Yeah read about this last week. Basically the medical team were negligent but this cash ain't to line their pockets but for his care. Sad that Spurs dragged this through court but that's business I guess.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Spurs didn't drag this through the courts you prat Hoody. Stop trying to score cheap points off what is a very sad case. This is a matter for insurers and their liabilities in the case. Spurs have always stood by the boy. The really sad part is he had to wait several minutes for oxygen following the heart attack in an away game in Belgium.

It didn't have to go to court.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Go away

Really. You go prove me wrong then because I read that they denied culpability.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/radwan-hamed-tottenham-hotspur-denies-5105970

There are loads others. Just google Spurs deny culpability Radwan Hamed.

I accept apologies in cash and

Pr!ck.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

All very sad.....but seems that the outcome will be the right one.

No-one meant any of this did they at the end of the day. Hopefully he can et some top notch care and take some burden off his folks now.

I remember Rad quiet boy but really nice. I had no idea about brain damage I thought he was playing non league football somewhere. I am sure I see him in 2009 but I would hate to speculate on his condition now.

You know it Is just football for god sake you think all of the millions of pounds about and we cannot even look after the people playing. Always enough money for the prawn sandwiches and champagne in the boxes though.

The club have paid for his care ever since and rightly keep it quiet. Now it is out there though lets use this terrible experience to highlight funding at youth levels for a bigger medical team and a more coaches so the boys are looked after better. What is £2 million pounds to a club if it stops other families going through this?

Wise words LLM.

Still Spurs knew about the dodgy results and said nothing or call for further tests either. And also denied culpability thereafter. Still better late than never and this is good news.

Sad for the young lad, no need to have any digs at Spurs, I am sure that most clubs operate in a similar way and unfortunately it takes incidents like this to move things forward. Sad for a young life, hopefully he can enjoy a measure of comfort and treatment.

Paxton - you raised a point, I don't think his family actually did know, I think the doctor seemed to tell the club/FA but it doesn't mention his family knowing. They would also presumably rely on someone telling them that the anomaly should be followed up if it wasn't presented as serious, we do seem to trust our doctors a lot.

comment by Rover the hill and far away (U7040)
posted 4 minutes ago
Sad for the young lad, no need to have any digs at Spurs, I am sure that most clubs operate in a similar way and unfortunately it takes incidents like this to move things forward. Sad for a young life, hopefully he can enjoy a measure of comfort and treatment.

Paxton - you raised a point, I don't think his family actually did know, I think the doctor seemed to tell the club/FA but it doesn't mention his family knowing. They would also presumably rely on someone telling them that the anomaly should be followed up if it wasn't presented as serious, we do seem to trust our doctors a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I only mention that as I find it astounding that our medical reps wouldn't of informed both the player and his parents of their findings regardless, if this was the case and they were not informed of this information then the club has to take full liability. As LLM has stated we have been paying for all his relevant care and treatment and so we should considering the circumstances.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Levy is a right unt.

Why did this have to go through the high court, it has been 9 years of hell you put this kid and his family through.

The player and his family were not told of his condition. This was relevant to the finding of negligence. See the BBC article :

"It was their responsibility, as specialist physicians and employers, to ensure that relevant risks were identified and communicated to the claimant and his parents to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to bear them.

"In this, they singularly failed."

Also, as for taking it through the courts and initially denying liability, this might well be for two reasons:

firstly - if commercial insurance was being relied upon the insurer will have taken control of the defence of this case and insisted on denial of liability. In fact, the club most likely would have breached its terms and conditions of insurance if they had admitted liability as this would have prejudiced the Insurer's defence.

Secondly - it appears that liability was sought to be apportioned between the FA and the club. The most likely venue for this to be done is in the courts.

comment by naughton's bad tash (U13634)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Also, as for taking it through the courts and initially denying liability, this might well be for two reasons:

firstly - if commercial insurance was being relied upon the insurer will have taken control of the defence of this case and insisted on denial of liability. In fact, the club most likely would have breached its terms and conditions of insurance if they had admitted liability as this would have prejudiced the Insurer's defence.

Secondly - it appears that liability was sought to be apportioned between the FA and the club. The most likely venue for this to be done is in the courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there you have it. Well stated NBT. To accuse Spurs of dragging this through the courts was totally wrong.

Good points Naughton.
However, denying culpability guarantees that there will be court proceedings. If the intention had been to go to court to determine the apportioning of culpability then I think a denial of liability would have been pretty unnecessary in the first place. Furthermore if you look at the quotes from the court in the BBC article you can see that clearly the Defendants or Respondents were denying culpability before the court as well.
In addition to this, while I can understand denying liability at the first instances for purposes of confirmation but seven years is an unreasonably long period. It was known from the beginning that Spurs had failed to divulge the information. You have to admit that that is a bullet to the head right there. Game over. You dont need a legal expert to tell you that you are culpable in that instance. The interests of the insured carry just as much weight as those of the insurer so once this was established Spurs had the responsibility to inform their insurers as much. In any case seven years is a long time.

Last I knew Tottenham were cleared and the employed professionals were to blame.

If I recall correctly, the club was held 70% liable and the medical staff 30%?
Anyway, it was a dreadful shame that he was allowed on the pitch.