No harm in doing that but there is enough evidence out there already to dismantle Celtic's flimsy 'separate entity' nonsense.
This has been printed before, but is worth another read. It is an extract from the SFA Independent interim review. It absolutely rejects any separate entity arguement.
"Historical and current relationships between senior football clubs and grassroots clubs
3.69 Historically in Scotland, in some areas, community-based youth football clubs have come into existence, developed and grown with an identity shared with the local senior professional club. There are a few examples of this across Scotland and, in some cases, these are quite prominent.
3.70 The historical ‘value’ seems to have been that these community-based youth football clubs, in the days before football academies, acted as a prime environment for young players to practice, learn and hone their skills and, often, transition to a trial or contract with the senior club itself. Essentially, they were ‘feeder’ clubs but with a relationship that went well beyond the through-put of young talent.
3.71 In these days the ties between those community-based youth football clubs and the senior professional club were clear and strong. It was acknowledged implicitly and explicitly that the youth football club was a part of the ‘family’ of the senior club; acted as a ‘feeder’ for young talent; and shared a tradition, history and heritage with the senior club. The relationship was strongly established to the point that officials of both clubs knew each other well and interacted; officials of the senior club were often involved in the activities and profile of the youth football club; the senior club would allow the youth football club to freely use its premises and facilities; branding, badging, colours and strips were almost if not completely identical."effectively with the issues. In most cases now there are no constitutional or legal connections between youth football clubs and the local senior professional club with which it had previous formal and informal ties and allegiance. However, if the youth football club persists in using the
same branding, badging, colours, and name as the senior club then it is disingenuous to claim that all
ties and connection are severed. Indeed, the Review has considered cases where the local youth
football club still has access to (and uses) the facilities of the senior club and its stadium without
charge. This does not denote a genuine separation.
3.72 When the senior club celebrated achievements, victories and successes this was shared by the
youth football club as much as commiseration in footballing defeat.
3.73 However, the Review concludes that if the relationship and history between the youth football
club and the senior club was so shared, so close, and so inextricable on positive achievements then
when alleged sexual abuse of young players formed part of the history of one then it too formed
part of the history of the other. A shared heritage is not confined to trophies, victories and
celebration. It also extends to defeats, failures, and deficiencies.
3.74 There are many downsides to this which sometimes overshadow the positives. Perhaps the
most evident to the Review has been the extent to which, at times, the closeness of this relationship
might, in the past, have manifested in a ‘closing of ranks’ if not a collusion. This is not surprising
since any “reputational damage” to one is therefore shared by the other. This evokes a
defensiveness that in no way serves the interests or the reputation of either well in the longer term.
However, this is so often the case with knee-jerk reactions and a misplaced sense of loyalty but it is
certainly not conducive to protecting young people from harm or reducing risk.
3.75 Where the Review has found that when allegations of sexual abuse have been made concerning
the community based youth football club our expectation would have been that the senior club
(almost like a parent) would have taken steps to put this right permanently by doing the right thing.
Unfortunately, we have seen some instances where this has not been the case and the senior club’s
response has centred on protection of its reputation and standing rather than addressing the core
problem with a view to achieving a permanent solution which protected young players properly and
permanently.
3.76 Although, particularly with the advent of club football academies, these relationships have
eased off, the Review is not confident that this has been addressed sufficiently satisfactorily to dealeffectively with the issues. In most cases now there are no constitutional or legal connections
between youth football clubs and the local senior professional club with which it had previous
formal and informal ties and allegiance. However, if the youth football club persists in using the
same branding, badging, colours, and name as the senior club then it is disingenuous to claim that all
ties and connection are severed. Indeed, the Review has considered cases where the local youth
football club still has access to (and uses) the facilities of the senior club and its stadium without
charge. This does not denote a genuine separation.
3.77 Many individuals who had given the Review personal accounts of alleged sexual abuse at such
youth football clubs expressed intense dismay at senior club’s current assertions that former
connections were ended as this seems to them a thinly disguised attempt by the senior club to
distance itself from its past shared relationship and, with it, a shared accountability. The Review
entirely sympathises with this view.
3.78 The Review urges an openness and transparency about this issue on the part of the clubs
concerned so that acknowledgement and accountability are evident to all.
3.79 The Independent Review recognises that some senior clubs and community-based youth
football clubs may have taken steps to clarify their relationship over recent years.
3.80 Nevertheless, the Review concludes that this has not either gone far enough or been
completed. Issues of heritage, history and tradition are aspects of this and sometimes only act to
obstruct a move towards greater transparency and accountability across the clubs concerned.
3.81 The Review concludes that facing and resolving this serious residual issue properly and
completely will act to restore public confidence and especially that of the wider ‘family’ of the clubs
concerned for whom this is an active source of concern.
3.81 The Review believes that the leadership of the senior club should take the initiative in resolving
the residual issues arising from a close relationship between clubs where, in either, alleged sexual
abuse has been an issue. It is not enough to arrive at a constitutional and legal separation without
addressing the ‘mixed messages’ that perpetuate through continued shared name, brand, colours,
facilities and resources.
3.82 Where this continues the public perception, rightly in the view of the Review, is that the old ties
are as strong as ever and that these ties signify a deeper systemic problem which runs counter to the
protection of young people and the reduction of risk.
3.83 The Independent Review is unequivocal in its view that the protection of ‘reputation’ whether
of a club or of an individual should not and must not supersede the imperative to protect young
people from harm and to pursue a clear duty of care to individual young people and to young
people in general."
