Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_jbgv9vv wrote

So wait like they are still together though?

59

flounder19 t1_jbgyoou wrote

who makes their girlfriend sign an NDA

−48

jbr2811 t1_jbh47c0 wrote

No idea who’s right or wrong here, but isn’t she filing this suit a little late? If all that stuff was so repulsive, why did you date him for 5 years?

153

YourMrFahrenheit t1_jbh51fc wrote

What is her goal here? To get a release to sell stories for cash?

414

Lemon86st t1_jbhd5dn wrote

I used to love tiger woods cause he was a great champion. But after that sex scandal? The man is a god!

46

Col_daddy t1_jbhe65o wrote

Replying to YourMrFahrenheit (#2,189,352)

Absolutely! Some kinda behind-the-scenes story of how this guy is a terrible person or something to that nature.

Quick cash grab because that’s what she’s got and you gotta strike while the iron is hot.

177

whichwitch9 t1_jbhluw4 wrote

Replying to jbr2811 (#2,189,301)

Sooo, if you read there's a super worrying bit that she can't disclose sexual abuse, even if the perpetrator isn't necessarily Woods.

Maybe it's to sell stories, but it also could be something happened, and she's being blocked from doing anything about it.

−72

nine8whatwhat t1_jbhn3ku wrote

why didn't you put ex-girlfriend?

click-baiting me, i'm watching you OP

39

Fpscharles t1_jbholmm wrote

She wants 30million in a suite filed. Crazy

Edit: I told my wife the same thing as other are stating. The NDA is keeping her from telling her story and making money in either a book or interviews. Pure money grab.

134

patrickp4 t1_jbhvyva wrote

So am I the only one that finds an NDA in a relationship weird?

−36

seansy5000 t1_jbi3qt9 wrote

The judge is good. The NDA feels good. The courtroom is good. I like my chances.

19

Seattle2017 t1_jbiaa5d wrote

NDAs are terrible. A way for rich people to control other people. They are bad when companies use them, the employees never understand the implications. This person probably didn't understand. Then people can treat your very poorly after you sign one with no recourse.

−41

banjonyc t1_jbib579 wrote

She claims they had an oral agreement that she would be able to stay in the mansion for 11 years. There's five years left on this oral lease. So for compensation she wants 30 million. Gold digger

101

richnasty18 t1_jbigess wrote

I thought it said DNA at first. Like what they tested his golf towel?

6

907flyer t1_jbii9ew wrote

Replying to nine8whatwhat (#2,190,224)

To be fair, I first saw this on the news pop up on my iphone and it had the exact same title and even in the article referenced her as “girlfriend” and not “ex-girlfriend” which confused the hell out of me. Said article has now been updated to say ex-girlfriend.

That said the the linked ESPN headline says “ex-girlfriend”.

7

yinyangpeng t1_jbimmsp wrote

Replying to Lemon86st (#2,189,739)

To each their own. hypocrisy is a deal breaker - if he was a known philanderer, good for him; but if he’s saying one thing and doing another, I’m on the wife’s side in the original story (with this NDA one, don’t know enough to have an opinion)

−30

Kaiisim t1_jbiyth0 wrote

I can't imagine its enforceable. NDAs exist to protect proprietary information and trade secrets, not silence people you have relationships with.

The 30 million is hilarious though.

−2

griminald t1_jbizhpl wrote

Replying to Col_daddy (#2,189,779)

Just noting this for other readers -- From the article:

>Herman's attorney is citing a federal law, the Speak Out Act, that prevents the enforcement of nondisclosure agreements in instances of sexual assault and harassment.

36

wilderjai t1_jbj1pj4 wrote

Don’t. Fukc. The . Help. Rinse and repeat.

6

whichwitch9 t1_jbj1v8p wrote

Replying to AbdulAziz9715 (#2,191,925)

I think it's funny you think someone wouldn't try to throw that in there. There's also a fun caveat that it's a crime that's hard to prove, so you can have it happen and still run afoul of a nondisclosure

A number of nondisclosure end up unenforceable, but the threat of legal action is enough to keep people from violating it

−10

Careful_Diver_395 t1_jbj3pr2 wrote

Isn’t she his former girlfriend, or is she still his girlfriend which is it? This statement is confusing

1

SkyNightZ t1_jbj4ote wrote

Replying to Outrageous-Duck9695 (#2,191,381)

Get terribly wealthy and it becomes much harder.

Imagine being a nobody before getting rich and famous. Everyone you meet is going to know you are rich. There is no 'rich man' school you go through on how to spot the signs.

