BREAKING: “ MICHAEL CHOPRA JUST £6 A WEEK “

Former Newcastle striker Michael Chopra is paying just £6 a week in child maintenance and is being pursued by his ex-wife for thousands of pounds in alleged missed payments despite his involvement in a proposed £280million takeover bid for his old club.


Daily Mail

12th November 2020


The 36-year-old could face court action from former partner Heather Swan to recoup the arrears to help with the upbringing of their 12-year-old son, understood to total almost £15,000.


Chopra is fronting an attempt to buy Newcastle by the Singapore-based Bellagraph Nova Group which was launched in August. Chopra insisted on Tuesday that the bid remains in play, with the sums involved contrasting starkly with the former Sunderland, Cardiff and Ipswich striker’s management of his family finances.

Michael Chopra lost fortunes with his gambling habits.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sportsmail has seen some of Chopra’s extensive correspondence with the CMS. In it he details his employment history and asks for the demands to be adjusted to reflect the fact that he has not worked in the UK since leaving Alloa in March 2016, meaning he is not liable for child maintenance.

Other than the PFA pension, Chopra has not received any income in this country since 2016, when he briefly played for Kerala Blasters in the Indian Super League. While he lives in Amsterdam, Chopra is employed by an Indonesian oil company based in Jakarta, Bemi Energi. Based on his UK income he is liable to pay £16 a week, although after Government fees and commission only around £6 goes to his former wife.

Chopra said on Tuesday that he is meeting all his obligations and that in addition he has set up an overseas bank account to provide financial support for his son in future. The stand-off over his child maintenance contributions appears to be the result of his acrimonious relationship with his ex-wife Swan, a recently qualified barrister, who publicly announced that their marriage was over on Facebook in 2009.


Chopra’s role as a middle-man in the BN Group’s offer for Newcastle emerged this summer after the collapse of the rival £300m bid from Saudi Arabia’s Private Investment Fund. He was reported to have introduced the BN Group to Newcastle at a meeting in Paris in August and in the aftermath of the talks publicly criticised owner Mike Ashley’s approach to the negotiations on Twitter.

Chopra enjoyed a well-travelled career which began at home-town club Newcastle and ended at Kerala. He scored over 100 goals and was capped by every England age-group up to the Under 20s, but also attracted controversy.

In addition to several stays at the Sporting Chance clinic as he sought help from a gambling addiction, Chopra was given a 10-year ban from racing by the British Horseracing Authority following an investigation into ‘suspicious betting activity’ in 2013. Two years earlier he gave evidence on behalf of a drugs cartel at Newcastle Crown Court.

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Reply FB:

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

I pay £350 a month for 1 son who I have every weekend. I don't mind paying the money however I feel like I am the villain when speaking to CSA. I also the think the majority of the payment should be in vouchers for food, utilities etc so the money isn't squandered on nights out.

Hate guys who don’t pay for their kids or who pay the minimum....I didn’t earn much but paid the full whack and sucked it up .
If he could afford to gamble he could afford maintenance

I pay £350 a month for 1 son who I have every weekend. I don't mind paying the money however I feel like I am the villain when speaking to CSA. I also the think the majority of the payment should be in vouchers for food, utilities etc so the money isn't squandered on nights out.

I'm not 100% how they work it out but that does seem quite excessive even for a high paid person.

I paid £500 for my 3 kids and I was told that was excessive. I paid it because 1. I could afford it and 2. the ex was reluctant to bring in the CSA because she feared she would get less. I also bought a house outright so the ex could home my kids and have a roof over their heads if anything did happen to me. Some say I was a mug but all the way through it I had a clear conscience.


The ex became Housebound a few years later due to alcoholic abuse. We changed the arrangement for her to buy food online. I set up an account that she could use for online shopping. It gave me more control on what she spent the money on which worked out well. However I had to fund her alcoholism.

I seek advice on her alcoholism and was told she had to be weined off it. If she was denied it her body would react is a derogative way that could kill her. Two years ago she was rushed into hospital where they gave her an "alternative" to her alcohol intake. Five days later she was dead. Although I was uncomfortable funding her drinking I'm now sure it was the right thing to do. Once again my conscience is clear.

I agree with you regarding vouchers etc etc. My experience above supports that. Try not to feel the victim as you are doing the right thing. Good luck with it all as its not an easy road to go down.

