Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think David Beckham does not need any more money?

33 replies

GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 11:37

He,s all over the tabloids today, looking very downbeat about a judge throwing out a case of his in the USA.

Was hesuing for £15m or spending £15m to sue? (The mind boggles at the figures)

I like Davie B as a footballer, but as a role model I am not so sure

I am a footie fan but think the finances in the premier league are crazy.

£50m for a player who has lost his confidence. hmmmmm

OP posts:
traceybath · 15/02/2011 11:39

Libel damages are about penalising the publication though and money is the biggest punishment they can receive.

Personally I'd like to see all damages go into a central pot and then be divided up between victims of crime etc.

JeremyVile · 15/02/2011 11:41

Not about the money though, is it?

Original poster
GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 11:50

Not about the money for Becks; unless he wants to solve Cams national debt with a donation to his country.

He manages his own publicity pretty well. (Max Clifford could tell Becks very little)

But the tabloids after favouring you will always turn on you. Thats the way they operate, "Gabby"

OP posts:
TotemPole · 15/02/2011 11:51

I thought he was going to sue the prostitute. I can remember pictures(faked) of someone serving her with papers at hotel room.Confused

It's making a point that they can't print what they feel like without verifying it.

JeremyVile · 15/02/2011 11:53

I ahve no idea wht this story is though, just assuming that a libel case is about the libel.

TotemPole · 15/02/2011 11:57

So if I go to the press with some cock and bull story, maybe show them a bit of faked proof, they print it, I get paid. It's the publication that would be in the firing line and not me?

squeakytoy · 15/02/2011 11:59

I think the term "no smoke without fire" is very apt when it comes to David Beckham...

Original poster
GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 12:10

squeaky, can I put it diplomatically?

Foootballers ar paid fortunnes and have loads of free time ( Some ladies flock to them)

The temptation must be enormous So most footie blokes are not likely to stay on the
narrow sexual path of marriage, (do the footie wives accept this?)

When Ronaldo was at Man u, it was said he would go into a night club and several ladies would run towards him.

He must have been a bril fffff footballer.

OP posts:
bluenordic · 15/02/2011 12:13

It would have had to have been a bloody big fire since he was across the atlantic at the time.

HecateQueenOfWitches · 15/02/2011 12:19

If you don't challenge them, then they are free to print whatever they like. Can you imagine the stories they would come up with?

I have no idea if he's done whatever they said he did - I assume was unfaithful? tbh, I couldn't care less. He kicks a bit of leather round a field for a living. meh.

But we all have the right to not be lied about, so I think it is right to stand up for that. I mean, if it is a lie. If it's the truth then I assume they can prove it and the man will look like a fool.

Original poster
GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 12:19

who know where superstars are outside of their family. Unless they are on the pitch?
Gabby

OP posts:
mayorquimby · 15/02/2011 12:29

"So if I go to the press with some cock and bull story, maybe show them a bit of faked proof, they print it, I get paid. It's the publication that would be in the firing line and not me?"

They could sue either of you but the mantra in law is you go after the deepest pockets. I'd imagnie when you sell your story the paper will include a liability clause where they could then come after you if it was found to be fake and they were succesfully sued but that would be seperate from the other suit.

mayorquimby · 15/02/2011 12:30

"I think the term "no smoke without fire" is very apt when it comes to David Beckham.."

Well that's me convinced. Hopefully judges and juries echoe your sentiments in all cases.

squeakytoy · 15/02/2011 12:35

I am not a judge or jury, I am merely commenting based on my own observations and his past indiscretions.

It is very very dodgy ground these days to go to press with a completely unsubstantiated story.

As I said on another thread, it always seems very convenient that when a Beckham adultery story is about to break, Victoria announces a pregnancy.

Maybe she allows him to wander, but expects him to be discreet (it isnt unheard of).

Original poster
GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 12:38

Yes, Hectate, but only the very rich can afford to challenge the papers. So its the very rich challenging the very rich)

I think we should recognise human nature and young men and stop expecting prem league players to be sexually faithful

Perhaps they would be wise not to get married until they stop playing.

(after all marriage is somewhat out of fashion) even for normal people.

