Leicester striker Jamie’s wife said she ‘would receive a percentage of the revenue from their syndication’ to news organisations
Rebekah Vardy admitted getting cash from photographers when they sell pictures of her and her family, court papers claim.
Leicester striker Jamie’s wife said she ‘would receive a percentage of the revenue from their syndication’ to news organisations.
The allegations are laid bare in documents her lawyer filed in her libel case against Coleen Rooney, who accuses her of leaking details about her private life.
The revelation comes after Mrs Vardy dragged two more stars into her ‘Wagatha Christie’ High Court war this week.
Legal papers sent to the High Court and seen by MailOnline show Mrs Rooney, 34, claimed Mrs Vardy, 38, ‘worked with a number of agencies to bolster her public persona’.
They allege Mrs Vardy ‘insisted’ the wives and girlfriends of England’s 2018 World Cup team in Russia posed for a team picture outside a restaurant in St Petersburg.
Mrs Rooney claims Mrs Vardy ‘did not let the others know’ she ‘arranged’ for a ‘paparazzo to be outside to photograph them’.
They allege Mrs Vardy ‘insisted’ the wives and girlfriends of England’s 2018 World Cup team in Russia posed for a team picture outside a restaurant in St Petersburg (pictured)
Coleen Rooney (pictured) sent a chilling message to Rebekah Vardy shortly before her infamous ‘Wagatha Christie’ post, saying ‘If you play games with me, I will play them harder’, according to court documents
Mrs Vardy arrived for her ‘Dancing on ice’ training session at the Nottingham National Ice Centre this week in a tight Spiderwoman lycra outfit and hood much to the amusement of her skating partner Andy Buchanan
Others who follow the account include glamour model Danielle Lloyd (pictured left), 36, and Real Housewives of Cheshire star Dawn Ward (pictured right), 47, the court paper says, though Ms Vardy does not in any way suggest that either were behind the leaks
She then says the image was sold on to a newspaper in Britain and that it could be ‘inferred’ Mrs Vardy ‘received payment directly or indirectly’.
Mrs Vardy denies the claims and said she ‘had nothing to do with the photograph’ and ‘received no payment’.
But she said she had worked with agencies to ‘take photographs’ of her, ‘her family or pets on the basis that she would receive a percentage of the revenue from their syndication’.
Earlier this week Mrs Vardy accused Mrs Rooney of sending her a chilling message warning her ‘If you play games with me, I will play them harder’.
She also dragged two more stars into her ‘Wagatha Christie’ High Court war, according to court documents.
The claims came as Mrs Vardy’s legal team lodged a robust reply to Mrs Rooney’s defence and launched a scathing attack on her online ‘investigation’.
Mrs Vardy named Danielle Lloyd, 36, and Real Housewives of Cheshire star Dawn Ward, 47, as part of the group with access to her rival’s private Instagram account.
But she does not suggest either Danielle, ex-wife of Spurs star Jamie O’Hara, and Real Dawn married to former footballer Ashley Ward, were behind the leaks.
She claimed she has no idea who it was and hinting the leak might lie closer to home with an associate of Mrs Rooney or her husband, former Manchester United and England captain Wayne Rooney.
Mrs Rooney also sent Mrs Vardy a WhatsApp message when she fell pregnant, saying ‘congratulations on your brilliant news. Hope it all goes well for you x’, it was alleged.
The Leicester City WAG’s lawyers claim this as ‘obvious’ proof Mrs Rooney knew Mrs Vardy was having a baby when she told millions of Instagram followers in October 2019 that she believed Rebekah was leaking stories about her to the press.
This opened her up to ‘extreme abuse’, the legal papers say.
Ms Vardy’s lawyers say that rather than the ‘months’ claimed by Ms Rooney, the sting operation took only five weeks and a day.
And they claim that Coleen failed to mention many other fake posts placed on her private Instagram account which did not lead to any stories in The Sun.
Mrs Vardy claims ‘third parties’ in the shape of assistants also enjoy access to the Instagram account where Coleen left the fake posts as ‘bait’ in her cunning trap.
Mrs Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’
And others who follow the account include Ms Lloyd and Ms Ward, the court paper says, though Mrs Vardy does not suggest either were behind the leaks.
The 57-page document will do little to calm the raging storm between the two women as they attempt to settle their differences through mediation, as per Mr Justice Warby’s order, to try and avoid a full-blown libel trial.
