shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if she does succeed at nagging him into marrying her, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HER turn to get kicked out. Does the word 'sexist' have any meaning to you?
|
|
|
Post by nataliemckinney on Oct 12, 2013 22:17:02 GMT -5
BDI's management should NEVER have assigned an attractive young woman to "assist" a notorious philanderer like Liam. From a Human Resources perspective, you can't hire or not-hire someone based upon their physical appearance, unless the position description specifically dictates a need to appear a certain way.
|
|
|
Post by Lennon2217 on Oct 12, 2013 23:51:12 GMT -5
Liam Gallagher treats objects like women man!
|
|
|
Post by cigarsinhell on Oct 13, 2013 0:15:59 GMT -5
Oct 8, 2013 at 3:30pm cigarsinhell said: Debbie shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if she does succeed at nagging him into marrying her, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HER turn to get kicked out.
Does the word 'sexist' have any meaning to you?
Let's assume that Liam had an affair with Trisha Yearwood which likely had a causal effect in the break-up of her marriage to Garth Brooks. I would then say: "Liam shouldn't be rewarded with a wedding ring for destroying a family. But even if he does succeed in nagging Trisha into marrying him, I'm going to really enjoy the headlines when it's HIS turn to get kicked out."
"From a Human Resources perspective, you can't hire or not-hire someone based upon their physical appearance, unless the position description specifically dictates a need to appear a certain way."
I didn't say I wouldn't HIRE Debbie if I owned the management company. If she was qualified to work at my company, I would hire her. I would even assign her to Liam Gallagher if she was prepared to behave like a professional. But she would be reassigned to Elton John as soon as I had proof that she had violated my office's ethical standards and slept with the talent. Actually, I would have fired her for unprofessional conduct a Hell of lot sooner than Quest (AKA Asleep at the Wheel) did.
|
|