Celtic face threat of multimillion pound compensation claim(The Times)

BN94 said:
I really hope so. What went on needs to be seen. 40 years they say that this was going on. An individual with no football experience started a boys club. Who put him there?
Click to expand...
A point I've often made.
19/20 year old just rocking up to Celtic. I want to start a boys club and to use your name etc.

Stunk right from inception. Who was behind this? They were the leaders of the ring.
 
jweebear said:
Just wow, I'm reeling with all the new facts, and I'm on the right side of justice here. The Paedophile enablers at Celtic must be spinning. Hopefully in the not to distant future, they will be spinning in their clubs grave.
Click to expand...

Hope you're right mate.

The following two quotes are from the Celtic side of the debate. The first one is from a Lawyer - and poses the question that really matters.

1." The central question is whether, as a matter of law, Celtic FC is liable for the criminal behaviour of employees/agents of Celtic Boys Club against children to whom Celtic Boys Club owed a duty of care."

2." It's important that a court rules on whether Celtic Boys Club was indeed legally part of the corporate entity that is Celtic FC Ltd as was. My information is that it was never more than an informal arrangement, the benefits of which suited both parties. I could be very wrong. If it gets that far, a court will decide and I think it should."

The team on here have done a remarkable job in producing a mountain of irrefutable evidence which establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club were joined at the hip.

However, and this is the important part, would it stand up in a court of law?

We mustn't take anything for granted.
 
I wonder where celtic got the idea of seperate entity from? could it be this perhaps.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth had claimed that, on a technicality of employment law, it could not be held vicariously responsible for child abuse because there is no formal employment relationship with their priests. They are effectively self-employed.

They took this argument all the way to the supreme court and lost.
Shameful behaviour and you can clearly see the similarity between self employed and seperate entity, a tactic that they have tried and failed to use before.
 
Hurleyreyes said:
A point I've often made.
19/20 year old just rocking up to Celtic. I want to start a boys club and to use your name etc.

Stunk right from inception. Who was behind this? They were the leaders of the ring.
Click to expand...

This triggered a question with me.

What was torbets history before cbc as a child, 12-18 years, was he possibly abused and became abuser ? And if so by whom ? Some people associated with cfc ? What circles did he play in ? Did he play for a boys club, if so who ? Is this the reason he got cbc gig ?

Just another angle to look at ?
 
Last edited:
RFraserC said:
This triggered a question with me.

What was torbets history before cbc as a child, 12-18 years, was he possibly abused and became abuser ? And if so by whom ? Some people associated with cfc ? What circles did he play in ? Did he play for a boys club, if so who ? Is this the reason he got cbc gig ?

Just another angle to look at ?
Click to expand...

He always was very friendly with Kevin Kelly.
 
LenzieLoyal said:
Hope you're right mate.

The following two quotes are from the Celtic side of the debate. The first one is from a Lawyer - and poses the question that really matters.

1." The central question is whether, as a matter of law, Celtic FC is liable for the criminal behaviour of employees/agents of Celtic Boys Club against children to whom Celtic Boys Club owed a duty of care."

2." It's important that a court rules on whether Celtic Boys Club was indeed legally part of the corporate entity that is Celtic FC Ltd as was. My information is that it was never more than an informal arrangement, the benefits of which suited both parties. I could be very wrong. If it gets that far, a court will decide and I think it should."

The team on here have done a remarkable job in producing a mountain of irrefutable evidence which establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club were joined at the hip.

However, and this is the important part, would it stand up in a court of law?

We mustn't take anything for granted.
Click to expand...
Yip, but they have already paid compensation out, their Seperate Entity never stood up in court
 
LenzieLoyal said:
Hope you're right mate.

The following two quotes are from the Celtic side of the debate. The first one is from a Lawyer - and poses the question that really matters.

1." The central question is whether, as a matter of law, Celtic FC is liable for the criminal behaviour of employees/agents of Celtic Boys Club against children to whom Celtic Boys Club owed a duty of care."

2." It's important that a court rules on whether Celtic Boys Club was indeed legally part of the corporate entity that is Celtic FC Ltd as was. My information is that it was never more than an informal arrangement, the benefits of which suited both parties. I could be very wrong. If it gets that far, a court will decide and I think it should."

The team on here have done a remarkable job in producing a mountain of irrefutable evidence which establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club were joined at the hip.

However, and this is the important part, would it stand up in a court of law?

We mustn't take anything for granted.
Click to expand...

That of course is the crucial point. Moral responsibility or duty ain't enough. It has to be proved that they were not separate legal entities.

