Celtic are poised to pay multimillion-pound damages within months after agreeing to settle legal claims over systematic child abuse

Celtic saving £1,000,000 in 1982 by being able to take boys from a "supposed separate entity" straight into first team.

Screenshot-20240410-214132-Chrome.jpg
 
A full independent inquiry is essential. Who wanted the boys club and why did they choose Torbett. Answers can prevent it happening again.

The SFA headhunted a Celtic supporter with links to Celtic employed predators to carry out their review that was used to airbrush 9 predators and normalise the lie that their boys club was a “separate entity”

Any authority that stoops to that level to help cover up decades of this type of crime to help a member club, can’t be trusted to be impartial when it comes to other clubs.

It’s not about “point scoring” or whatever else they come out with to trivialise this. It’s about corruption and sporting integrity.
 
Moreloslaces said:
maybe if you read a couple of articles about sporting institutions & insurance you'd maybe not look so stupid.

just 1 example from 1 page.

Examples of organisations that can be pursued include:

  • Religious organisations
  • Charitable organisations
  • Local authorities
  • Care homes
  • Schools
  • Community groups e.g. The Scout Association
  • Ministry of Defence
Most employers and organisations have insurance which means that if you are successful, compensation will be paid by their insurance company.

Compensation for child abuse | historic child abuse

Advice and first steps for anyone seeking compensation for child abuse.
www.emmottsnell.co.uk www.emmottsnell.co.uk

There's plenty more articles that you could clue yourself up on. just takes a wee search and some actual reading.
Click to expand...
If only you knew mate. If only you knew
 
spotlight said:
Every time we play this evil organisation I hope we have a banner on display for them “Paedophile Cover Up !”
Would happily pay towards the lads funding one.
They should forever be reminded about this, they are trying to make it go away with hush money.
Evil.
Click to expand...
Tennis balls thrown on the pitch from behind a banner at every single game until there’s a full independent inquiry.
 
Celtic and their fans always bring up sporting integrity but surely by failing to disclose the full scale of the issues with their boys clubs for all those years, by failing to notify parents of kids either there at the time or about to sign they placed countless more kids at risk for decades.i mean would you let your kid train there if you felt there was safeguarding concerns with a number of the coaches?

For me that is undeniable given the evidence that's been made public so far and I believe celtic benefitted on the pitch due to their inaction and silence off it

I would also add they have been able to maintain long term contracts and lucrative deals with major sponsors who most likely would not have got on board had they realised what was happening in their youth ranks and how celtic were managing such an issue.

Where is their sporting integrity? That is why authorities need to be punishing them. The compensation to victims Is the very least of what should be happening here
 
Last edited:
Govanfrnt said:
Celtic fans always bring up sporting integrity but by failing to disclose the full scale of the issues with their boys clubs for all those years, by failing to notify parents of kids either there at the time or about to sign they placed countless more kids at risk for decades. For me that is undeniable given the evidence that's been made public so far and I believe celtic benefitted on the pitch due to their inaction and silence off it

I would also add they have been able to maintain long term contracts and lucrative deals with major sponsors who most likely would not have got on board had they realised what was happening in their youth ranks and how celtic were managing such an issue.

That is why authorities need to be punishing them. The compensation to victims Is the very least of what should be happening here
Click to expand...
You are correct but we need to remember we live in republican hatefilled Scotland.
 
All get from Tim’s online is ach your lot were just as bad and you sent the victims to deal with oldco.

Just utter nonsense from them but it’s seems to be their coping mechanism and it absolves Celtic of decades of abuse.

Honestly see if we had done something as bad as that lot I’d want a public enquiry, I’d want my club to put its hands up and deal with the victims. I’d want my club to ensure that this could never happen again. How come that lot couldn’t give a shit what went on?
 
CrocodileDundee said:
All get from Tim’s online is ach your lot were just as bad and you sent the victims to deal with oldco.

