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

Bouncy said:
We're handing them a £40 million windfall next season to cover any compensation they have to pay out, our incompetence will fund their survival and for those thinking they will go out of business, think again.
Click to expand...
USAG paid $380m for the Nassar scandal
 
Bouncy said:
We're handing them a £40 million windfall next season to cover any compensation they have to pay out, our incompetence will fund their survival and for those thinking they will go out of business, think again.
Click to expand...

We've handed them SFA as yet. What happened to 'the cry was no surrender'?

Is there a cap on liability / compensation in the UK from class action suits?

If this were in the USA, 400M wouldn't be enough to bail them out.
I don't have too much confidence that the Scottish judiciary will achieve an equitable settlement, although no amount of money will be enough to compensate for the crimes committed.
 
Bouncy said:
We're handing them a £40 million windfall next season to cover any compensation they have to pay out, our incompetence will fund their survival and for those thinking they will go out of business, think again.
Click to expand...
Said likewise earlier.
If we go for there throat now and win the league, which unfortunately we are making hard work off, between the champions money for us and potential payouts for them, we could financially have the upper hand for years to come.
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
They lost the 'evidence' they have that would seemingly cleared rhem of liability. No chance they have paperwork of who insurance was with all those years ago. Will have been shredded with all their other documents
Click to expand...
Torbett formed their Boys club in 1966, he was grooming from the get go and they knew he (and many others) were abusing kids, they let him go quietly then re-employed him, used his trophy centre company and made a pedophile a millionaire by bankrolling said company, he (Torbett) was even trusted to run/organise Tommy Burns and Sean Fallons Testimonials.

They will have no paperwork, no insurance and no policies that will cover any liabilities, that little lot above ALONE, is enough to make every insurance company not touch these court cases with a 1888 foot barge pole.
 
mountloyal said:
Mate cop yourself on ffs
A truly pathetic statement.
Click to expand...
If you can't see that glaring elephant in the room then you are very niave, they will stockpile the champions league £40 million should we give them the free hit to pocket it.
 
gazperth said:
As we know Celtic announced sometime ago that they were conducting an internal investigation into the crescendo of child abuse allegations, I’m sure it was suggested this was to take the form of an assessment from their insurers over potential liabilities and then it all went very quiet.

I have some knowledge of commercial insurance and can see a huge number of pitfalls for them in the road ahead if they are expecting their liability insurers to meet their eventual compensation bill. Firstly they’ll need to trace who their insurers at the time of the occurrences were, this may not be easy and may involve more than one insurer if they changed provider regularly. If they successfully trace the insurer at the time, they’ll then need to establish if the policy included cover for abuse claims, again will not be easy tracing the extent of what cover was provided at the time (in modern policies you’d often expect this to be a buy back extension and not provided as standard).

If they do manage to trace the insurer and find the relevant wording, I would expect unless the wording is extremely clear that abuse cover is included (extremely unlikely) that the insurer will fiercely resist any claim which Celtic try to pass to them (given the precedent they could set for future claims).
In addition if the policy at the time was on a claims made wording it would render the cover at the time useless for claims made now, there is also the prospect of aggregate limitations on value of claims.

This may have also played into Dunlop’s comments around them not getting a fair trial because they didn’t have evidence of CBC being separate, well if they don’t have valid insurance in place they may have also tried to play this card that they wouldn’t get a fair trial.

I’d imagine they will be desperate to avoid a trial and see out of court settlement as best option, avoid the legal fees and the potential PR crisis of having a highly public court-case and all that could bring out, however, out of court settlements could easily open the floodgates for many others to come forward. Eifher way, this ruling is huge and they’re in a real spot now.
Click to expand...
How can you get insurance for a separate entity?

some seem to be caught in this insurance lie.
 
I have no doubt there will be a pay off, similar to prince Andrew, no liability admitted and the case goes away.

I really feel for the victims and completely understand that's number will be put in front of them that they can't refuse, I just hope they stand strong and get the club up admit and apologize for what they ran for decades.

Then the decision is the in the hands of the spfl/sfa on the correct and proper punishment for the club.
 
Anoldranger said:
What utter rubbish
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, i'm just stating the blatantly obvious, if they win this league we are handing them £40 million on a plate, A company heading into numerous court cases with huge implications for their financial stability and security getting a 40 million pound windfall?
 
Skunkworks said:
Can you actually get an insurance policy that covers you for child abuse by your employees ?
Click to expand...

You can in the US for youth and recreational sports organisations, albeit I've only noticed it in the last few years. No idea in the UK and I wouldn't imagine it would be retroactive.

It'll also be a significant point as to the name of the insured. If it's 'Celtic Football Club', for example, then they can hardly claim separate entity.
 
Albertz Loyal said:
I have no doubt there will be a pay off, similar to prince Andrew, no liability admitted and the case goes away.

I really feel for the victims and completely understand that's number will be put in front of them that they can't refuse, I just hope they stand strong and get the club up admit and apologize for what they ran for decades.

