Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
£7.5million beachfront mansion.....? Nice she's got her shopping list well underway then his ex Mrs and this property is just the start.
Can't see the attraction myself guess its his fame and bank account?
All I got was half the debts and a dining room table.... 😯 *sighs*
Are you suggesting she shouldn't seek a settlement based on his wealth?
...a dining room table...
Did it have sentimental value? 😉
No not suggesting anything of the sort of course it should all be relative I'm saying good on her actually 
and that I don't see the attraction as in don't care about money....
Of course since we now know he's been shagging everything in sight for years without Mrs Woods wanting her own mansion, do you want to change the title to "The cost of getting caught..." 🙂
good point well made....
Are you suggesting she shouldn't seek a settlement based on his wealth?
Why should how wealthy he is, have any bearing on how much she needs to live on? or is it acceptable to expect to be 'kept in the lifestyle I'm accustomed to' for the rest of your life, because of what your hubby was worth and regardless of your own career/worth/potential earnings?
I feel sorry for her - I don't think any amount of money can make up for the fact that her husband, the father of their kids, serially cheated on her. I always think that the desire to punish rather than greed is a big motivator in stuff like this.
I always think that the desire to punish rather than greed is a big motivator in stuff like this.
Unless you're John Terry's missus. Or Wayne Rooney's. In which case the status quo seems to be just fine
is it acceptable to expect to be 'kept in the lifestyle I'm accustomed to' for the rest of your life
Yes, it is. And the law backs this up, by and large.
Bear in mind that Tiger Woods made most of his money from endorsements, where a lovely fairytale marriage goes down very well. Indirectly, she added to his earning power. Look at the number of sponsors who've dropped him if you don't believe this to be the case.
is it acceptable to expect to be 'kept in the lifestyle I'm accustomed to' for the rest of your life, because of what your hubby was worth and regardless of your own career/worth/potential earnings?
Not sure about the case of Tiger Woods, but just as a general response to that, you could argue that some women never achieve their potential career/worth/potential earnings because they stay at home and bring up kids etc. enabling her husband to go out to work? If she didn't do that then her husband wouldn't be able to achieve his own career/worth/potential. So is it unreasonable for her to claim some responsibility for his success?
Of course it works the other way around as well.
Recently someone told me how he respected Tiger W for his golfing skills ... errrmmm ... talking to wrong person me think.
*sighs* I was just saying I didn't fancy him, I don't care about money and I got a stupid dining room table and a load of debt off my ex...
Like you've said its all relative on individual merit but I guess as a sports person who'd been golfing since he was about 2 he'd have made all that cash anyway?
The family imagine thing is true though is that where most of his money has come from?
I don't care about money
Yeah but given the choice you may as well go for guys with money right?!
Yes, it is. And the law backs this up, by and large.
The law's an ass but won't really affect me so don't worry about it. I see the squatting law could be changed - about time.
The family imagine thing is true though is that where most of his money has come from?
Apparently so.
From 1996 - 2007 he won around $100m in prize money, but earned an additional $670m in endorsements (Source: Golf Digest). A lot of this was golf-related, but the sponsorships with Gatorade, Buick, AT&T, Gilette, Accenture....these were all lost straight after the scandals. All these sponsors wanted to appeal to middle Americans, who are notoriously straightlaced.
its a big assumption to make that the marriage equals the endoresements rather than the golfing prowess = the endorsements. Down my street there are a number of unknown non famous piss poor golfers who are wonderful fathers/husbands yet they have no spsonsorship deals how can this be ?
Did he have no edorsments prior to marriage.
Etc
its a big assumption to make that the marriage equals the endoresements rather than the golfing prowess = the endorsements. Down my street there are a number of unknown non famous piss poor golfers who are wonderful fathers/husbands yet they have no spsonsorship deals how can this be ?
Did he have no edorsments prior to marriage.
