Jump to content

giggsy

SnowJapan Member
  • Content Count

    698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by giggsy

  1. rach, seen this?

     

    lol.gif lol.gif

     

    TODAY WE EXPOSE A shocking security breach at Manchester United in which one of our reporters was allowed to get inside Old Trafford and wander freely around the pitch on Saturday afternoons.

     

    The reporter, Diego Forlán, was able to impersonate a footballer for more than two years when a simple check on his credentials would have revealed that he was clearly unqualified for the job.

     

     

    United claim that Forlán was properly vetted, yet even the most basic assessment of his ability would have shown that he should not have been allowed near the club and that he represented a real threat to the team’s title hopes.

     

    We can tell the incredible story today after Forlán was ushered out of Old Trafford at the weekend. A Hairdryer spokesman said last night:

     

    “Not only should it have been obvious beforehand that our reporter was a bogus applicant for the job, he has continued to be employed despite clear evidence that he does not possess the appropriate skills.

     

    “We thought the game was up when he failed to score in his first 26 appearances for the club. We were preparing to whisk him back to his job on our features desk, yet still United didn’t detect the scam.”

     

    United did not pursue the reference mentioned on the CV that we prepared on Forlán’s behalf. Had they done so, they would have been told that he was “probably only good enough to play for Stockport County reserves”.

     

    Instead he was given the £1,000-an-hour job as a footballer, enjoying free access to the United dressing-room and the chance to enter the pitch at 3pm on a Saturday.

     

    However, police on duty at Old Trafford claimed they did have their eye on Forlán. A spokesman said: “There was something suspicious about him as he ran about, but since he never actually did anything we just left him.”

  2. While being a Manchester fan, Leeds have always been "the enemy" - even if they were on a different level mwaaahahah uaahahah - it is kinda sad to see what is happening over there, falling apart like that. Just to think how long ago was it when they were challenging in Europe...

  3. Check it out!

     

    ---

     

    Karen Parlour, ex-wife of Arsenal star Ray Parlour, is entitled to receive one third of his future earnings to acknowledge the role she played in his success, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

     

    What does this ruling mean?

     

    For the Parlours, it means that the personal maintenance award of £250,000 a year, made in the High Court in January, will be upped to £406,500 pa, to run for four years, when it will be reviewed.

     

    It is likely that future payments, after the four-year period, will be reduced in line with a predicted fall in Ray Parlour's earnings.

     

    What was the judges' decision based on ?

     

    Lord Justice Thorpe made it plain that the ruling had been made because, in the case of the Parlours - and one other case on which they gave judgment on Wednesday - there was a huge excess of income left over after taking into account Mrs Parlour's maintenance needs.

     

    It was "discriminatory and wrong ", said the judge, for the earner - in this case, Ray Parlour - to have sole control over that surplus during the next four years.

     

    Who will it affect ?

     

    It will apply only to cases where an earner's income is so high that, even after both party's reasonable needs and those of the children are taken into account, there is a still a substantial surplus.

     

    In the vast majority of divorces, a wife's entitlement to annual maintenance payments will continue to be assessed on her need.

     

    And matrimonial assets - a car, house etc - will continue to be split 50-50.

     

    What are the wider implications ?

     

    Since an important law lords judgment in 2000, wives of high earners have won substantially increased maintenance awards in a string of cases.

     

    Now, there will be an expectation that they can share equally in a spouse's future earnings.

     

    But the wording of the Parlour judgment makes it plain that it should not be seen as a carte blanche for spouses to live the high life on their extra income.

     

    They will be expected to make provisions, through prudent investment or setting up a business, for their future.

     

    Is this likely to affect the way high earners approach marriage ?

     

    Because of the higher awards being made by the courts, the US idea of the pre-nuptial agreement has become more common in the UK.

     

    This applies to couples where one partner's income substantially exceeds the other.

     

    The courts here are not legally bound to accept such agreements, but in practice, judges tend to adhere to the terms of the agreement if each partner has received independent legal advice when the contract was drawn up.

     

    Expect to see a fresh impetus for pre-nuptials in the wake of the Parlour judgment.

×
×
  • Create New...