It is helpful, however, that due to the cases being civil rather than criminal, the burden of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt, but merely satisfaction of the balance of probability.
 
The Ranger said:
What I don't get with separate entity fan's, is they thought it was ok to try and destroy us over a legal tax case. But we have not to mention the atrocities their club have covered up for decades. Just doesn't add up
Click to expand...
You would think a club with a history such as theirs would keep the head down and not rock the boat, rather than trying to take the moral high ground. Too late now and hopefully their greenhouse will be blown into sand.
 
jweebear said:
Yip, but they have already paid compensation out, their Seperate Entity never stood up in court
Click to expand...

McCafferty was the kit man for the official Celtic youth team as well as a coach at the Boys Club. I think the pursuer in the case you mention was abused at the youth club.

Celtic can admit liability without affecting the separate entity defence to the Boys Club abuse.
 
BN94 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1277216954609274883
Click to expand...







The same telephone number appears in this article from the Herald in 1990 regarding tickets for a testimonial dinner / auction for their youth player Steve Murray . The other number belongs to Tony McGuinness CBC chairman .




ROY AITKEN, transferred only last week to Newcastle United, will be

back among Celtic connections on Sunday when he attends a special dinner

in the Albany Hotel, Glasgow. Aitken, along with other former Celts Mark

McGhee and Tommy Burns, will turn out to honour former young team-mate

Steve Murray, who had to give up the game, because of a bad knee injury.

The dinner is the culmination of a testimonial for the youngster, who

played for Scotland at under-21 level. Among items up for auction will

be the jersey Jacki Dziekanowski wore for Poland against England, and

Ray Houghton's Republic of Ireland jersey he wore in that country's

final World Cup qualifier. Only a few tickets remain for the event and

can be had by telephoning 041 647 9749/0430 or 041 632 5221.
 
LenzieLoyal said:
Hope you're right mate.

The following two quotes are from the Celtic side of the debate. The first one is from a Lawyer - and poses the question that really matters.

1." The central question is whether, as a matter of law, Celtic FC is liable for the criminal behaviour of employees/agents of Celtic Boys Club against children to whom Celtic Boys Club owed a duty of care."

2." It's important that a court rules on whether Celtic Boys Club was indeed legally part of the corporate entity that is Celtic FC Ltd as was. My information is that it was never more than an informal arrangement, the benefits of which suited both parties. I could be very wrong. If it gets that far, a court will decide and I think it should."

The team on here have done a remarkable job in producing a mountain of irrefutable evidence which establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club were joined at the hip.

However, and this is the important part, would it stand up in a court of law?

We mustn't take anything for granted.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of the matter. Everyone And their dog knows CBC was part of CFC. All the evidence unearthed shows that effectively they were the same and understood by everyone to be the the same. Morally CFC are obviously responsible. My fear is they may be able to wriggle out of it because of a technicality. Is there something like a legal document that needs to exist which ties them together. Or if it doesn’t exist, is all the proof unearthed here enough to make CFC responsible. I seem to remember from the Thomson pieces on telly there was soon to be a change in the law which would make CFC more liable. They will always be morally tarnished but I just hope in law the separate entity nonsense will be disproved.
 
LenzieLoyal said:
Hope you're right mate.

The following two quotes are from the Celtic side of the debate. The first one is from a Lawyer - and poses the question that really matters.

1." The central question is whether, as a matter of law, Celtic FC is liable for the criminal behaviour of employees/agents of Celtic Boys Club against children to whom Celtic Boys Club owed a duty of care."

2." It's important that a court rules on whether Celtic Boys Club was indeed legally part of the corporate entity that is Celtic FC Ltd as was. My information is that it was never more than an informal arrangement, the benefits of which suited both parties. I could be very wrong. If it gets that far, a court will decide and I think it should."

The team on here have done a remarkable job in producing a mountain of irrefutable evidence which establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club were joined at the hip.

However, and this is the important part, would it stand up in a court of law?

We mustn't take anything for granted.
Click to expand...
As this thread has done an outstanding job in proving, the answer to question 2 is that they are, indeed, the same entity.

And that makes question one redundant.
 
Speminalium8 said:
This is the crux of the matter. Everyone And their dog knows CBC was part of CFC. All the evidence unearthed shows that effectively they were the same and understood by everyone to be the the same. Morally CFC are obviously responsible. My fear is they may be able to wriggle out of it because of a technicality. Is there something like a legal document that needs to exist which ties them together. Or if it doesn’t exist, is all the proof unearthed here enough to make CFC responsible. I seem to remember from the Thomson pieces on telly there was soon to be a change in the law which would make CFC more liable. They will always be morally tarnished but I just hope in law the separate entity nonsense will be disproved.
Click to expand...