I pay £350 a month for 1 son who I have every weekend. I don't mind paying the money however I feel like I am the villain when speaking to CSA. I also the think the majority of the payment should be in vouchers for food, utilities etc so the money isn't squandered on nights out.

I'm not 100% how they work it out but that does seem quite excessive even for a high paid person.

I paid £500 for my 3 kids and I was told that was excessive. I paid it because 1. I could afford it and 2. the ex was reluctant to bring in the CSA because she feared she would get less. I also bought a house outright so the ex could home my kids and have a roof over their heads if anything did happen to me. Some say I was a mug but all the way through it I had a clear conscience.


The ex became Housebound a few years later due to alcoholic abuse. We changed the arrangement for her to buy food online. I set up an account that she could use for online shopping. It gave me more control on what she spent the money on which worked out well. However I had to fund her alcoholism.

I seek advice on her alcoholism and was told she had to be weined off it. If she was denied it her body would react is a derogative way that could kill her. Two years ago she was rushed into hospital where they gave her an "alternative" to her alcohol intake. Five days later she was dead. Although I was uncomfortable funding her drinking I'm now sure it was the right thing to do. Once again my conscience is clear.

I agree with you regarding vouchers etc etc. My experience above supports that. Try not to feel the victim as you are doing the right thing. Good luck with it all as its not an easy road to go down.

I think you are being a bit harsh on yourself Baked. You never funded your ex-wife's drinking rather she chose to spend the child maintenance on alcohol, all you did was fulfil your obligations.

I also pay child maintenance. TBH I have never questioned where it is spent. I suppose I am lucky but I have heard stories like yours where the money is wasted on things which have nothing to do with the welfare of the children.

I have never thought about food vouchers before but I think that might be a good idea in some circumstances.

Hate guys who don’t pay for their kids or who pay the minimum....I didn’t earn much but paid the full whack and sucked it up .
If he could afford to gamble he could afford maintenance

Fully agree.

Hate guys who don’t pay for their kids or who pay the minimum....I didn’t earn much but paid the full whack and sucked it up .
If he could afford to gamble he could afford maintenance

Fully agree.

Its not always black and white though , every single case is different .

For example i know a guy who was never told about his kids existence after a short relationship until the kid was 3 and he had a letter from the csa saying he owed money for three years non payment. He is also at the moment ( court case pending ) not allowed to see the child as the mother has a new partner and the kids thinks he's the dad. Is it fair he has to pay ?

What about a guy who has lost his wife through cancer and is now bringing up his 2 kids alone, he has a previous child through a former relationship but is now not able to work full time so can only afford basic payment. Is it fair to hate on him because of awful luck in his life ?

Chopras case sounds different but nobody really knows the true facts only what is written on a newspaper that is more than likely only half the story.

Has been paid a large up front payment in the last with smaller payments weekly ?

Is there a question over paternity?

Is he actually broke, unemployed and on income support so pays the minimum £6 a week out of that like thousands of other blokes in the country ?

Was he paying fully for years until he lost everything gambling and now the wife is still demanding the thousands a week he was paying when he was playing?

There will be a truth behind this but nobody should jump to conclusions until the actual facts are out. Saying you hate poleople like him is harsh when you don't know the full story .

I know a guy that was told by his girlfriend she had overcome cancer. Couldn't have kids . Awful.
Single girl aged 40. Alarm bells??

300 notes a month. CSA/ CMS revenge mission.

Kerching.

There's good and bad on both sides of this.

My mates daughters Dad pays her 25 quid a week and has her one night a week and that's it. Clothes, food, School Trips, the roof over the child's head for 6 days a week my mate pays for the lot and captain dickhead thinks he's a hero for stumping up £100 a month, doesn't scratch the surface, absolutely shameful in my opinion. I'm. Not sure how you would work it out or what is a fair amount but if you father a child you should pay up. That £25 just about covers the little girls school dinners ffs

There's good and bad on both sides of this.

My mates daughters Dad pays her 25 quid a week and has her one night a week and that's it. Clothes, food, School Trips, the roof over the child's head for 6 days a week my mate pays for the lot and captain dickhead thinks he's a hero for stumping up £100 a month, doesn't scratch the surface, absolutely shameful in my opinion. I'm. Not sure how you would work it out or what is a fair amount but if you father a child you should pay up. That £25 just about covers the little girls school dinners ffs

This is where the problem lies with this issue
The cost of a child is relative to what time of life they are used to.
£25 a week in some deprived areas can go a long way. If the child and mother are used to a better lifestyle it won't go far.
It all depends on what the mother spends the money on. If they are paying £25 a week plus school uniforms, trips, presents, after school classes , sports team subscriptions then it all adds up.

