West Ham's Gary O'Neil given 50% chance of ever playing again

Ganymede Glow

West Ham's Gary O'Neil may take legal action following tackle by Aston Villa's Nigel Reo-Coker

Gary O’Neil is considering taking legal action against Aston Villa midfielder Nigel Reo-Coker after a tackle that may have put his career in jeopardy.

The 27 year-old was carried off on a stretcher after being challenged by Reo-Coker during West Ham United’s home defeat last Saturday and underwent a two-hour operation on Wednesday evening. It is understood that the ligament was ripped from O’Neil’s ankle in the impact he suffered during the tackle and he will not be allowed to put any weight on his foot for two months. At the very least O’Neil is thought to be facing around eight months out but there are understood to be very serious concerns that he might not play again. At best he is being given a 50 per cent chance of playing again.

O’Neil arrived at Upton Park during the January transfer window, signed for £1.5 million from Middlesbrough after agreeing a 2½-year deal, and with Scott Parker also out, West Ham are facing a midfield injury crisis. Even injury-plagued Kieron Dyer, recalled from loan at Ipswich Town, has suffered another setback after limping out of a reserve match this week. He is thought to have played his last game for West Ham. There is thought to be anger and frustration at the club at the extent of the damage caused to O’Neil. Chairman David Sullivan said on Thursday: “This has seriously depressed me, terrible for the player and a big loss for the club with Scott Parker out.”


If the worst case scenario does happen and O’Neil’s career is over then it is believed he will consider whether to pursue Reo-Coker for damages which could run into millions of pounds in lost earnings.There have already been several such claims made in football while, recently,former West Ham striker Dean Ashton considered the same course of action after his career was ended by a training ground challenge by Shaun Wright-Phillips. West Ham are pursuing the Football Association for £6.8 million in damages for the loss of Ashton as they claim the injury he sustained on England duty ended his career. That case is being dealt with by the FA’s insurers but is moving slowly towards a conclusion.

For now O’Neil, a former England Under-21 international who began his career at Portsmouth before moving to Middlesbrough for £5 million, is fighting to save his own career. It had been hoped that the cartilage in his right ankle could be screwed back into place but, during the operation, it became apparent that the pieces were too small to do so. Instead he underwent a micro-fracture procedure where the three areas of damage were drilled and these will fill with scar tissue. The injury is undoubtedly extremely serious and, it is believed, the surgeon who operated on him is giving O’Neil no more than a 50 per cent chance of ever playing professional football again.


There is a chance that the procedure will fail and then cartilage from O’Neil’s knee will need to be used to plug the damage to his ankle. If this happens the player will be out for a further six months. The injury happened just under an hour into West Ham’s 2-1 loss at home to Villa last Saturday as O’Neil shaped to shoot on the corner of the penalty area. Reo-Coker slid in to challenge O’Neil and caught his right foot.


However, Halsey, who was well placed to view the incident, clearly deemed that the Villa midfielder had won the ball and waved play on. O’Neil was unable to recover and was eventually taken from the pitch on a stretcher in evident distress. West Ham face Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Saturday as they desperately fight against relegation from the Premier League. The injury to O’Neil has caused consternation at the club, where he has settled in well. It is hoped that Parker will be fit to face Manchester City away on Sunday, May 1, although West Ham will want to ensure he makes the final three matches of the season against fellow relegation candidates.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/west-ham/8467252/West-Hams-Gary-ONeil-may-take-legal-action-following-tackle-by-Aston-Villas-Nigel-Reo-Coker.html

Must be devastating for the lad, hope he recovers. Also eligible to play for Rep Of Ireland

mufcboy1999

i didnt see the tackle was it bad?

i cant understand how he can take legal action against coker, i mean surely it wasn't intensional?

if he cant prove that it was intensional i dont see how he can take legal action to be honest.

its contact sport these things happen, players just cant tackle at these days its beyond a joke.

sorry to hear it, i wouldn't wish a serious injury on any player.

DOC09UNAM

Getting sued for a bad tackle?

Paul Scholes must be shítting himself.

Degag

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Getting sued for a bad tackle?

Paul Scholes must be shítting himself.

tbh. LOL.

Chnandler Bong

He's dirt anyway

jive

I think it's pretty bad that he's considering going after Reo-Coker just because that happened to be the challenge that injured him. I haven't seen the tackle but either way it was an accident. I'm sure Reo-coker didn't go in to injure him and according to the article he got the ball. I doubt he'll pursue it and I'm sure he'll get work as a coach or somewhere in the field of football. I also doubt it would stand up in court anyway.

It's a terrible thing to happen and I remember Ashton's demise. I remember hearing about his last days and someone said when he was warming up they could hear his ankle just crunching and he knew it was over. Really sad story especially when players go down in their prime.

Fingers crossed he can play again but it's obviously still not good given the severity of the injury.