I think Nick's point is that it's the package that made him attractive to sponsors - dedicated and highly talented sportsman, attractive wife and kids, nice, all round American family. Except he was knocking off strippers, pornstarts and prozzies, which massively devalued him (hence him being dropped by so many sponsors). Same reason as why that footballer got dropped as England captain.
The Tiger Woods EA games also really suffered sales-wise, rumour has it they'll be dropping him and going back to focusing on the PGA licence for their golf games.
Blimey. I actually find myself agreeing with Z-11. 😯
('Phones doctors to make emergency appointment)
Unless she has contributed somehow to the generation of his wealth, then I can't see how she has any moral claim to it. Is she incapable of earning her own income?
As long as he makes adequate provision for his children, I don't see why he should have to provide for her. After all, it's her that want's rid of him, isn't it?
Junkyard, [i]of course[/i] he had endorsements before.
My point is that to transcend the sport he had to appeal to more than golfers. Part (not all) of that was to do with projecting a sqeaky-clean image, and mentioning 'family' in his adverts more than a little. He used to appear on chat shows, constantly going on about 'family first, golf second'. Much of his advertising stressed morality, family, the benefits of hard work (along, no doubt, with Truth, Justice and The American Way).
If anyone's entitled to a decent slice of his money, therefore, it's his long-suffering and much cheated-on wife.
?long-suffering
Really? I could cope with some of that.
Really? I could cope with some of that.
Really? Knowing that your partner's been cheating on you all the time, pretty much every day since you got married? That they think so little of you that they've shagged everything that moves, including the neighbour's kid? That pretty much everything about your marriage has been false?
I'm sure it would be just dandy. It would in no way make you bitter and angry.
But she didn't know until the end right? So mostly not suffing at all - indeed having quite a comfortable life really.
i dont doubt that she is entitled to a sum of money that will be very large. I am sure she has been hurt by this and did not take the news well which I sympathise with. I think she has every right to be hurt, humiliated and furious with him for his behaviour. i am sure his squeeky clean image [ which she helped with] helped earn more endorsment.
However he got it all because he plays golf take that out and the rest goes. Harsh though it is to say the wife could have been any woman the talent could not have been anyone.
Mrs Toast - the reason he lost all his endorsements was because of what he did i assume - WHY she has not doen anything wrong so why did it matter ?
I do get yours and Nickf's point obviously but I dont think the contribution was anything like his contribution.
i am not attempting to defend him he is a slime ball IMHO for his behaviour.
EDIT:
indeed having quite a comfortable life really.
yes who would not be happy to have been duped for their entire marriage and lived in ignorance of the fact their spouse was serial cheat and the marriage a sham 🙄
Mrs Toast,that footballer is England captain again,different sports huh?
Ian
Final point on this from me - no, her contribution is nowhere near his. That's why he's got $1000m, and she's got $100m.
Leave out the morality - we all know that Woods behaved atrociously - and just focus on the money. Did she add $100m to the pot? Probably - that's why I mentioned the middle-America ads above (AT&T, Buick et al) which he'd probably not have got had he just been an outstanding golfer. A beautiful white woman helped sell the image of a black man to middle-America, no doubt about it.
yes who would not be happy to have been duped for their entire marriage and lived in ignorance of the fact their spouse was serial cheat and the marriage a sham
Not nice but not long-term suffering right? I shouldn't bother I know.
did not know the settlment pot and seems reasonable tbh. I dont really disagree with most of what you say
If I was her I'd have chopped his bits off. Seriously, I would have. The man is the father of her children and his actions will negatively affect them for the rest of their lives so I would think he should be expected to keep her in the life he made her accustomed to, he promised to love and be faithful til death do us part yadeeeyada....... just because he can't keep it in his pants shouldn't mean she or their kids should go without if that means screwing him for every penny then good for her
I am not sure why you think the childrens mother screwing the father for all she can get wont impact on the children or what beneficial life lesson she would be teaching them.
I dont think anyone has [or would] argued that he should not provide for his children