According to the reply: ‘The Claimant [Vardy] will also rely on a post she recalls the defendant [Rooney] made on her private Instagram account shortly before the words complained of were published, which said words to the effect of ‘If you play games with me, I will play them harder’.
The dispute began in October 2019. Mrs Rooney claimed fake stories she posted about herself and her family were leaked after only being seen by Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account.
In July, Rebekah filed a £1million lawsuit for defamation, saying she had been falsely accused.
She categorically denies being the source of stories about the Rooneys, or being the mystery source of the Sun’s ‘Secret Wag’ column.
Mother-of-four boys Mrs Rooney had written of how she set a trap to discovered who she thought had been leaking stories to the newspaper.
She made up a series of bogus posts on her private Instagram account to see if their content appeared in the tabloid and said she blocked out all her followers from seeing them – except Mrs Vardy.
The fake posts included stories about her resuming her television career, going to Mexico for gender selection of a child and a flood in the basement of her new home.
But Mrs Vardy’s legal team say the private Instagram account was accessible to 367 others, including friends, journalists and gossip column writers.
Instead, the document says Mrs Vardy does not know the identity of the person behind the leaks.
The document is also contemptuous of Mrs Rooney’s supposed private eye skills, stating: ‘The so-called ‘careful investigation’ lasted for 5 weeks and 1 day, not the ‘5 months’ referred to in the Post.
‘The Defendant concealed from her followers the fact that she had posted a number of other “fake stories” that did not appear in the press despite being posted in order to be viewed by the Claimant.
‘As a result, the Defendant created the false impression that every false post had resulted in a false story.
‘The Defendant did not investigate whether the ‘leaks’ of the Private Instagram Posts could be related to the numerous other ‘leaks’ of information about her and her husband which had appeared in the press in 2019.’
The paper claims much of the granular detail set out in Mrs Rooney’s defence about how she came to point the finger at Mrs Vardy is actually her lawyers’ work.
Mrs Vardy’s team state: ‘It is obvious that most of the contents of this paragraph [setting out the fake posts] are the product of subsequent investigations by the Defendant’s solicitors and did not form part of the Defendant’s decision to publish.
‘The Defendant has admitted through her Solicitors that, prior to publication, she had not carried out any investigation into whether other leaks had come from the Claimant.
‘The Defendant has not alleged that, prior to publication she carried out any investigation into whether the leaks could have come from her own ‘entourage’ or that of her husband.’
Her lawyers claim as Mrs Rooney’s ‘J’accuse’ post came immediately after the flooded basement article was published, it must have been prepared in advance, adding: ‘The Claimant infers that the Defendant had already reached a (false) conclusion as to responsibility based on a flawed ‘investigation’ and rushed to publication without properly considering the evidence or making any further inquiry.’
They suggest Mrs Rooney released the post simultaneously on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook to create ‘maximum publicity’ and they suggest she had assistance from third parties and that various drafts were prepared in advance.
They add: ‘The Defendant has continued to publish the Post on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, despite the Claimant having made it clear that she had not leaked the Defendant’s information and that third parties had access to the Claimant’s Instagram account.
‘It is to be inferred that the Defendant carried out no further investigation following this statement by the Claimant.’
Mrs Vardy repeatedly denied being the source of any of the stories Mrs Rooney highlighted and denied being ‘close friends’ with the Sun’s showbiz editor Simon Boyle or any other Sun journalists.
She rejects the suggestion she courted publicity from the paper, adding: ‘The Claimant has not received positive coverage in the Sun or the Sun on Sunday ‘as a result of’ providing information about the Defendant.
‘The press are independently interested in the Claimant and she is married to a famous footballer. She does not need to generate interest by trading the Defendant’s or others’ private information.’
She said several stories about her in 2016 were linked with Mr Vardy’s team Leicester City winning the Premiership that season.
She added: ‘The retirement of the Claimant’s husband, Jamie Vardy, from the England team did not lead to any reduction in the Claimant’s public profile. She continued to be in demand and very busy.’
The paper also includes a rebuttal of claims Mrs Vardy ‘endorsed abuse’ she received over the Wagatha Christie post – and accuses Mrs Rooney of ‘victim blaming’.
The document says Mrs Vardy’s Twitter post ‘It’s ……Jamie Vardy #9’ and her ‘liking of similar posts were attempts to deflect and deal with the abuse she was receiving as a result of Ms Rooney’s post.