Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.

[Rosco]

That's an expensive divorce!


Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers is battling with estranged wife Susan over the carve-up of their property empire - which consists of 102 houses.The huge portfolio owned by the feuding couple emerged in a hearing in the High Court in London earlier this week.
Meanwhile, it is estimated that Carnlough man Rodgers will have earned some £20m as Liverpool manager by the time his contract expires in 2018. Even if he is sacked before then - and Rodgers is under pressure following a poor third season at Anfield - his contract is likely to be paid up in full.


Rodgers split with his wife early last year after 24 years together, 14 of them as a married couple. The pair have two children, Anton (20) and a 17-year-old daughter Mischa.

The 42-year-old, who moved from the family home into a £1.2m Merseyside apartment, has been dating 31-year-old Charlotte Searle, a former travel co-ordinator at Liverpool FC, since last summer. Ms Searle has a young daughter by her former husband Steven Hind.

As details of the Rodgers' messy break-up emerged in court, the pair sat 15ft apart but did not look at each other as lawyers explained they were locked in a "financial dispute resolution".

The court will rule on how much Susan, who met her husband when he was a young professional footballer with Reading, gets of Rodgers' future salary and for how long.

A family law expert said: "I would expect her to be trying for half his wages."

Since the relationship broke down Rodgers is said to have undergone an image makeover, including spending thousands of pounds having his teeth whitened and losing weight. Ms Searle spilt up with her husband in 2013 after a marriage that lasted only 17 months.

It was a bitter break-up, and Mr Hind (32) was handed a restraining order after sending a series of angry text messages to his ex-wife. Ms Searle had applied for a non-molestation order forbidding him from contacting her or going within 50 metres of her home in Southport.

The Rodgers' split came just 18 months after they were depicted on a fly-on-the-wall documentary as a happily married couple, with the narrator stating: "Rodgers has been with Susan since his teens and remains devoted to her. She's not some trophy wife he picked up after he had attained a bit of fame."

 

[Jack D Rips]

In fairness picking up trophies is not something he's used to.

 

[Holle]

The most important question remains unanswered though:

How many houses are ADD-ONS????

 

[Holle]

'Image makeover'

He could really do with another.

 

[gkmacca]

For such a hugging, face-stroking 'nurturer', he seems like a right callous bastard. Then again, I don't think this is any of my business, so I'll shut it.

 

[Mors]

Could someone explain to me why people are entitled to half of their partners wealth during a divorce when they've not contributed financially to any of it? And why would they get of their income moving forwards post separation?!
I can obviously understand that if a couple buy a house together, both work, both pay into the mortgage, that when they split, they should obviously both get ~half. But if the other half has not worked, and sits at home as a wag (lets remove kids from the argument for a second), then why is she entitled to anything at all? The other half hasn't illegally imprisoned their partner, they are there at home of their own free will.

 

[Rosco]

How is he callous?

If the scorned woman wants revenge she's going the right way about it.

 

[Rosco]

Could someone explain to me why people are entitled to half of their partners wealth during a divorce when they've not contributed financially to any of it? And why would they get of their income moving forwards post separation?!
I can obviously understand that if a couple buy a house together, both work, both pay into the mortgage, that when they split, they should obviously both get ~half. But if the other half has not worked, and sits at home as a wag (lets remove kids from the argument for a second), then why is she entitled to anything at all? The other half hasn't illegally imprisoned their partner, they are there at home of their own free will.

They're not

 

[Mors]

They're not entitled to half, or not entitled to anything? Or not entitled to anything moving forward?

 

[Rosco]

They're not entitled to half, or not entitled to anything? Or not entitled to anything moving forward?

She's entitled to something - but there's no strict rules as to what someone is entitled to.

He'll essentially have to give her enough that her standard of living remains similar. That doesn't need to be half of everything and rarely is.

 

[Mors]

Ok, if she's used to driving his Veyron, and wearing 50k watches - why should she be entitled to any of that moving forward, or any of the existing possessions if she's not financially contributed to them?

 

[Rosco]

Ok, if she's used to driving his Veyron, and wearing 50k watches - why should she be entitled to any of that moving forward, or any of the existing possessions if she's not financially contributed to them?

Cos she put up with the bellend for years until he traded her in for a younger model.

Or in court you'd argue she sacrificed her career to raise the children and that time out of the work force has prejudiced her ability to earn a living going forward and she should be compensated for same

 

[gkmacca]

How is he callous?

Assuming you'e not one of those idiots in a batman costume lodged on a roof somewhere, I'd say go and have a look at how he's behaved. It's pretty pathetic.

 

[leftpeg]

He's behaved no differently to a vast number of people...better than most...but this is a great stick with which to beat him if you're so inclined.