Just utter nonsense from them but it’s seems to be their coping mechanism and it absolves Celtic of decades of abuse.

Honestly see if we had done something as bad as that lot I’d want a public enquiry, I’d want my club to put its hands up and deal with the victims. I’d want my club to ensure that this could never happen again. How come that lot couldn’t give a shit what went on?
Click to expand...
Because its ingrained in them.
 
Paying out millions for something they said had nothing to do with them. I wonder who is financing them
 
Seriously wondering what kind of insurer people think would take on the risk of this kind of policy they think Celtic seems to have.

Celtic: "We need cover for something that didn't happen which involves a separate entity which is nothing to do with us. There may be claims against our business but it didn't happen and is nothing to do with this legal entity anyway. Insurance plz??"
 
Jaws2 said:
I'm not convinced you can insure against child abuse.

Maybe I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
In short every football club operating( at conception) needs to have Professional Liability Insurance to protect themselves against acts of negligence or wrongdoing by employees.
This would cover criminal acts.
Remember at this moment Celtic and insurance have admitted nada.

What seems to be emerging is that after the board/management at Celtic became aware of malpractice/child abuse they should have acted.
I would assume notify Police and get rid of individuals involved in this.
Celtic certainly did not comply with this as we understand police not involved and even if did their business relationship with abusers continued even if there was a gap.
Their insurance company would use that as a reason to invalidate their insurance policy.
Whether the insurance would cover any of the claim is unclear.

That’s my summation.
I stand open to correction.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
So much talk about insurance.

Let's not forget that the most important thing here is that the victims get justice, an apology, an acknowledgement of guilt and, yes, compensation. They will not care what the source of the compensation is, and nor should they. For many it will the least important aspect of all of this.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of people are getting hopeful that this will severely damage their finances and image, but as you say, the most important thing is the crimes being highlighted, the truth coming out and the victims getting the justice they need and deserve.
 
Anyone thinks they will launch an independent enquiry is deluded! Victims will be paid up to shut up and disappear. Look at how the public enquiry into Jimmy Saville is progressing. No appetite for this thing in UK politics.

FYI Insurance paying for this is pretty common place. Glasgow City Council has had multiple claims against them throught the years, and the insurance has always covered it. This I was told by a solicitor employed directly by GCC for historic abuse claims. No idea if the scum had or have the same cover.
 
Syme said:
Anyone thinks they will launch an independent enquiry is deluded! Victims will be paid up to shut up and disappear. Look at how the public enquiry into Jimmy Saville is progressing. No appetite for this thing in UK politics.

FYI Insurance paying for this is pretty common place. Glasgow City Council has had multiple claims against them throught the years, and the insurance has always covered it. This I was told by a solicitor employed directly by GCC for historic abuse claims. No idea if the scum had or have the same cover.
Click to expand...

I think there is a big difference between insuring against what an employee does and what the directors of the business does.

So a big business like Tesco probably has an insurance cover that would pay out if an employee randomly attacks a customer. Might depend on a sensible interview, assessment and vetting process. But if the directors don't put in the right controls, or actively hire someone they knew was likely to do something that causes damage or covers up then I think it's a totally different matter.

So if one employee carries out a crime and nobody else in the organisation finds out then I think insurance will pay.

But where others are aware and the directors are aware and they actively re-hire an offender and are part of a cover up..... it's hard to see that the insurance would have to pay out. Their contract should protect them from that.
 
Not if insurers can prove that Celtic were aware of abuse and chose to do nothing to prevent it continuing. The annual insurance renewal form would require Celtic to inform the insurer of any known events. There is plenty of evidence that Celtic football club were well aware and did nothing to stop abuse continuing for over 20 years.
 
Chillybear said:
I think there is a big difference between insuring against what an employee does and what the directors of the business does.

So a big business like Tesco probably has an insurance cover that would pay out if an employee randomly attacks a customer. Might depend on a sensible interview, assessment and vetting process. But if the directors don't put in the right controls, or actively hire someone they knew was likely to do something that causes damage or covers up then I think it's a totally different matter.

