I think earnings would have been done via CAN since they managed them both at the time.
What has that got to do with anything? CAN is not a bank.
KP and PA would have had their earnings in their own accounts or a joint account. Some of it may have been invested, it may have been ploughed into other businesses/schemes. If he's getting £15k a month, then it more than likely is monies owed to him and in installments for the reasons Liz gave.
What has that got to do with anything? CAN is not a bank.
KP and PA would have had their earnings in their own accounts or a joint account. Some of it may have been invested, it may have been ploughed into other businesses/schemes. If he's getting £15k a month, then it more than likely is monies owed to him and in installments for the reasons Liz gave.
If CAN booked the gigs (and owns the IP in the tv shows) surely they'd take payment from the client (mags, itv etc) and pay them each seperately would they not? Unless they were having everything in a joint account.
Investments/other businesses, if any, yes possibly.
If CAN booked the gigs (and owns the IP in the tv shows) surely they'd take payment from the client (mags, itv etc) and pay them each seperately would they not? Unless they were having everything in a joint account.
Investments/other businesses, if any, yes possibly.
Yes, that's my point. So CAN would have nothing to do with any monies outstanding to PA post split/divorce since CAN would have already paid both of them their share of the spoils.
So what was your point re CAN managing them both about? What has that got to do with their private money arrangements?
Yes, that's my point. So CAN would have nothing to do with any monies outstanding to PA post split/divorce since CAN would have already paid both of them their share of the spoils.
So what was your point re CAN managing them both about? What has that got to do with their private money arrangements?
I think we are arguing the same point here on the media money.
I'm kind of saying what private money, since i think safe to assume its not coming from international distribution of the shows etc. Wouldnt they have been shouting about it if they went into business together outside of media? Or would he be entitled to part of her assets anyway?
I think we are arguing the same point here on the media money.
I'm kind of saying what private money, since i think safe to assume its not coming from international distribution of the shows etc. Wouldnt they have been shouting about it if they went into business together outside of media? Or would he be entitled to part of her assets anyway?
No we're not arguing the same point. You suggested earlier that he was being paid 'pocket money' by KP, implying that it was some form of maintenance that she was paying him out of her own pocket. I agree with Liz, that if he was getting this alleged £15k p/month, then it was more than likely money he was owed. You keep implying that's unlikely although your reasons for it being unlikely are very hard to actually fathom since you seem to change your goalposts with every post.
No we're not arguing the same point. You suggested earlier that he was being paid 'pocket money' by KP, implying that it was some form of maintenance that she was paying him out of her own pocket. I agree with Liz, that if he was getting this alleged £15k p/month, then it was more than likely money he was owed. You keep implying that's unlikely although your reasons for it being unlikely are very hard to actually fathom since you seem to change your goalposts with every post.
My reasons for it being unlikely were that i think it would have been more public knowledge if they had shared investments together. It could be true, i didnt dispute it, i just said the earnings (at least from media) would have gone via CAN which i think we agreed on.
I think what is more likely is he was awarded a share of equity from something she had coming in at the time and it pays off in dribs and drabs. So paid by her, not maintenance, but still not earned by him. Otherwise why would she have felt perplexed if it was joint? - but we can't say as the settlement is private.
I'm not changing goalposts at all - but it wouldnt make sense she was feeling one way, if it was his.
No we're not arguing the same point. You suggested earlier that he was being paid 'pocket money' by KP, implying that it was some form of maintenance that she was paying him out of her own pocket. I agree with Liz, that if he was getting this alleged £15k p/month, then it was more than likely money he was owed. You keep implying that's unlikely although your reasons for it being unlikely are very hard to actually fathom since you seem to change your goalposts with every post.
I am actually considering using the ignore function for the first time... this poster is so disingenuous... making outrageous claims and using offensive language... ignoring most of a post in order to respond to any part that suits their agenda.
