The club have at least two points on their side.

1. If a player is injured for long term and has played a low number of games in that year, under an RFL rule you can release the player.

2. He pleaded guilty to assault, the club can say that it's not good for the image of the club or the other players.

He probably feels hard done to when he sees Cockyene and Pryce still in their jobs.

but added to the fact Hull released him because of his injury then i'm not sure what he's going to base his argument on.

Been told his claim against Warrington is to do with the medical treatment he got from the club or feels he didnt get.

Quote: manoa thompsons knees "Been told his claim against Warrington is to do with the medical treatment he got from the club or feels he didnt get.'" Where there is a blame there is a claim: www.sportssolicitor.co.uk/

Quote: manoa thompsons knees "Been told his claim against Warrington is to do with the medical treatment he got from the club or feels he didnt get.'" Where there is a blame there is a claim: www.sportssolicitor.co.uk/

The club dont give actual "medical treatment " to injured players, they will be referred to specialist doctors/surgeons etc, that deal in their type of specific injury. Following any surgery, the club will however be responsible for directly following the Surgeons guidelines, with regards to the rehabilitation of the injured part of the players body. As long as the club have followed the surgeons guidelines/instructions, i wouldnt have thought that mr Reardon would have a claim against the club, unless he can prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that any neglect has taken place on the clubs behalf.
Oh, add to that, that mr Reardon also has a responsibility "himself" with regards to his recovery, by following the Doctors/surgeons guidelines/instructions to the letter. (Wonder if kicking doors in was part of the rehabilitation guidelines)??

Sod Him!

this was on sporting life the other week

he hasn't got an achilles oops sorry leg to stand on

So why not Hull as well?

again we can use the example of Chris bridge doing ok with Exactly the same injury.....

i suppose it helped he didnt barge down doors either

Reardon is not the only player to pursue a claim over the medical, rehab, treatment, they have received from Warrington.

Strange one this as everybody with inside information (especially Proclaimer look-a-likey St Helens fans) know that he has been fit for a number of months now. Sounds like a dodgey benefit scam to me.

I remember when the Reardon Saga came to an end, It was just after Bradford had released Tame Topou. To me it looked like we treated him quite fairly over the whole situation. He got a brand new suit out of the Tony Smith revolution that he could use for court appearances, He had been convicted but remained in a job and the final nail in the coffin was the Tame Topou release. Warrington didnt make a big deal of his court case.

One thing in relation to the inference of Reardon not being the only player to persue a claim with regards to medical treatment. Was I seeing things or did I see our former Physio on the pitch in the Wakefield v Wigan game at the weekend?

I reckon that if Reardon plays his cards right he could get a very nice sum of money of Warrington.

Thanks for the PM, and I realise you cannot post too much specifics on here, but what damages have been incurred by Reardon as a result of any alleged neglect/failure of duty of care?