So if one employee carries out a crime and nobody else in the organisation finds out then I think insurance will pay.

But where others are aware and the directors are aware and they actively re-hire an offender and are part of a cover up..... it's hard to see that the insurance would have to pay out. Their contract should protect them from that.
Click to expand...
We don't know what would be in that contract, so anything else is conjecture at this point. The only certainty would be the insurance company trying not to pay out money.

I'd also throw out what the optics of paying out on that would be?

However, consider this. There are many laws suits over here over workplaces who had asbestos, polluted water etc. The adverts for joining in the Class Action state " This is not suing your old employer" there are so many folks who still have loyalty to their former place of employment. The inference would be some type of claim on Workers Compensation Insurance.

So a narrative that "you are not taking money from Celtic" may actually have more victims come forward. Their love (indoctrination) of Celtic may indeed be a factor in them not stepping out from the shadows. Maybe even coercion from those who would have them keep quiet "fur the Sellick tae buy new playurz"
 
Brother Crockett said:
We don't know what would be in that contract, so anything else is conjecture at this point. The only certainty would be the insurance company trying not to pay out money.

I'd also throw out what the optics of paying out on that would be?

However, consider this. There are many laws suits over here over workplaces who had asbestos, polluted water etc. The adverts for joining in the Class Action state " This is not suing your old employer" there are so many folks who still have loyalty to their former place of employment. The inference would be some type of claim on Workers Compensation Insurance.

So a narrative that "you are not taking money from Celtic" may actually have more victims come forward. Their love (indoctrination) of Celtic may indeed be a factor in them not stepping out from the shadows. Maybe even coercion from those who would have them keep quiet "fur the Sellick tae buy new playurz"
Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't explain too well. I'm not an expert. I think it's clear that a company or sports club should be able to insure against one individual doing something wrong. I also think it's clear that a company shouldn't be able to insure against deliberately breaking the law or enabling it or being negligent.

There were a lot of incidents. Maybe some are covered. Given the level of enablement and knowledge by Celtic management and directors I suspect a lot is not covered.

Insurance companies are careful with their money but where a claim is justified it is in everyone's interest that they pay out and quickly. In this case an insurance company paying out quickly would just be positive to the victims and also to future customers who want an insurance to pay out quickly when required. It may also be in their interest to pay out to a victim and then sue Celtic for the money. That would have great "optics" through helping the victim and pursuing the perpetrator.

I think you make an interesting point about pressure being put on people not to damage Celtic. It basically adds insult to their injury. That's why the government and media silence on this is so outrageous. The more people understand that Celtic is an evil organisation that should be punished and sued, the better.
 
Battle Fever's On said:
What kind of insurance company pays out when their client won't admit guilt?.
Why do we have to pay? you've said this is nothing to do with you!
Click to expand...

Well if they are guilty it doesn't matter what they say. Then the insurance company should pay out and sue their client to recover the costs.
 
Battle Fever's On said:
But if the court case doesn't carry on because they agree settlement payments then there will be no guilty verdict, that's why I can't understand those who say insurance will cover it.
Click to expand...

I think I'm making my points very badly! :D

My first point is about what is covered and what isn't. I'll bump up a post from a member who knows this area better than me!

My second point was about insurance companies being difficult about payment. And this point is just that they will actively pay when their liability is clear. So if the insurance company is liable for something and it is either proven in court or in a private negotiation then I think the insurance company will pay out. If they don't think they are liable then they will fight all the way.

Aside from my theories about how insurance works I just think that with the Celtic case several people knew and enabled what happened. I therefore think most of what happened will definitely not be covered by insurance. I think Celtic is such a scummy organisation that they will deflect and fight and try to reduce their liability.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
The insurance thing should not be a factor. Employers are covered for the actions of employees, but only if they act immediately, mitigate costs and ensure that the correct procedures are followed. At the most the scum will be able to claim for the first incidence they became aware of, with all further incidences falling foul of their failure to mitigate. Re-hiring a known child molester will make it difficult to prove to their insurer that they took all reasonable steps to prevent further loss.
Click to expand...

