Sportscaster Nantz told to pay ex-wife $916,000 a year

I understand this is a twenty six year marraige, but I seriously think there ought to be a $250K year limit on alimony. $250K can buy you a lot of crap even if it doesn't support your previous lifestyle.

 

This is exactly what I was thinking of when I saw this. LOL!


"Here Johnny I made $70 this weekend now put that with the rest. Now we have 300 million and 70 dollars, because I wanted to do my share."

 

Yes, I would under certain circumstances. Don't lose sleep over it.

 

When I lived in Houston, I would often see Jim Nantz at the Ninfa's on Memorial Drive and Kirkwood. He was always with what it seemed like a large family.

 

Just this: Nantz isn't an orthodontist, whose orthodontist wife worked side-by-side with him and did the accounting in the evenings as they built up the business.

Nantz is in show business. His ability to extemporaneously speak on-air for hours, in a way that his employers and audience find gratifying, is the reason for his high pay. The difference between his abilities and the weekend sports anchor in Tulsa, Oklahoma, are entirely owing to Nantz himself.

His wife, no matter how much off-air support she has offered him over the years, has very little to do with Nantz's financial reward. I'd argue the difference in levels of support between Nantz's (ex-)wife and the wife of the Tulsa weekend guy is minimal. In entertainment, it is strictly a performance/talent issue.

In much the same way, Letterman's writers support him, materially, in his on air deliveries. (I would argue that Letterman's writers are far more responsible for Letterman's financial success than any type of support he's gotten from his wife/girlfriends over the years--excluding Markoe, who I believe was both girlfriend and writer.) But Letterman makes roughly 30 or 40 times what his writers make because he is the one going out on air; ultimately, he's the entertainer who has to connect with the audience. CBS has decided that Letterman is better at doing this than the local hack at the Chuckle Hut down the street. Letterman's the guy making, and deserving, the big bucks; his off-screen support has very little to do with it.

Everything else being equal, why should the spouse of a famous entertainer be rewarded more than the spouse of a non-famous entertainer?

 

I don't get why someone's "lifestyle" has anything to do with the divorce settlement.

So I get a job that pays me a million bucks a year, I'm ballin'... then they fire me... ok I get unemployment, then after that dries up, I'm back to bustin' balls at McDonalds and shopping at Walmart.

If you get married and don't acquire skills/education to support yourself and you end up divorced, then guess what, that is your own fault... and if your partner demanded you take care of the family/stay home instead of work on your career/earning potential and you consented, then tough. You knew the risk, you went along with it anyway, why should the court bail you out?

This is just part of the reason marriage is such a joke in this country... unfortunately.

For the rest of us, I guess there's always the pre-nup.

 

You could flip that argument are make a better point

 

NSFW

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kEjVnkk9ezM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kEjVnkk9ezM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

i assume that he loved his wife and got married for the long haul. they started the partnership something like this:
I, Jim, take you, Lorrie, to be my lawfully wedded wife, my constant friend, my faithful partner and my love from this day forward. In the presence of God, our family and friends, I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow. I promise to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live.

 

I always thought, if I don't have kids I will be safe if we divorce. I live in Texas, there is no alimony here. What exactly does my wife get if there are no kids involved?

 

What's even more ludicrous is that a woman that I know has been after her husband to pay child support for YEARS. She went to court several times. The guy never paid a dime.

Now, her 13 year-old and 17 year-old just moved back in with their dad. The judge ordered HER to pay child support.

 

I totally agree with that, regardless if someone is a husband or wife, I don't think the spouse should be receiving a substantial alimony or material assets, unless it is a special circumstance, usually children, elderly or disabled partner or person in household. It also doesn't happen with entertainers, it can happen with anyone with a very-well paying profession. It happens with businessmen, bankers, managers, and etc. It can happened to anyone, even professional women in many cases, which I found strange as well.

Example take Hulk Hogan's divorce, in reality, should he be losing a good bit of his earnings from a profession that takes a very dangerous toll on the body. Luckily, he has stayed popular so long and been able to keep get himself gigs beyond wrestling. He's a in business where is so common for ones career to be ended in one night of 300+ day schedule. Also, remember he has been doing that, since 1976. Yet, he made himself into one of the greatest figures in that industry

I don't think anyone, like Jean Strahan (Michael Strahan's ex) or Paul McCartney should be getting 15+ million dollars and some of their assets, simply because they were married for about 6-11 years (another good one is K-Fed). John Cleese's recently divorce ex-wife's own kids (not his) stand to receive more from him over the years than his kids would receive, if he died today. These people are worse than the government - federal/state(that's another issue, too).

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000092/board/nest/145490781?p=1

To expect 50/50 among both parties is somewhat ridiculous, unless both parties are equally contributing to one's financial accumulations or an entity or source of income in which both are working under to gain money (the Letterman analogy). I'm not saying these people should be thrown out into the street naked without a pot to piss in, but given a reasonable amount of money for maybe a year or two and that's it. Maybe 250K or 1 million for 2 years, that's enough. The average person in this country only makes about $32,000 to $42,000 a year, and many more who don't even make that much and they manage. I've heard one or two of the ex-wives (and a few ex husbands) complain about how much money that they are receiving

That is really weird...how people treat divorces like that, especially when most celebrities, athletes, very wealthy manangers, and etc, if they lose their jobs, file bankruptcy, or are going broke. They usually have to go out and get a regular job to and no one expects them to ask for a handout, especially for being reckless with their money. But, yet a former spouse is expected to keep receiving a substantial income and not having to work or find a job.

 

you guys have a different view of marriage than i. it is NOT a business agreement, money is not everything. if one of the partners has better earning ability then they naturally share with their family. you guys don't horde money from your wives do you?

 

yeah, and if you get divorced, you're not family anymore.

your argument seems based entirely on emotion, gary.

 

your kids are still your kids, right?

 

Yeah, I have no problem with child support, either.