OP posts:
mayorquimby · 15/02/2011 12:43

I've never understood why these footballers get married, I've heard a few theories which may have a modicrum of truth, but in essence I think they'd be infinitely better off staying single. Look at Ronaldo, he spent years fucking everything that moves and prbably still does but that part of his life got very little publicity bar the odd kiss and tell. And even then that was only news because he was the best player in the world at the time. If he was a mid-level premiership player nobody would have given a toss. Where as if a mid-level player got married and was still doing the dirt it would be a huge tabloid scandle. Just stay single and you can do what you like. Rich 26 year old man has sex with numerous women is not a headline. If you're married they can roll out all the hackneyed "supposed to be a role model..." bullshit

noeyedear · 15/02/2011 12:44

I thought he said he was going to give the money to charidee?

Football clubs encourage their young players to marry young in the hope that it will control them a bit- instead of doing boring things like giving them a basic education in case their football career ends prematurely and not paying not very bright boys ridiculous amounts of money that they have no idea how to handle.

HecateQueenOfWitches · 15/02/2011 12:55

We should expect everyone in a relationship where the parties have agreed to be exclusive to be exclusive, imo.

Normally, it's their own problem if they aren't. But it becomes information that the public will legitimatly be interested in, if they are preaching family values, loyalty, fidelity, while secretly shagging about.

I do not believe that kicking a bit of leather round a field makes you above respecting your partner. Oh, he's a footballer, of course he can betray his wife, the rules of decency don't apply to someone who can run across a field and kick a ball into a net.

If people choose to sleep with others outside of the relationship, and that is an agreement the couple has, then that is up to them. But if one of them is claiming to adhere to that and yet deceitfully sticking it into any willing (or sometimes not so willing Angry ) female, then what? they're protected or have special status or a 'Get A Shag Free' card issued by the FA after every match?

I think not.

Original poster
GabbyLoggon · 15/02/2011 13:13

Good advice Hectate, but unrealistic for prem league footballers and Mick Jagger.

hey, Gabby has interviewed Becks, so they say. "Gabby"

OP posts:
HecateQueenOfWitches · 15/02/2011 13:19

That does not mean it should be condoned, excused or any hypocricy should not be exposed.

I think it is a rather sad state of affairs when we are expected to shrug our shoulders and say "these footballers have no respect for women. such is life."

HecateQueenOfWitches · 15/02/2011 13:21

hypocrisy, I mean. tsk.

Welshexpat · 15/02/2011 13:23

My husband hates football and footballers even more. However he pays a sky sports subscription as the only way to see his beloved rugby. He knows that most of his sub goes to pay Wayne Rooney's old granny prostitutes and John Terry's trysts with other people's partners but he feels he has no choice if he wants to watch most sports on TV.

He wants the government make sky sports separate football from other sports so that our cash is kept out of footballers hands. My solution is to stop paying anything to sky as the money involved in football has become obscene and most of it comes from our sky subscriptions.

QuickLookBusy · 15/02/2011 13:34

Squeaky I agree with you about the smoke and fire.

It's funny that they are suing a mag, when they must already know that in USA, you have to prove "malice" was intended by the mag. As the judge has said, there was no malice, the story was in the public interest.

Surely it would have been much easier to sue the woman accusing him. They could have sued her for slander, she would have been cross examinerd in court.

Also why did they never sue Rebecca Loos or News Of The World, or their nanny, when they made sexual allegations?

frgr · 15/02/2011 13:35

Echo the points previously made about it not being about the money

Quite a naive view to think it might be driven primarily by that tbh

punishment for the paper, bad publicity for the reporters, wanting to clear his name if he knows it's not true, protection of his "brand", all come into it

Cyclebump · 15/02/2011 13:42

It wasn't about the money. American libel laws are bloody ridiculous and a lot of mags get away with publishing falsehoods about celebrities.

The problem is that under US libel law the claimant (ie Beckham) had to prove the accusations were false AND that they'd done it 'maliciously'. He couldn't prove the malice, which is a notoriously difficult thing to prove anyway.

In the UK the publication is the one that has to prove its story is true and whether it was malicious or error, if it's wrong, they're screwed. That's why so many US celebs sue the English branch of the magazine if they think they've been libelled.

It's also way expensive to sue for libel in the UK, in truth, only the rich are protected because no one else can afford to take action.

I could be wrong but I think the reason he sued this time was because he could actively prove he wasn't in the same location of the hooker when she said they were shagging. He wasn't even in the same city and had receipts to prove it.

Maybe he's strayed in the past but didn't this time.