I'm bumping this because Northampton_Loyalist explains this way better than I could!
 
Le Big Bear Bum said:
Are you sure about that?

I'd be very surprised if you can find that word in your PL policy.
Click to expand...
Obviously not that wording.
All major companies have it and professional football clubs have Public Liability Insurance in place as a matter of course.
It’s directly in place to provide insurance against them having direct responsibility of malpractice of employees.
As a hypothetical example Jimmy the train driver is driving the train which ends up in an accident and results in injuries to passengers.
Maybe Jimmy had been on the piss before driving the train.
Scotrail get sued and pass on the claim to their insurer.
They don’t personally pay out the passenger for injuries but pass to insurer for settlement.
That’s why they pay for insurance against instances of this nature.

In the case of the paedos they would pass on the claim to insurers hence the separate entity defence agreed with insurer.
However Celtic are in an invidious position as the insurer is gonna say.
Were you aware of this abuse against children?
When you became aware what steps did you take to prevent recurrence?
Did you notify police of abuse of children?
Did you immediately sack all the perpetrators?
The perpetrators that you took action against have you had any further dealings with them?

The insurer finds out no police involvement and such and such was sacked but re employed a couple of years later and the club continued to have business relationships with some of the perpetrators for years like Trophy Centre.
Insurers say we’re not paying that claim and your policy is invalid as you did not take reasonable steps to prevent abuse.
The insurance also says take us to court if you don’t agree.
Celtic won’t because they don’t want the murky details graphically outlined in public.

In conjunction with this to prevent public scrutiny they are trying to settle the claim with victims without admitting liability and thus avoiding more public scrutiny.
Brand Celtic must be protected and try and achieve settlement at minimum cost.
The victims we don’t care.

That’s my opinion and I could be completely wide of the mark.
 
AZBlue said:
Who would be the senior SNP official he mentioned?
Click to expand...
To be honest it's the first time I've even heard of an SNP person (and from what he said of i am corrct he said he is still with the SNP) being linked to thus abuse scandal.
Im not sure who this guy is or how relianle he is but he said he wasn't going to name him but I'm sure if there is anything in this it will come out.
 
Grumpy Old Git said:
Obviously not that wording.
All major companies have it and professional football clubs have Public Liability Insurance in place as a matter of course.
It’s directly in place to provide insurance against them having direct responsibility of malpractice of employees.
As a hypothetical example Jimmy the train driver is driving the train which ends up in an accident and results in injuries to passengers.
Maybe Jimmy had been on the piss before driving the train.
Scotrail get sued and pass on the claim to their insurer.
They don’t personally pay out the passenger for injuries but pass to insurer for settlement.
That’s why they pay for insurance against instances of this nature.

In the case of the paedos they would pass on the claim to insurers hence the separate entity defence agreed with insurer.
However Celtic are in an invidious position as the insurer is gonna say.
Were you aware of this abuse against children?
When you became aware what steps did you take to prevent recurrence?
Did you notify police of abuse of children?
Did you immediately sack all the perpetrators?
The perpetrators that you took action against have you had any further dealings with them?

The insurer finds out no police involvement and such and such was sacked but re employed a couple of years later and the club continued to have business relationships with some of the perpetrators for years like Trophy Centre.
Insurers say we’re not paying that claim and your policy is invalid as you did not take reasonable steps to prevent abuse.
The insurance also says take us to court if you don’t agree.
Celtic won’t because they don’t want the murky details graphically outlined in public.

In conjunction with this to prevent public scrutiny they are trying to settle the claim with victims without admitting liability and thus avoiding more public scrutiny.
Brand Celtic must be protected and try and achieve settlement at minimum cost.
The victims we don’t care.

