Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic post after it was announced her rival Coleen Rooney is reportedly set to appear on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!
Coleen, 38, is said to have been keen on joining the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in the UK.
Reports claim that she has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, exceeding Nigel Farage’s £1.5million from last year.
Whilst Rebekah, 42, may not be an avid viewer, her legal team are said to be paying close attention to anything that could be said.
She is also thought to be getting the ‘ultimate revenge’ by signing up, with her arch-rival, Rebekah Vardy, being booted out early in the 2017 series.

Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic post after it was announced her rival Coleen Rooney is reportedly set to appear on I’m A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!

Coleen, 38, is said to have been keen on joining the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in the UK
Rebekah apparently has no plans to watch Coleen’s stint on I’m A Celebrity unless it’s to catch her tacking a stomach-turning Bushtucker Trial.
Fans are desperate for Coleen to tell all about the Wagatha Christie drama on the reality show, but it’s been reported that she is not taking any chances.
Taking to her Instagram Stories, Rebekah shared text reading: ‘I take rumours as a compliment. The fact you’re bringing my name onto tables I don’t sit at shows your obsession. Stay bothered.’
Meanwhile, the ‘Wagatha Christie’ case is returning to court after Rebekah launched an appeal against having to pay Coleen up to £1.8million in legal costs.
Barristers for the women battled in the High Court last month over how much Rebekah should pay in costs after losing a libel action in 2022 and her legal team confirmed on Friday she is challenging the judge’s ruling.
In a three-day hearing, lawyers for Rekbeah – the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy – argued that the sum should be reduced due to what they said was ‘serious misconduct’ by Coleen’s legal team.
But Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker found ‘on balance and, I have to say, only just’, that Mrs Rooney’s legal team had not committed wrongdoing, and therefore it was ‘not an appropriate case’ to reduce the amount of money that Mrs Vardy should pay.
Court documents show that Mrs Vardy has launched an appeal bid, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed related to the misconduct ruling.

Rebekah shared text reading: ‘I take rumours as a compliment. The fact you’re bringing my name onto tables I don’t sit at shows your obsession. Stay bothered’

Reports claim that she has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, exceeding Nigel Farage ‘s £1.5million from last year
In 2019, Mrs Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs Vardy of leaking her private information to the press on social media.
Mrs Vardy sued her for libel, but Mrs Justice Steyn found in July 2022 that the allegation was ‘substantially true’.
The judge later ordered Mrs Vardy to pay 90 per cent of Mrs Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
The previous hearing in London was told that Mrs Rooney’s claimed legal bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her ‘agreed costs budget of £540,779.07’, which Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said was ‘disproportionate’.
He claimed that Mrs Rooney’s legal team had committed misconduct by understating some of her costs so she could ‘use the apparent difference in incurred costs thereby created to attack the other party’s costs’, which was ‘knowingly misleading’.
Mrs Vardy had demanded a 50 per cent cut in the £1.8million settlement, as it was alleged that Coleen was charging for a lawyer’s stay at a five-star Nobu Hotel.
Her lawyers argued that the opposing legal team’s estimate of their costs for expenses including a luxury hotel and a hotly disputed minibar tab was deliberately misleading and that this warranted a reduction in the amount she had to pay.
Coleen’s barrister Robin Dunne insisted, ‘There has been no misconduct’, and that it was ‘illogical to say that we misled anyone’.
He added that the argument that the amount owed should be reduced was ‘misconceived’ and that the budget was ‘not designed to be an accurate or binding representation’ of her overall legal costs.