NukaCola

Chnandler Bong wrote: »

He's dirt anyway

Shameful stuff....

_blank_

Quotes from player : 0

Helix

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

i didnt see the tackle was it bad?

no, the thing is it was an absolutely brilliant tackle that unfortunately the 2 lads came together at the end of

Het-Field

It was a 50/50 challange.

There was no malice in it whatsoever.

However, until ONeil says he is taking legal action, then there is no reason to believe that he is.

I hope he gets well soon. If the worst comes to the worst, and the Hammers do fall through the relegation trap-door, Gary O'Neil would be of crucial importance in any attempts to return to the Premiership.

Pauleta

I would support him taking legal action. A football pitch is a work place. If a fellow worker injured somebody so badly they couldnt work in that job ever again then i think he is in his rights to have financial compensation for loss of earnings. Reo-Cokers incompetance could end Gary O'Neills lucrative career. Just because its a sport doesnt make it different.

Raekwon

Reo-Coker probably thought he was up against Martin O'Neill and followed through :pac:

Seriously though, I watched that game and Reo-Coker's tackle was perfectly fair. O'Neil cut inside from the right and the ball was taken off his toe just before he went to pull the trigger on the edge of their box. Brilliant tackle actually but his standing foot probably got trapped under the momentum of the challenge and that's where the possibly damage accrued.

If he does sue it will most likely be laughed out of court but hopefully it won't go that far and the lad makes a full recovery.

Het-Field

Pauleta wrote: »

I would support him taking legal action. A football pitch is a work place. If a fellow worker injured somebody so badly they couldnt work in that job ever again then i think he is in his rights to have financial compensation for loss of earnings. Reo-Cokers incompetance could end Gary O'Neills lucrative career. Just because its a sport doesnt make it different.

What causes of action do you feel O'Neil has ?

helimachoptor

Pauleta wrote: »

I would support him taking legal action. A football pitch is a work place. If a fellow worker injured somebody so badly they couldnt work in that job ever again then i think he is in his rights to have financial compensation for loss of earnings. Reo-Cokers incompetance could end Gary O'Neills lucrative career. Just because its a sport doesnt make it different.

fcuk sake that is ridiculous. Football is a physical game accidents happen (unless its a keane-haangeland thing). Playing ball a few weeks ago one of the lads dislocated his knee and cant work for 6 weeks. He's not suing the chap who tackled him for lost earnings.

If youre not prepared to take the risk of getting injured then dont fcuking play.

Pauleta

helimachoptor wrote: »

fcuk sake that is ridiculous. Football is a physical game accidents happen (unless its a keane-haangeland thing). Playing ball a few weeks ago one of the lads dislocated his knee and cant work for 6 weeks. He's not suing the chap who tackled him for lost earnings.

If youre not prepared to take the risk of getting injured then dont fcuking play.

Accidents do happen but they shouldnt happen. Accidents should not happen in a workplace and that lad who dislocated his knee isnt suing because of a personal choice not sue. He should be fully in his right to sue if he wished. Reckless footballers are ruining the game.

helimachoptor

Pauleta wrote: »

Accidents do happen but they shouldnt happen. Accidents should not happen in a workplace and that lad who dislocated his knee isnt suing because of a personal choice not sue. He should be fully in his right to sue if he wished. Reckless footballers are ruining the game.

Wreckless is a keane hangeland tackle or that tackle on pedro mendes.

Accidents are the Dave Busst tackle. This was an accident. No one wants them to happen but sometimes they do i.e. accidents.

With your attitude i hope you're wrapped up in cotton wool.

Here's a scenario.. two guys playing football and on the same team. Both go to head the ball and neither call for it. There's a clash of heads and one guy is unconscious befor he hits the ground. What happens if he had broke his leg or whatever due to the fall. Do you think he's entitled to sue his team mate??

Paul Tergat

Football is broken enough without constant threat of legal action as a result of a tackle.

the_one_&_only

Is there any clips of the challenge?

Pauleta

helimachoptor wrote: »

Wreckless is a keane hangeland tackle or that tackle on pedro mendes.

Accidents are the Dave Busst tackle. This was an accident. No one wants them to happen but sometimes they do i.e. accidents.

With your attitude i hope you're wrapped up in cotton wool.

Here's a scenario.. two guys playing football and on the same team. Both go to head the ball and neither call for it. There's a clash of heads and one guy is unconscious befor he hits the ground. What happens if he had broke his leg or whatever due to the fall. Do you think he's entitled to sue his team mate??

The tackle on Dave Busst was reckless and he should of taken Irwin to the cleaners and for your scenario it would be a case of both parties were incompetant so no blame can be attributed to either one.

helimachoptor

Pauleta wrote: »

The tackle on Dave Busst was reckless and he should of taken Irwin to the cleaners and for your scenario it would be a case of both parties were incompetant so no blame can be attributed to either one.

