Hahahahaha*clicks*
She deserved that money because if it wasn't for her The Beatles would never have made it big.
Or something.
(She deserved that money because if it wasn't for her The Beatles would never have made it big.
Or something.
Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:27,
archived)
^Thissurely, at most, she should have been entitled to 50% of what he made in the 4 years they were married.
(
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:30,
archived)
excluding any back royalties
barryheadwound Mul-ti-pass? Multipass!,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:31,
archived)
I would have thought soI don't think we know the whole story though and probably never will.
( Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:32,
archived)
yesI fail to understand why 4 years of marriage entitles her to 31 million plus 75,000 a year for the upkeep of the child. It makes no sense whatsoever.
(
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:45,
archived)