Coleen Rooney ‘has to delete Wagatha Christie post in last-minute peace deal with Rebekah Vardy’

Coleen Rooney will reportedly have to delete her infamous Wagatha Christie statement as part of her peace deal with Rebekah Vardy, after handing over a make or break offer to ‘agree to disagree’ over their row.

Sources have claimed the 34-year-old WAG’s public claim against the Dancing On Ice star, 38 – which is still featured on her social media platforms – must be removed in order for the pair to settle their differences.

The former friends are aiming to avoid a High Court showdown, 15 months after the wife of retired footballer Wayne Rooney first accused Leicester City star Jamie’s spouse of leaking false stories about her personal life to the media.

An insider told The Sun: ‘The accusation is still there for the world to see. If they are to shake hands and walk away then Coleen will need to agree to remove it — and that it will never be repeated.

‘Coleen has never wanted it to go to court and thinks the whole saga has dragged on way too long. But the fact neither side will say sorry means there is still a lot to sort out.’ 

In the dramatic message, former columnist Coleen said she discovered the alleged betrayal by carrying out a months-long ‘sting operation’ on social media – leading to the ‘Wagatha Christie’ nickname.

The mother-of-four wrote at the time: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

MailOnline has contacted representatives for Coleen and Rebekah for further comment.  

If accepted, the last-minute peace deal would see both parties make a substantial donation to charity and avoid impending mediation that is set to run for the next fortnight in a bid to avoid a further five-day libel fight in the summer.

The public figures would pay their own costs under the deal, known in legal circles as a ‘drop hands’ settlement.

A source added to the publication: ‘Coleen has tried to settle this on three previous occasions. As far as she is concerned this has gone too far. The legal costs on both sides are well into six figures.’

They added that after Coleen’s sister Rose died in 2013 from a genetic disorder aged just 14, she would’ve rather use the money she spent on lawyers go towards to NHS instead. 

Former barmaid Becky has furiously denied the allegations of leaking stories to the press, with a preliminary hearing last year ruling in her favour and the judge ordered Coleen to pay £22,913 in costs.

In a bid to avoid a bitter court battle, the two sides are set to virtually meet to settle the dispute amicably, with a mediator to sit on the call.

Sources have told the paper the talks are unlikely to be successful, with the Liverpudlian ‘determined to see this through to the bitter end’ and the Norwich native desperate to prove her innocence.

Last month, court papers claimed Coleen had help from ‘third parties’ to draft her ‘Wagatha Christie’ statement. 

Becky’s lawyers allege that a team of people – including solicitors – read over her statement before it was published on her  accounts.

Should accusations that it was ‘prepared in advance’ with help from others be proved true, questions will be asked about whether her five-month investigation into the leaks was thorough enough.

Lawyers claim Coleen didn’t properly look into whether the leaked information could have come from her or her husband’s team of staff – and not the former model.

Becky’s team say the simultaneously-timed posts sought ‘maximum publicity for the defendant’s message’. 

The documents, seen by The Sun, read: ‘The post… appears to have been prepared in advance.

‘It is inferred that the defendant had already reached a (false) conclusion to responsibility on a flawed “investigation” and rushed to publication without properly considering the evidence or making any further inquiry.’

Becky’s party have now requested to know when the post was written and who knew what information at what stage.

A spokesperson for the Alder Hey patron thinks the libel case will be defended successfully.   

In November, the High Court ruled Coleen’s post ‘clearly identified’ Becky as being ‘guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust’ – but minutes later she hit back with a statement via her representative, saying she was ‘keen’ to hear what her rival has to say in court. 

The ruling related to the wording in the final sentence of the post, with the former reality star claiming she simply referred to Becky’s Instagram account.

But the judge said an ordinary reader would not take the word ‘account’ to ‘indicate that she remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was’. 

He also disagreed with her claim that using multiple ellipses in the final line diluted the meaning.

This means the court has no doubt as to who the accusation was made against – Becky – which will be a consideration if the libel case goes to trial this year.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Coleen’s message was ‘a considered post, using wording composed with some care’, adding: ‘It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that it was meant seriously and intended to convey a message of some importance.’ 

He wrote: ‘Indeed, the element of suspense introduced by the multiple dots seems to me designed to raise expectations of a dramatic revelation.

‘It tends to emphasise the importance of the name that is then provided. It would be a poor denouement if all that was being said was that the named individual was to be suspected of the wrongdoing but it might be someone else. 

‘The reader is told straight away that the message is about bad behaviour by ‘someone who I trusted’. The post then takes the form of a ‘whodunnit’.’

He added: ‘I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was.

‘There is nothing in these words, apart from the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy.’