10

drdrillaz t1_jbj4sde wrote

As much as Tiger is worth the nda should have included some form of payment to ensure it’s enforced after a break up. A couple million for her silence is nothing to a billionaire

0

JamesXX t1_jbj4wiz wrote

Replying to griminald (#2,192,221)

I think the next sentence is important to not leave out... and kind of confusing to be honest!

>Herman's attorney, Benjamin Hodas, indicated the case involved allegations of sexual abuse, although those allegations might not involve Woods directly.

85

ClassBShareHolder t1_jbj5u8d wrote

Damn dyslexia. Had to read too far into the comments to realize it’s not abut DNA and I’d read the acronym wrong.

1

likeminipee t1_jbj83ri wrote

She's a Gold Digger, plain and clear! It would suck to be a celebrity! People are always in your business, and you don't know who you can trust (especially when dating someone). Maybe Tiger should take a break from women and relationships. Tiger is a flawed person as we all are in some way.

1

Degen4lyf t1_jbjbycg wrote

Smart move getting NDA lol. These hoes ain’t loyal

5

cubs_rule23 t1_jbjenjg wrote

Wouldn't this be precedent setting? I don't think it goes how she thinks it will.

1

defaultman707 t1_jbjfode wrote

Replying to Binky390 (#2,192,813)

Nah that’s the most recent one that happened 2021. The one they’re referring to he smashed his car into a tree and a fire hydrant in 2009, and he was cited for careless driving. Can’t forget the DUI in 2017 where hydrocodone, hydromorphone, Xanax, and ambien were in his system.

At the very least the mf should NOT have a license.

8

Cows_Go_Huh t1_jbjfp1z wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,190,925)

Why the fuck would she be entitled to shit?? You are seriously a brain damaged person if you think people are entitled to shit. I bet you think your entitled to stuff and it’s trash. Fuck you.

10

Cows_Go_Huh t1_jbjgojf wrote

Replying to uristmcderp (#2,191,873)

That’s not what the spirit of the law implies. People getting divorced and someone owing alimony is in place because typically the husband is the breadwinner and grows wealth for the family, while the wife stays at home and raises the kids. Takes care of the house. And puts her working career on hold or never develops one. I assure you she wasn’t slaving over a hot stove with a baby in her arms while the other was tugging at her waiting for tiger to get home. Just being with someone doesn’t mean you won a jack pot.

14

drdrillaz t1_jbjj2bm wrote

Replying to twochain2 (#2,193,061)

I know you don’t need to, but it’s wise to ensure the person doesn’t try to contest it. You tie the payment to acceptance of terms and forfeit the money if they don’t accept and try to fight it

−4

[deleted] t1_jbjn5ex wrote

Why is a domestic dispute being covered in "Sports"?

1

nonamepuppydaddy t1_jbjpfl0 wrote

Nah this stinks of bull shit. Hilarious way to break up with yet another restaurant employee, and if the sexual assault is real then this is straight up terrible - but the truth is she’s embarrassed and wants money and is now going to do anything to get it.

Looks like he was smart to have her sign an NDA immediately now

1

drdrillaz t1_jbjuqte wrote

Replying to NevermoreTheSF (#2,193,634)

When you’re a billionaire celebrity and you lived with someone for 6 years who knows everything about you it’s not only expected but foolish not to. You don’t need headaches. This is a headache now. Could have all been avoided for a $2M likely. You gave Rachel Uchitel and a bunch of other skanks a lot more to protect your image

−7

JackingOffToTragedy t1_jbjwci4 wrote

Replying to jbr2811 (#2,189,301)

She is also suing him because she was kicked out of the house and alleges that she had an "oral tenancy" agreement to live there. Threatening to write a tell-all book would create negotiating leverage.

In other words, she's blackmailing him after a break up.

18

mdshowtime t1_jbjxv7d wrote

To be clear, it won’t be news that tiger woods is a straight up pos right?

1

lemonwater101 t1_jbjz6ut wrote

Replying to YourMrFahrenheit (#2,189,352)

>She says she had an "oral tenancy agreement" to live in the house for what the suit called "a certain duration of time" and believes damages, based on the monthly rental value of the residence, would be in excess of $30 million.

12

dreamwarrior22 t1_jbjzf7x wrote

Ever since metoo she knows she doesn't have to abude by the NDA when SA is involved. She's basically getting feelers for anyone interested in her story. I don't think she'll get any interest.