That’s my opinion and I could be completely wide of the mark.
Click to expand...
Your example is not exactly comparable.

1) Jimmy is legally binded to his employer and therefore also to his employer's PL insurance. CFC have claimed publicly that they had no legal bind to CBC. Do they really expect their insurer to suddenly go along with an eleventh hour change in tune, at a cost of £millions?

2) I doubt Jimmy's victims waited 30+ years to get their claims in. This creates various issues, not only with claims (retroactive dates) but also what is covered and was covered (highly likely with different insurers over different periods), which also would have involved declaring to insurers what was known and reported, which would be a necessity to both additional extended cover (ie. for abuse) as well as to any claims for abuse. Bearing in mind CFC have repeatedly over decades and up until recently denied both wrongdoing and culpability. (On that note - any word yet on those findings from your internal enquiry from 5 years ago, Mr "separate entity" Lawwell?).
 
THEGOVANFRONT said:
To be honest it's the first time I've even heard of an SNP person (and from what he said of i am corrct he said he is still with the SNP) being linked to thus abuse scandal.
Im not sure who this guy is or how relianle he is but he said he wasn't going to name him but I'm sure if there is anything in this it will come out.
Click to expand...
That guy is always saying he won't name this one or that one. Is he a fraud?
 
jf1960 said:
I do think Lawyers fees will go into 7 figures don't you.
Years of working on this at x pounds per hour
Ffs they charge about £2k a letter for custody battles
Click to expand...
The Post Office was ordered to pay £57.5Million compensation to the 500 Sub-Postmasters in 2019. But it was largely swallowed up by the legal fees involved. Any settlement should involve compensation for the victims and a separate award to cover the legal costs incurred by the complainants.
 
Le Big Bear Bum said:
Your example is not exactly comparable.

1) Jimmy is legally binded to his employer and therefore also to his employer's PL insurance. CFC have claimed publicly that they had no legal bind to CBC. Do they really expect their insurer to suddenly go along with an eleventh hour change in tune, at a cost of £millions?

2) I doubt Jimmy's victims waited 30+ years to get their claims in. This creates various issues, not only with claims (retroactive dates) but also what is covered and was covered (highly likely with different insurers over different periods), which also would have involved declaring to insurers what was known and reported, which would be a necessity to both additional extended cover (ie. for abuse) as well as to any claims for abuse. Bearing in mind CFC have repeatedly over decades and up until recently denied both wrongdoing and culpability. (On that note - any word yet on those findings from your internal enquiry from 5 years ago, Mr "separate entity" Lawwell?).
Click to expand...
The point about Jimmy is fairly simple in that I was trying to convey (probably badly) that football clubs carry insurance to protect themselves against acts of negligence or even criminal behaviour by employees.

This in theory would swing into place when action was threatened against Celtic FC.

However Celtic have compromised that insurance and probably invalidated it by their actions in not advising police and/or not taking effective action by removing employment from perpetrators or re-employing and continuing business relationships with perpetrators.

The insurers will repudiate claim and if Celtic FC don’t like it then insurers will say take it to court.
Celtic FC won’t do that as dirty washing will be aired in public and in any event public scrutiny is exactly what they have been trying to prevent for years.

That’s my simplistic view.
 
I don’t know the ins and outs of the insurance industry but if those manky paedo enabling cnuts on the board at celtic have been claiming the boys club are a”separate entity” then why would an insurance company pay out for them on that basis?
 
Why are we all getting hung up on who will pay the victims? Is it because we hope it's loads of money so that it weakens their ability to buy players?
This to me is irrelevant when the bigger issue is that a sporting "institution" aided and abetted the systematic abuse of young kids. Money shouldn't matter. The club should be hounded out of professional football and the scandal is that nothing will be done by either the footballing authorities or the government.
Our fans should refer to them only as Pedo FC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top