The inference that any one who believes that PA is not getting 'maintenance' is an idiot... or anyone who believes that PA/KP are not in collaboration are very naive is getting on my very last nerve,.. the 'maintenance' issue is just another example of titting from the KP camp in my non insider... non biased non agenda driven opinion.
I am actually considering using the ignore function for the first time... this poster is so disingenuous... making outrageous claims and using offensive language... ignoring most of a post in order to respond to any part that suits their agenda.
The inference that any one who believes that PA is not getting 'maintenance' is an idiot... or anyone who believes that PA/KP are not in collaboration are very naive is getting on my very last nerve,.. the 'maintenance' issue is just another example of titting from the KP camp in my non insider... non biased non agenda driven opinion.
Always such fun playing with the window licking PA fans .
Oh dear...resorting to insults are we?
I must have really hit a nerve! :D:D
....I'm intrigued to know just who exactly all these fans are (on DS) that give cause for such a retort, I mean really who are they???....I can think of one who likes him who is a gentle and good natured poster...bit of an urban myth on here I think so makes the insult even more ludicrous.
....I'm intrigued to know just who exactly all these fans are (on DS) that give cause for such a retort, I mean really who are they???....I can think of one who likes him who is a gentle and good natured poster...bit of an urban myth on here I think so makes the insult even more ludicrous.
If you defend someone that you feel is being unfairly vilified you must be a "fan"....Didn't you know that fifi?:eek:
You clearly have an agenda, I have said that from thr beginning...and it looks like others are starting to see it also now.:cool:
Thats very bright of you, because i have always been VERY clear and upfront on my so called agenda. I'd like to see the truth about both of them out there, rather than one of them putting on a very false image and pretending to be someone they are not - because IMO, it takes advantage of the fans and is a very dirty thing to do to the ex wife (who i fully admit is not blameless) especially if it turns out he and his "people" conspired against her to get ahead. I'd say live and let live, but when he's on TV week in week out acting like he is the saviour of sick children obviously I think there will be a lot of people who think it's gone a bit too far. I don't say that in a hateful way about him, because personally i dont think thats who he wants to be
either.
If hes such a great guy, why can't he even agree to a mothers request to keep the kids off TV? She's openly admitted a lot of her mistakes.
I dont care what others think at the moment, lets see what they think when the full facts are out there - but i'd just dearly like to see a level playing field.
Thats very bright of you, because i have always been VERY clear and upfront on my so called agenda. I'd like to see the truth about both of them out there, rather than one of them putting on a very false image and pretending to be someone they are not - because IMO, it takes advantage of the fans and is a very dirty thing to do to the ex wife (who i fully admit is not blameless) especially if it turns out he and his "people" conspired against her to get ahead. I'd say live and let live, but when he's on TV week in week out acting like he is the saviour of sick children obviously I think there will be a lot of people who think it's gone a bit too far. I don't say that in a hateful way about him, because personally i dont think thats who he wants to be
either.
If hes such a great guy, why can't he even agree to a mothers request to keep the kids off TV? She's openly admitted a lot of her mistakes.
I dont care what others think at the moment, lets see what they think when the full facts are out there - but i'd just dearly like to see a level playing field.
I couldn't care less about your agenda - it's not as if you're the only one on here and elsewhere with one. It's not being on KP's side that bugs me, it's your lack of consistency and your illogic and your goalpost-moving. And that's on top of your baffling and quite ludicrous assumption that only you can see the real picture.
Thats very bright of you, because i have always been VERY clear and upfront on my so called agenda. I'd like to see the truth about both of them out there, rather than one of them putting on a very false image and pretending to be someone they are not - because IMO, it takes advantage of the fans and is a very dirty thing to do to the ex wife (who i fully admit is not blameless) especially if it turns out he and his "people" conspired against her to get ahead. I'd say live and let live, but when he's on TV week in week out acting like he is the saviour of sick children obviously I think there will be a lot of people who think it's gone a bit too far. I don't say that in a hateful way about him, because personally i dont think thats who he wants to be
either.