The mother has as much responsibility to spend the money directly on the child as the father has to pay a respectful amount . That amount depends on financial circumstances.

I pay £350 a month for 1 son who I have every weekend. I don't mind paying the money however I feel like I am the villain when speaking to CSA. I also the think the majority of the payment should be in vouchers for food, utilities etc so the money isn't squandered on nights out.

I'm not 100% how they work it out but that does seem quite excessive even for a high paid person.

I paid £500 for my 3 kids and I was told that was excessive. I paid it because 1. I could afford it and 2. the ex was reluctant to bring in the CSA because she feared she would get less. I also bought a house outright so the ex could home my kids and have a roof over their heads if anything did happen to me. Some say I was a mug but all the way through it I had a clear conscience.


The ex became Housebound a few years later due to alcoholic abuse. We changed the arrangement for her to buy food online. I set up an account that she could use for online shopping. It gave me more control on what she spent the money on which worked out well. However I had to fund her alcoholism.

I seek advice on her alcoholism and was told she had to be weined off it. If she was denied it her body would react is a derogative way that could kill her. Two years ago she was rushed into hospital where they gave her an "alternative" to her alcohol intake. Five days later she was dead. Although I was uncomfortable funding her drinking I'm now sure it was the right thing to do. Once again my conscience is clear.

I agree with you regarding vouchers etc etc. My experience above supports that. Try not to feel the victim as you are doing the right thing. Good luck with it all as its not an easy road to go down.

You seem like a really decent bloke.

Its not always black and white though , every single case is different .

For example i know a guy who was never told about his kids existence after a short relationship until the kid was 3 and he had a letter from the csa saying he owed money for three years non payment. He is also at the moment ( court case pending ) not allowed to see the child as the mother has a new partner and the kids thinks he's the dad. Is it fair he has to pay ?

What about a guy who has lost his wife through cancer and is now bringing up his 2 kids alone, he has a previous child through a former relationship but is now not able to work full time so can only afford basic payment. Is it fair to hate on him because of awful luck in his life ?

Chopras case sounds different but nobody really knows the true facts only what is written on a newspaper that is more than likely only half the story.

Has been paid a large up front payment in the last with smaller payments weekly ?

Is there a question over paternity?

Is he actually broke, unemployed and on income support so pays the minimum £6 a week out of that like thousands of other blokes in the country ?

Was he paying fully for years until he lost everything gambling and now the wife is still demanding the thousands a week he was paying when he was playing?

There will be a truth behind this but nobody should jump to conclusions until the actual facts are out. Saying you hate poleople like him is harsh when you don't know the full story .

It is pretty obvious that Blueman39 comments were aimed at Fathers who don't pay towards their children's up bringing despite having the means to do so.

However, I agree the system is not perfect and there will always be individual circumstances.

You have raised some of them. If there is a doubt of paternity then the alleged Father can ask for a DNA test. From what I know it is free unless the test proves he is the Father. He is then liable for the cost which I think is around £250.

He must also pay maintenance until paternity is determined. If it is proved he is not the Father then any money he has paid will be returned to him.

With regard to the person who found out 3 years after the event he was a father, the message is tough luck you are the Father and are liable for maintenance. As for access if he went to Court he would get access to his child. Problem is the Courts don't enforce child access orders and the Mother can simply ignore them. That is a very big problem for Fathers.

As for Chopra I would agree we don't know the full details but we can express an opinion. As Chopra lives outside the UK there can be no enforcement. He also probably does-not earn any money in the UK so the CSA may have assessed him for the basic £6pw. This is paid by the lowest earners such as those on JSA/UC etc. That's what I believe is happening although in this case the Mother has a good career and can get by without his help. That though doesn't absolve Chopra of his responsibilities.

Yes my comments are aimed at fathers who can pay but choose not to.
There are sometimes complications but the stats say that 50% of fathers have not contact or pay no maintenance within 2 years of a separation.
Some people choose not to pay ...Chops knew he would have to support his children wether he was with her or not and made enough to cover that.
Some guys take 2 jobs to make their payments.

Yes my comments are aimed at fathers who can pay but choose not to.
There are sometimes complications but the stats say that 50% of fathers have not contact or pay no maintenance within 2 years of a separation.
Some people choose not to pay ...Chops knew he would have to support his children wether he was with her or not and made enough to cover that.
Some guys take 2 jobs to make their payments.