1

EmEmAndEye t1_jbk2w1z wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,190,925)

You're being downvoted, A LOT, but you're not entirely wrong. A woman I knew years ago was a fashion model and did incredibly well in the industry. She wasn't quite as famous or rich as Tiger's ex-wife, but close. And the two did resemble each other. Anyway, as she got a little older, this model went out of her way to date only men who were highly wealthy. These were NOT sugar-baby situations. Here's my point: once the men broke up with her, she'd sue them for failing to keep their promises ... whatever those promises were ... and she'd win. None were marriages. I've since learned that this type of thing is rare but it happens. We don't hear about it much because the men want it kept quiet. Wealth and power has perks. It's the wackiest thing to me that this type of lawsuit is even possible. Last I knew, she's still at it.

**EDIT**

I've no earthly idea if the NDA woman of the OP is doing anything even remotely like this. I'm only speaking to the one comment made by u/SssAs.

−8

fantomen777 t1_jbk98hn wrote

Replying to Outrageous-Duck9695 (#2,191,381)

> Dude really can’t get this dating thing right.

He managed to find the "right" wife who wanted a civilized divorce after he cheated on here. She even come to aid then he crached his car and he was injured, and from my narrow understanding, have not backstabbed him after the divorce.

2

drdrillaz t1_jbkkt1r wrote

Replying to ZachLagreen (#2,194,795)

Remember this?. They came out as a couple shortly after this. She was seen as a wholesome normal girl. People were praising Tiger for finding someone normal to date. They quickly forgot about the DUI and all his previous transgressions. That being said, $30M is ridiculous. But I’ve lived with my gf for 3 years and even I would give her $20k to get a place to live. If he really just kicked her out with nothing then he deserves all the negative pr

−5

drdrillaz t1_jbklc06 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,190,925)

Downvoted to oblivion for speaking the truth. She may not be legally entitled to anything but she likely gave up her career to be his gf. Tiger is a billionaire. $2M to him is like $20 to a normal person. By all accounts she was nice and treated his kids well. Throw her a bone to keep things civil and out of the news

−5

ZachLagreen t1_jbknv5d wrote

Replying to drdrillaz (#2,194,898)

So being a wholesome girl and dating someone with a troubled past entitles you to money...? I don't really follow the logic there.

We also have no clue the details of the breakup, so I don't know how you can definitively say what levels of pr he deserves.

Just a bizarre take all around.

3

drdrillaz t1_jbknvu3 wrote

Replying to Cows_Go_Huh (#2,192,987)

But she did likely give up her career and did help with his kids. They weren’t “just dating”. They lived together for 6 years. She may not be entitled to something but a billionaire should give her something when they split so she can get back on her feet and establish her career again. I’ve lived with my gf for 3 years and there’s zero chance I’d kick her out with nothing. Tiger should look at it as buying peace and silence. A million or two is literally .001 of his net worth. It’s maybe a days worth of interest on his portfolio.

−3

drdrillaz t1_jbkobk1 wrote

Replying to Metuu (#2,194,955)

Well in the beginning they talked about her running his restaurant. They haven’t spoke of that in years. She isn’t going to work a restaurant manager job while living with a billionaire. I’m not talking out of my ass. It’s the reality of those in that world

0

Cows_Go_Huh t1_jbks7on wrote

Replying to drdrillaz (#2,195,020)

I’d bet the plethora of Nanny’s would beg to differ. Not to mention the time with their mom. She wasn’t doing much child rearing. Also, she could have worked. She chose not to. She didn’t need to be at one of his many homes or vacation houses or ride around in luxury cars let alone pay for shit. She didn’t want to work, at a time where she could have literally lived her dream out. She expected to be taken care of because she just was with him. She could have been doing literally anything to have her own money and made something of her self rather than expect a hand out. Also, you want him to just give her what he’s earned on his back. Regardless of how small it is to him is absurd. Especially after her wanting out of the NDA she signed so she can…earn money off HIM. Not what she’s worked for. Not what she has contributed. Off Tiger being a massive celebrity.

Is your gf helping you raise a kid? Is she taking care of the house?

3

defaultman707 t1_jblsk06 wrote

Replying to Col_daddy (#2,194,374)

Okay I’ll take your bait. I don’t care about his cheating. That’s his personal life and shouldn’t be a topic of discussion for the public. Why he IS a terrible person, is his negligence to operate a multiple thousands of pounds vehicle on a number of occasions. Anybody that is caught driving with hydrocodone, hydromorphone, Xanax, and ambien in their system IS a POS, plain and simple.

It’s crazy to me the lengths that people are going to protect a celebrity baby who faces zero consequences for his actions.

1