If hes such a great guy, why can't he even agree to a mothers request to keep the kids off TV? She's openly admitted a lot of her mistakes.
I dont care what others think at the moment, lets see what they think when the full facts are out there.
TBH I'm not convinced following the "full facts" much in the way of opinions will change, those that dislike both will still dislike them....for instance it doesn't change the facts that she is a selfish, vacuous bully who happily drags home random strangers to make money and makes derogatory comments based on someone's ethnic origin - all the lowest of the low IMO and nothing can change those facts, and to say she openly admits a lot of her mistakes is an easy and pointless exercise considering she continues in the same vein so I fail to see how that is supposed to be a point in her favour.
As for the kids, he doesn't need to comply with all that she demands to be a "great guy".....and again it's more hot air from her considering she has no problems using Harvey.
I just don't believe that any "revelations" is going to have the impact some believe...
And that's on top of your baffling and quite ludicrous assumption that only you can see the real picture.
I dont think that at all - to put it a better way, i think there are some posters who truly believe what they see in a "My Life" or "Katie" is actually their life - or that these people really do open up their entire private life to the public - and then use that and magazine articles to try to prove things. Its a small minority but i've seen some comments by people who at least sounded a bit sucked in. Each to their own.
But for instance people thinking the court case is just about the Goulds because thats the only part that has been made public due to the judges directions.
As for illogical. They are celebs, not exactly logical people and usually totally screwed up and often very single minded - i've seen people here try to basically explain away what KP and PA would or wouldn't do based on what a normal person would consider moral or immoral, but thats not who these guys are, these are people who wear a pony costume or who name a charity supposedly in honour of their dead brother after themselves.
As for the kids, he doesn't need to comply with all that she demands to be a "great guy".....and again it's more hot air from her considering she has no problems using Harvey...
I think they should both stop using kids. But IMO, i do think a supposed father should agree to a mothers request not to parade her kids on TV. I just think its so wrong. He should be a man and take them off, even if it is hypocritical of her.
I think they should both stop using kids. But IMO, i do think a supposed father should agree to a mothers request not to parade her kids on TV. I just think its so wrong. He should be a man and take them off, even if it is hypocritical of her.
Comments
What has that got to do with anything? CAN is not a bank.
KP and PA would have had their earnings in their own accounts or a joint account. Some of it may have been invested, it may have been ploughed into other businesses/schemes. If he's getting £15k a month, then it more than likely is monies owed to him and in installments for the reasons Liz gave.
If CAN booked the gigs (and owns the IP in the tv shows) surely they'd take payment from the client (mags, itv etc) and pay them each seperately would they not? Unless they were having everything in a joint account.
Investments/other businesses, if any, yes possibly.
Yes, that's my point. So CAN would have nothing to do with any monies outstanding to PA post split/divorce since CAN would have already paid both of them their share of the spoils.
So what was your point re CAN managing them both about? What has that got to do with their private money arrangements?
I think we are arguing the same point here on the media money.
I'm kind of saying what private money, since i think safe to assume its not coming from international distribution of the shows etc. Wouldnt they have been shouting about it if they went into business together outside of media? Or would he be entitled to part of her assets anyway?
No we're not arguing the same point. You suggested earlier that he was being paid 'pocket money' by KP, implying that it was some form of maintenance that she was paying him out of her own pocket. I agree with Liz, that if he was getting this alleged £15k p/month, then it was more than likely money he was owed. You keep implying that's unlikely although your reasons for it being unlikely are very hard to actually fathom since you seem to change your goalposts with every post.
How would Katie owe him money? From what?
My reasons for it being unlikely were that i think it would have been more public knowledge if they had shared investments together. It could be true, i didnt dispute it, i just said the earnings (at least from media) would have gone via CAN which i think we agreed on.
I think what is more likely is he was awarded a share of equity from something she had coming in at the time and it pays off in dribs and drabs. So paid by her, not maintenance, but still not earned by him. Otherwise why would she have felt perplexed if it was joint? - but we can't say as the settlement is private.