Yes my comments are aimed at fathers who can pay but choose not to.
There are sometimes complications but the stats say that 50% of fathers have not contact or pay no maintenance within 2 years of a separation.
Some people choose not to pay ...Chops knew he would have to support his children wether he was with her or not and made enough to cover that.
Some guys take 2 jobs to make their payments.

Do you have a link to these stats ?

I would say a lot of fathers refuse directly after a separation because the women is being harsh and using the kids against the father to get back at him. Which in turn makes the father say f**k it i will withhold money until you let me see the kids.

Happens all the time. Normally its the women using the kids as a weapon that starts the process.

The fact still remains we do not know why he is only paying £6 ( if that is actually true ) judgement should be spared until facts are known.

Yes my comments are aimed at fathers who can pay but choose not to.
There are sometimes complications but the stats say that 50% of fathers have not contact or pay no maintenance within 2 years of a separation.
Some people choose not to pay ...Chops knew he would have to support his children wether he was with her or not and made enough to cover that.
Some guys take 2 jobs to make their payments.

Do you have a link to these stats ?

I would say a lot of fathers refuse directly after a separation because the women is being harsh and using the kids against the father to get back at him. Which in turn makes the father say f**k it i will withhold money until you let me see the kids.

Happens all the time. Normally its the women using the kids as a weapon that starts the process.

The fact still remains we do not know why he is only paying £6 ( if that is actually true ) judgement should be spared until facts are known.

Your comments that women use children as 'weapons' is very true. That said it is also true that they don't allow access because the Father doesn't pay towards the child's upbringing which is quite a different thing.

Actually in both circumstances the parents are wrong. The Mother should never stop her children seeing their Father even if the Father doesn't pay a penny in Maintenance. Alternatively a Father should-not stop paying CM because the Mother has denied access. Trouble is in such circumstances emotions takeover and it is hard for either to act rationally.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... e-2019.pdf

The above link has compliance at 67% in 2019. Whilst this is a reasonably good figure it still means 33% of Father's (or in smaller numbers Mothers) make no contribution.

As for Chopra we are allowed an opinion. The article claims he has arrears of £15000 in child support. Arrears occur when the person libel for the payments fails to make them. Chopra may well have his difference with his ex-wife but that doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities.

Yes my comments are aimed at fathers who can pay but choose not to.
There are sometimes complications but the stats say that 50% of fathers have not contact or pay no maintenance within 2 years of a separation.
Some people choose not to pay ...Chops knew he would have to support his children wether he was with her or not and made enough to cover that.
Some guys take 2 jobs to make their payments.

Do you have a link to these stats ?

I would say a lot of fathers refuse directly after a separation because the women is being harsh and using the kids against the father to get back at him. Which in turn makes the father say f**k it i will withhold money until you let me see the kids.

Happens all the time. Normally its the women using the kids as a weapon that starts the process.

The fact still remains we do not know why he is only paying £6 ( if that is actually true ) judgement should be spared until facts are known.

Your comments that women use children as 'weapons' is very true. That said it is also true that they don't allow access because the Father doesn't pay towards the child's upbringing which is quite a different thing.

Actually in both circumstances the parents are wrong. The Mother should never stop her children seeing their Father even if the Father doesn't pay a penny in Maintenance. Alternatively a Father should-not stop paying CM because the Mother has denied access. Trouble is in such circumstances emotions takeover and it is hard for either to act rationally.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... e-2019.pdf

The above link has compliance at 67% in 2019. Whilst this is a reasonably good figure it still means 33% of Father's (or in smaller numbers Mothers) make no contribution.

As for Chopra we are allowed an opinion. The article claims he has arrears of £15000 in child support. Arrears occur when the person libel for the payments fails to make them. Chopra may well have his difference with his ex-wife but that doesn't absolve him of his responsibilities.

I agree everyone is allowed a opinion , but in fairness it is a daily mail article which is hardly reliable and who is the source they used regarding figures. I think the facts are very limited in the article and as such it's hard to judge either way. There are always two sides to a story. I would assume the full story will come out soon and then people can judge him. I'm sure be would have a totally different take on it.

Fathers should always pay for the upbringing but in some circumstances they should be allowed to provide food vouchers or similar. It's one thing to make sure a child eats but it's another if mother's are spending most of it on the piss or fags .