My reply to that would probably get me banned...

Guy:Incognito

Pauleta, what about a more physical game like Rugby? Every single tackle could potentially injure someone if one element of it goes wrong. I assume your black and white workplace arguement applies there too?

So every time someone gets injured in a tackle whether malicious or not, players can sue each other? Are you Trolling or do you genuinly believe that nonsense?

helimachoptor

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Pauleta, what about a more physical game like Rugby? Every single tackle could potentially injure someone if one element of it goes wrong. I assume your black and white workplace arguement applies there too?

So every time someone gets injured in a tackle whether malicious or not, players can sue each other? Are you Trolling or do you genuinly believe that nonsense?

I'm hoping he's trolling otherwise the IQ of boards goes down a few points each time he posts :pac::pac:

curry-muff

NukaCola wrote: »

Shameful stuff....

Are you seriously going to claim that Reo-Coker isn't a dirty player?

Ok he may have worded it questionably but he is obviously referring to him as a dirty player and not actual 'dirt'

Pauleta

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Pauleta, what about a more physical game like Rugby? Every single tackle could potentially injure someone if one element of it goes wrong. I assume your black and white workplace arguement applies there too?

So every time someone gets injured in a tackle whether malicious or not, players can sue each other? Are you Trolling or do you genuinly believe that nonsense?

Its personal choice but would be unwise to do so as hard tackles are permitted. Tackles of a reckless or excessive force are not permitted in football.

You are the last person i respond to, im bored of this subject.

Soby

Found match highlights but its not even mentioned.So i can only assume it wasnt a really bad challenge.

28064212

Pauleta wrote: »

Accidents do happen but they shouldnt happen. Accidents should not happen in a workplace and that lad who dislocated his knee isnt suing because of a personal choice not sue. He should be fully in his right to sue if he wished. Reckless footballers are ruining the game.

Playing football is reckless full-stop. You have absolutely no idea whether O'Neil or Reo-Coker were at fault, or whether it was a slight divot in the pitch, or whether O'Neil wasn't fed enough Weetabix that morning and that's why he was a quarter-second slower than he should have been.

The only cause of action would be if a tackler was intentionally trying to hurt a player. Everything else is part of the job. The only other option is banning tackles completely.

DOC09UNAM

Pauleta wrote: »

You are the last person i respond to, i realise im wrong.

fyp.

iMuse

No mention of this "50% chance of playing again" from the BBC

"I am disappointed not to be involved for the last five games but looking to get back as fast as I can next season."

I will be right behind the lads and I'll be cheering them on at the remaining matches," continued O'Neil.

"I have got my head around the timescale involved for my comeback. I have just got to keep my foot up for a few weeks and then take it from there."

Davei141

Pauleta wrote: »

Its personal choice but would be unwise to do so as hard tackles are permitted. Tackles of a reckless or excessive force are not permitted in football.

You are the last person i respond to, im bored of this subject.

Sport is reckless. Shit happens.

Muff_Daddy

curry-muff wrote: »

Are you seriously going to claim that Reo-Coker isn't a dirty player?

Ok he may have worded it questionably but he is obviously referring to him as a dirty player and not actual 'dirt'

I read it as the poster saying O'Neil was dirt - i.e. a rubbish player, and therefore - who gives a toss that his career is in jeopardy. If that is what he meant, shameful isn't the word I'd use to describe the post.

Helix

curry-muff wrote: »

Are you seriously going to claim that Reo-Coker isn't a dirty player?

reo coker isnt dirty at all

he doesnt tackle all that much full stop, but that tackle on o'neil was world class

matrim

I would assume that players and clubs would have insurance for both sides of this. i.e. O'Neil will be insured if his career ends and Reo-Croker would be insured if a case is taken against him.

Corholio

Pauleta wrote: »

I would support him taking legal action. A football pitch is a work place. If a fellow worker injured somebody so badly they couldnt work in that job ever again then i think he is in his rights to have financial compensation for loss of earnings. Reo-Cokers incompetance could end Gary O'Neills lucrative career. Just because its a sport doesnt make it different.

It was a fantastic tackle in which he won the ball, in which no free was given.

Have you even seen it?

ShamoBuc

Pity the tackle caused that much damage, it wasn't a bad tackle, more an unlucky one.

Helix

Corholio wrote: »

It was a fantastic tackle in which he won the ball, in which no free was given.

Have you even seen it?

theres no way he can possibly have seen it given the tripe hes writing

NukaCola

curry-muff wrote: »

Are you seriously going to claim that Reo-Coker isn't a dirty player?

Ok he may have worded it questionably but he is obviously referring to him as a dirty player and not actual 'dirt'

Took a completely different view on that post. I thought he was saying "so what if o'neil has a 50% chance of playing, he's dirt anyway"