 

[Rosco]

Assuming you'e not one of those idiots in a batman costume lodged on a roof somewhere, I'd say go and have a look at how he's behaved. It's pretty pathetic.

How has he behaved?

He left the family home, couldn't agree maintenance - im guessing you're saying he should have just gave her what her lawyer asked for. Which is nonsense since any family lawyer will tell you they begin negotiations by asking for the highest number they can say while keeping a straight face.

She brought the proceedings, she seems to be going for the jugular. He's entitled to defend himself.

And if you're talking about the affair - men are only as faithful as their opportunities allow. It happens a lot

 

[gkmacca]

He's behaved no differently to a vast number of people...better than most...but this is a great stick with which to beat him if you're so inclined.

Which is why I ended my first post as I did, you sanctimonious little git.

 

[gkmacca]

How has he behaved?

You keep mistaking me for Jeeves. Go and find out yourself!

 

[Oliver Twist]

Could someone explain to me why people are entitled to half of their partners wealth during a divorce when they've not contributed financially to any of it? And why would they get of their income moving forwards post separation?!

Are you serious?

 

[leftpeg]

You really are a supercilious twat aren't you? The moment anyone takes a different line to yours you're onto them. Or almost anyone...you tend to steer clear of old adversaries such as Ryan these days, unless you're up his arse, for fear of one of your hysterical meltdowns.

 

[Rosco]

You keep mistaking me for Jeeves. Go and find out yourself!

I'm not going to trawl the Internet to figure out what your argument is.

Back up your argument

 

[leftpeg]

That last post was directed at GKMacca. Look at the difference between his responses to Rosco and me. What a prick.

 

[Mors]

Cos she put up with the bellend for years until he traded her in for a younger model.

Or in court you'd argue she sacrificed her career to raise the children and that time out of the work force has prejudiced her ability to earn a living going forward and she should be compensated for same

I understand what you're saying when kids are involved, it's difficult. But if the woman is just sitting at home, of her own free will, no kids involved, I can't see why there's financial compensation or split of the assets he's earned.

 

[Oliver Twist]

I understand what you're saying when kids are involved, it's difficult. But if the woman is just sitting at home, of her own free will, no kids involved, I can't see why there's financial compensation or split of the assets he's earned.

There is probably little cause in that case. Well, you'd have a harder time proving your case, anyway.

 

[Rosco]

I understand what you're saying when kids are involved, it's difficult. But if the woman is just sitting at home, of her own free will, no kids involved, I can't see why there's financial compensation or split of the assets he's earned.

Well the courts in Ireland and trending that way, spousal maintenance is rare now. But in cases where there's loads of money and assets they'll grant it.

She'll get money to live a comfortable life because the money and assets built up during the marriage is considered a product of the marriage. Not just Rodgers.

 

[Ryan]

He's behaved no differently to a vast number of people...better than most...but this is a great stick with which to beat him if you're so inclined.

So that condones what he did?

And he has not behaved "better than most people." Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Richey]

I understand what you're saying when kids are involved, it's difficult. But if the woman is just sitting at home, of her own free will, no kids involved, I can't see why there's financial compensation or split of the assets he's earned.

I think you may be putting a moral argument against a legal argument there though.

I don't know anything about Rodgers' wife, but my guess is that she will argue that she would have embarked on a different career had she not been married to him, and should be compensated for that. In this case it is by raising the children, but even if there were no children, she would say that she supported his chosen career in other ways, she had to move around wherever his career took him, she might have had to deal with the properties in some way, etc etc.

 

[Mors]

Well the courts in Ireland and trending that way, spousal maintenance is rare now. But in cases where there's loads of money and assets they'll grant it.

She'll get money to live a comfortable life because the money and assets built up during the marriage is considered a product of the marriage. Not just Rodgers.

I think it's crazy for your partner, male or female, to benefit financially from something they've provided no financial input into. So you're loaded, she starts knocking off the milkman, you get a divorce and she gets millions - crazy.
If there's kids involved, obviously you should have to provide for them.
But your partner, no chance.

 

[Wiberg]

They're not

Beg to differ.

They meet when they were young. Build a fortune together. She raised the kids and he made money. Clear deal from day one.

Of course she gets half. As her future earning potential is very limited it's only fair that she gets a share of his future earnings for a limited time.

But at least half of all they made together!

 

[Athens]

I understand what you're saying when kids are involved, it's difficult. But if the woman is just sitting at home, of her own free will, no kids involved, I can't see why there's financial compensation or split of the assets he's earned.

I believe Bill Burr summed it up quite well when he called some women "gold digging whores".

 

[Woland]

I doubt he was looking after the property business