Good post mate.
 
StaunchyAF said:
As this thread has done an outstanding job in proving, the answer to question 2 is that they are, indeed, the same entity.

And that makes question one redundant.
Click to expand...

The team on here deserve immense credit for unearthing some amazing evidence linking Celtic & Celtic Boys' Club.

But only in a court of law can it be decided if it's enough to prove that they are one and the same.
 
Speminalium8 said:
This is the crux of the matter. Everyone And their dog knows CBC was part of CFC. All the evidence unearthed shows that effectively they were the same and understood by everyone to be the the same. Morally CFC are obviously responsible. My fear is they may be able to wriggle out of it because of a technicality. Is there something like a legal document that needs to exist which ties them together. Or if it doesn’t exist, is all the proof unearthed here enough to make CFC responsible. I seem to remember from the Thomson pieces on telly there was soon to be a change in the law which would make CFC more liable. They will always be morally tarnished but I just hope in law the separate entity nonsense will be disproved.
Click to expand...
The obvious weak point in celtic's defence is their Seperate Entity lie, especially in a civil court where the burden of proof is less stricter. I think is down to the probabilities of the CBC being more than affiliated than not. Add in the new law that Celtic gained materially from the connections, also the clear evidence highlighted today. Thompson Solicitors will want this first and most important ruling on CBC was part of the club, then the floodgates open, Seperate Entity is where I would aim all my armoury at.
 
Baz the viking said:
I wonder where celtic got the idea of seperate entity from? could it be this perhaps.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth had claimed that, on a technicality of employment law, it could not be held vicariously responsible for child abuse because there is no formal employment relationship with their priests. They are effectively self-employed.

They took this argument all the way to the supreme court and lost.
Shameful behaviour and you can clearly see the similarity between self employed and seperate entity, a tactic that they have tried and failed to use before.
Click to expand...
Baz I wouldn’t put it past the monkey bastards, I done an Army Diving course at Nelson gunwharf in the 90s and loved Pompey. Felt out of place as a Para in a Bootneck/ Naval posting but had a great time.
 
Is separate entity even a viable defence? Let's say that it's accepted that they are indeed separate. Does the undeniable facts that numerous celtic employees, players and directors knew what was happening and done nothing to stop it, indeed, in some cases facilitated it, not mean that they had a duty of care and are liable anyway?
What sort of a defence is "we knew boys were being abused but technically it wasn't us, so we let it go for 50 years because, you know, the quality street kids and that."
 
Lewis Caw said:
The same telephone number appears in this article from the Herald in 1990 regarding tickets for a testimonial dinner / auction for their youth player Steve Murray . The other number belongs to Tony McGuinness CBC chairman .




ROY AITKEN, transferred only last week to Newcastle United, will be

back among Celtic connections on Sunday when he attends a special dinner

in the Albany Hotel, Glasgow. Aitken, along with other former Celts Mark

McGhee and Tommy Burns, will turn out to honour former young team-mate

Steve Murray, who had to give up the game, because of a bad knee injury.

The dinner is the culmination of a testimonial for the youngster, who

played for Scotland at under-21 level. Among items up for auction will

be the jersey Jacki Dziekanowski wore for Poland against England, and

Ray Houghton's Republic of Ireland jersey he wore in that country's

final World Cup qualifier. Only a few tickets remain for the event and

can be had by telephoning 041 647 9749/0430 or 041 632 5221.
Click to expand...
That seems like a smoking gun to me. Is it known where that number was located? If it’s inside the piggery it’s game, set, and match
 
tottie beck said:
That seems like a smoking gun to me. Is it known where that number was located? If it’s inside the piggery it’s game, set, and match
Click to expand...
Don’t agree. A testimonial committee is set up as a separate entity from a club. This is to prevent the money from the testimonial being treated as regular income from playing football and the tax implications thereof. It is an indication of how close they were, but close doesn’t mean same. You’ll see all sorts of disclaimers on an programs etc for testimonials.
 
Brother Crockett said:
Don’t agree. A testimonial committee is set up as a separate entity from a club. This is to prevent the money from the testimonial being treated as regular income from playing football and the tax implications thereof. It is an indication of how close they were, but close doesn’t mean same. You’ll see all sorts of disclaimers on an programs etc for testimonials.
Click to expand...
That may be true but surely it shows a tangible link between the boys club and senior players at celtic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top