How bad was the tackle in question ? .

to be honest, I don't know, that is just what the media report being the basis for the case.

ahh right... well i guess he'll have the right men behind him money wise, either way he's going to end up with a cracking paid job in football anyhow, wheather it be physio or a coaching role, but nothing can compensate for not playing the sport you love.

i knew who SWP was, but cant understand why Chelsea would be sued



Oh and Bones,why didnt you like Head

Because he played for them at the time, they have lots of money, and most importantly of all injury compensation lawyers are grasping, amoral and unprincipled creatures interested only in what they can extract and not in the true facts or justice applying to the situation.

I think that there may be a local example of this.

Found his level.

Should be playing at a higher level than that........when he played we was a different team and he guided us round the park superbly.

I thought he broke his ankle whilst training with England?

In what way are Chelsea accountable? genuine question.

I know he has the option of legal action against SWP, and both he and West Ham have the option of pursuing action against the FA as he was on duty with them when the injury occured, i can't see how Chelsea could be made in anyway culpable though.

That would be like me commiting an act of vandalism and the aggreived party seeking losses from my employer.

That's a joke right?

When fit Matthew Head is one of the top 7s in the game, shame he hasn't been fit for a few years now. At 27 he has time to get fit but i fear for him that it wont happen, he just looks really brittle.

Would have him back here in a shot if he could get his fitness sorted.

I really do think there was better 7's in the game than Head . Soward would have been a sensation in England.

Agreed. Very creative, undoubtedly, but a real weak link in defence for the opposition to exploit.

His performance in our win at Headingley was among the best displays by a Hull FC half back this decade, completely ran the show. Shame injuries have blighted his career because he was a real talent.

personnelly thought matty head was a good larker for us in the games he played, can't remember who we was playing but he was getting smashed all over the park but still had a blinder on one leg think i may well of been wigan at home actually.
Shame for his injuries but is standard practice with playing for hull over recent times.

Yep, would definitely have had an Origin selection, at the very least, had he remained fit after 2004.

I think that's kind of the point people are making about his fitness. He was so "broken" that he couildn't put the defensive effort in but, even with his injuries, he still got us around the park really well especially when you think he hardly trained at all when he was here - and his kicking game "on one leg" was better than most I've seen from players with "two legs".

I have no idea what you are talking about.

when i think back to matty head being at the club, that game at headingley is the one that springs to mind. he was great that day and set up nearly all of our trys i think. i preferred him to adam dykes but they both had awful injury records.

if head wasn't injury prone then i'd love to see him back. he may not have been a world class 7, but he fitted the mould of our squad very well hence our decent scoring record when he was around.

i remember a wigan player giving him an elbow to the face in our last playoff game that season too. should have been at least a sin bin in which case we'd have beat wigan, i would have put money on it (bent referee!!!)

Oh god, not another Matty Head thread - thought we had seen the last of these.

Anyway, whos better Briscoe or .....



Oh, and whats that music that we .....

I blame Blacklock

Quality player that would have been playing NRL all of his career had it not been for injuries.

What utter cr4p. Care to conduct a poll of my past and present client's to see if they share your view of all injury lawyers?

I strongly suggest that you withdraw or qualify you earlier remark.

I would mate... he's a lawyer

Out of interest (and I mean that because I don't support the view expressed by KA) what action would you be able to take on the comment "all injury compensation lawyers are grasping, amoral and unprincipled creatures interested only in what they can extract and not in the true facts or justice applying to the situation."? Because of the generalisation can it still be considered libelous? If so, KA could have the whole "injury lawyer" community after him.