They could be losing some of their wealthy owners money,

His ex wife has been given the right to claim on his wealth after they divorced,

They got divorced 20 years ago, so its seems a bit extreme.

Saw that earlier Pete on the BBC news site....didn't know there was any relevance to football at all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

Seems like she might well now get something from his fortune...hopefully at FGR's expense  ;)

She's only getting £1.9m. He's worth in excess of £100m. Doubt he'll lose any sleep over it!

Quoted from gtfc98

She's only getting £1.9m. He's worth in excess of £100m. Doubt he'll lose any sleep over it!

Not bad for a hippy,

To be honest I do not think she should be getting anything,

When they were together they had nothing, just a couple of hippies living off the land,

They got divorced 20 years ago after being married for only 2 years,

He has made his money after they split up,

Its seems very harsh he should have to give her anything,

BUT

He will not miss it, after all he is giving Parkin £3,000 every week.

Quoted from grimsby pete

Not bad for a hippy,

To be honest I do not think she should be getting anything,

When they were together they had nothing, just a cople of hippies living off the land,

They got divorced 20 years ago after being married for only 2 years,

He has made his money after they split up,

Its seems very harsh he should have to give her anything,

BUT

He will not miss it, after all he is giving Parkin £3,000 every week.

Agree with that Pete, I doubt he'd have got a penny out of her if it had been the other way around!

She is not getting 1.9m , it hasn't been decided but is expected to be 'a modest amount'

I read this article of news as well but didn't know the bloke had a FGR connection.

My first thoughts were the same as Pete has previously stated but I then noticed
that whilst together they had a son and I bet he has never paid maintenance.

So I can unserstand the claim for the child but not the 1.9m as stated but if he is
as wealthy as been suggested it will only be loose change to him.

Vince is the chap funding Parkin's enormous wages (and those of the Scumbag Hughes before that). He's also really got it in for red meat and has banned it from the club!

Quoted from Maringer

Vince is the chap funding Parkin's enormous wages (and those of the Scumbag Hughes before that). He's also really got it in for red meat and has banned it from the club!

What'a girl private

She hasn't been awarded anything yet. Only the right to apply. the previous court case said she couldn't even claim this late on. It's all to play for.

And for what it's worth she shouldn't get a penny in my opinion. He was living in an old ambulance when they divorced.

So you don't think he should pay anything towards the upkeep of his child? While he was building up his business, free of the obligation of paying of his offspring, and the amount of time raising a child takes, his ex was tied to the home. Had his ex-wife said "Here, you have the kid." Would he have what he has now? Had she not been the one looking after the child she could have built herself a decent career and income.

If there wasn't a child involved I'd wave it off as a gold digging exercise. But maybe I'm biased because I'm a step-father to three kids, and in the last five years given more financial and emotional support to them than their biological father did in the previous thirteen.

Quoted from scrumble

So you don't think he should pay anything towards the upkeep of his child? While he was building up his business, free of the obligation of paying of his offspring, and the amount of time raising a child takes, his ex was tied to the home. Had his ex-wife said "Here, you have the kid." Would he have what he has now? Had she not been the one looking after the child she could have built herself a decent career and income.

If there wasn't a child involved I'd wave it off as a gold digging exercise. But maybe I'm biased because I'm a step-father to three kids, and in the last five years given more financial and emotional support to them than their biological father did in the previous thirteen.

Spot on - Exactly what I thought

Quoted from KingstonMariner

She hasn't been awarded anything yet. Only the right to apply. the previous court case said she couldn't even claim this late on. It's all to play for.

And for what it's worth she shouldn't get a penny in my opinion. He was living in an old ambulance when they divorced.

You could say that their marriage was an accident waiting to happen then, ;)

Quoted from scrumble

So you don't think he should pay anything towards the upkeep of his child? While he was building up his business, free of the obligation of paying of his offspring, and the amount of time raising a child takes, his ex was tied to the home. Had his ex-wife said "Here, you have the kid." Would he have what he has now? Had she not been the one looking after the child she could have built herself a decent career and income.

If there wasn't a child involved I'd wave it off as a gold digging exercise. But maybe I'm biased because I'm a step-father to three kids, and in the last five years given more financial and emotional support to them than their biological father did in the previous thirteen.

At the time the kid was growing up Vince didn't have his fortune. And do we know he never paid any maintenance during that time? Do we know what contact he had with the kid and if he didn't have contact was that necessarily his fault. I know of more cases where the ex-wife has prevented access than cases where the bloke has been willingly absent.

Obviously now he has a fortune he may want to help his son (and may well have) but he doesn't necessarily owe his ex a bean.

I read they had only been married for two years,

Then in yesterdays Mail it says  eleven years,

It will make a difference when it goes to court,

So which is true ?

Who cares!

Quoted from KingstonMariner

At the time the kid was growing up Vince didn't have his fortune. And do we know he never paid any maintenance during that time? Do we know what contact he had with the kid and if he didn't have contact was that necessarily his fault. I know of more cases where the ex-wife has prevented access than cases where the bloke has been willingly absent.

Obviously now he has a fortune he may want to help his son (and may well have) but he doesn't necessarily owe his ex a bean.

He paid nothing and left his ex with a baby to raise on her own. He went travelling for 7 years. Surely the fact his ex was restricted by the sole-parenting of their child whilst he, responsibility free, set up his business is a clear reason he owes her. Don't really see why anybody would side with him having read about the case.

Quoted from WOZOFGRIMSBY

Who cares!

She does and so does he.

She because she wants some money,

He because he does not want to give her any, :P