I'm not changing goalposts at all - but it wouldnt make sense she was feeling one way, if it was his.
I am actually considering using the ignore function for the first time... this poster is so disingenuous... making outrageous claims and using offensive language... ignoring most of a post in order to respond to any part that suits their agenda.
The inference that any one who believes that PA is not getting 'maintenance' is an idiot... or anyone who believes that PA/KP are not in collaboration are very naive is getting on my very last nerve,.. the 'maintenance' issue is just another example of titting from the KP camp in my non insider... non biased non agenda driven opinion.
Yes. All the above.
LOL, you mistake me for someone who cares
The truth will come out Nicola, and then we'll see the outrageous really wasn't that outrageous - have fun firefighting it all
In what way IYO is he behaving "creepy" around the children??
What are you inferring???:(
A very nasty thing to say about someone imo
I really hope it does!
You clearly have an agenda, I have said that from thr beginning...and it looks like others are starting to see it also now.:cool:
Thats very bright of you, because i have always been VERY clear and upfront on my so called agenda. I'd like to see the truth about both of them out there, rather than one of them putting on a very false image and pretending to be someone they are not - because IMO, it takes advantage of the fans and is a very dirty thing to do to the ex wife (who i fully admit is not blameless) especially if it turns out he and his "people" conspired against her to get ahead. I'd say live and let live, but when he's on TV week in week out acting like he is the saviour of sick children obviously I think there will be a lot of people who think it's gone a bit too far. I don't say that in a hateful way about him, because personally i dont think thats who he wants to be
either.
If hes such a great guy, why can't he even agree to a mothers request to keep the kids off TV? She's openly admitted a lot of her mistakes.
I dont care what others think at the moment, lets see what they think when the full facts are out there - but i'd just dearly like to see a level playing field.
Why do people leave comments like this? Your opinion is clear now Cyril, but so is your mental development.
Do you know the origins of the phrase 'window licker' Cyril? I suggest you look it up! I find it highly offensive.
I couldn't care less about your agenda - it's not as if you're the only one on here and elsewhere with one. It's not being on KP's side that bugs me, it's your lack of consistency and your illogic and your goalpost-moving. And that's on top of your baffling and quite ludicrous assumption that only you can see the real picture.
TBH I'm not convinced following the "full facts" much in the way of opinions will change, those that dislike both will still dislike them....for instance it doesn't change the facts that she is a selfish, vacuous bully who happily drags home random strangers to make money and makes derogatory comments based on someone's ethnic origin - all the lowest of the low IMO and nothing can change those facts, and to say she openly admits a lot of her mistakes is an easy and pointless exercise considering she continues in the same vein so I fail to see how that is supposed to be a point in her favour.
As for the kids, he doesn't need to comply with all that she demands to be a "great guy".....and again it's more hot air from her considering she has no problems using Harvey.
I just don't believe that any "revelations" is going to have the impact some believe...
I dont think that at all - to put it a better way, i think there are some posters who truly believe what they see in a "My Life" or "Katie" is actually their life - or that these people really do open up their entire private life to the public - and then use that and magazine articles to try to prove things. Its a small minority but i've seen some comments by people who at least sounded a bit sucked in. Each to their own.
But for instance people thinking the court case is just about the Goulds because thats the only part that has been made public due to the judges directions.
As for illogical. They are celebs, not exactly logical people and usually totally screwed up and often very single minded - i've seen people here try to basically explain away what KP and PA would or wouldn't do based on what a normal person would consider moral or immoral, but thats not who these guys are, these are people who wear a pony costume or who name a charity supposedly in honour of their dead brother after themselves.
I think they should both stop using kids. But IMO, i do think a supposed father should agree to a mothers request not to parade her kids on TV. I just think its so wrong. He should be a man and take them off, even if it is hypocritical of her.
Agree.