Then the decision is the in the hands of the spfl/sfa on the correct and proper punishment for the club.
Click to expand...
can they afford to make pay off's?. with the amount of victims who may still come forward
 
DC_Bear said:
We've handed them SFA as yet. What happened to 'the cry was no surrender'?

Is there a cap on liability / compensation in the UK from class action suits?

If this were in the USA, 400M wouldn't be enough to bail them out.
I don't have too much confidence that the Scottish judiciary will achieve an equitable settlement, although no amount of money will be enough to compensate for the crimes committed.
Click to expand...
Not sure but they also have the prospect of lawsuits from the US following their infamous trip there
 
Bouncy said:
That's your opinion, i'm just stating the blatantly obvious, if they win this league we are handing them £40 million on a plate, A company heading into numerous court cases with huge implications for their financial stability and security getting a 40 million pound windfall?
Click to expand...
:shh:
 
SCG said:
It's not us thats handing it to them it is the sfa
Click to expand...
No, It is the UCL money they will get if we don’t manage to finish first.
We are handing them the compensation payouts by being inept on the football field and having signed players in the January window who have done absolutely nothing.
 
gazperth said:
As we know Celtic announced sometime ago that they were conducting an internal investigation into the crescendo of child abuse allegations, I’m sure it was suggested this was to take the form of an assessment from their insurers over potential liabilities and then it all went very quiet.

I have some knowledge of commercial insurance and can see a huge number of pitfalls for them in the road ahead if they are expecting their liability insurers to meet their eventual compensation bill. Firstly they’ll need to trace who their insurers at the time of the occurrences were, this may not be easy and may involve more than one insurer if they changed provider regularly. If they successfully trace the insurer at the time, they’ll then need to establish if the policy included cover for abuse claims, again will not be easy tracing the extent of what cover was provided at the time (in modern policies you’d often expect this to be a buy back extension and not provided as standard).

If they do manage to trace the insurer and find the relevant wording, I would expect unless the wording is extremely clear that abuse cover is included (extremely unlikely) that the insurer will fiercely resist any claim which Celtic try to pass to them (given the precedent they could set for future claims).
In addition if the policy at the time was on a claims made wording it would render the cover at the time useless for claims made now, there is also the prospect of aggregate limitations on value of claims.

This may have also played into Dunlop’s comments around them not getting a fair trial because they didn’t have evidence of CBC being separate, well if they don’t have valid insurance in place they may have also tried to play this card that they wouldn’t get a fair trial.

I’d imagine they will be desperate to avoid a trial and see out of court settlement as best option, avoid the legal fees and the potential PR crisis of having a highly public court-case and all that could bring out, however, out of court settlements could easily open the floodgates for many others to come forward. Eifher way, this ruling is huge and they’re in a real spot now.
Click to expand...
You forgot one key part; they knew about the abuse. They hired and rehired known abusers. Their insurers won’t touch this.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
You can in the US for youth and recreational sports organisations, albeit I've only noticed it in the last few years. No idea in the UK and I wouldn't imagine it would be retroactive.

It'll also be a significant point as to the name of the insured. If it's 'Celtic Football Club', for example, then they can hardly claim separate entity.
Click to expand...
Schools, institutions, clubs etc can buy cover but generally granted subject to disclosures and it wouldn‘t be retroactive before any date agreed by insurer
 
Albertz Loyal said:
I have no doubt there will be a pay off, similar to prince Andrew, no liability admitted and the case goes away.

I really feel for the victims and completely understand that's number will be put in front of them that they can't refuse, I just hope they stand strong and get the club up admit and apologize for what they ran for decades.

Then the decision is the in the hands of the spfl/sfa on the correct and proper punishment for the club.
Click to expand...
Yip the motivations of those involved in the class action will be key to what happens next, do they want their day in court or do they want to be compensated. Either way i admire their guts and resolve and hope they get some closure.
 
Bouncy said:
no but we're doing our level f*cking best to make it happen for them, 6 points ahead going into the winter break, 3 points behind , can't see out games, can't gain ground on them when they f*ck up and drop points
Click to expand...
Mate I just remember helicopter Sunday,that'll always keep me believing we can win the league until mathematically impossible.
 
Public liability insurance will cover them for the vicarious liability they incur on behalf of their employees. Cover would be traced via the ELTO system - this is how long tail claims like those for industrial deafness and asbestosis find the insurers involved. There will likely be limits to the liability cover which is nowadays £5/£10m - no idea what would apply at the time of these crimes.
 
I’d imagine they will be desperate to avoid a trial and see out of court settlement as best option, avoid the legal fees and the potential PR crisis of having a highly public court-case and all that could bring out, however, out of court settlements could easily open the floodgates for many others to come forward. Eifher way, this ruling is huge and they’re in a real spot now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can reasure you that there will be no out of court settlements.
 
You canny get insurance for failing to stop the rape of children ffs.

Do insurance companies actually cover that type of stuff? Remember they covered it up too.

Insurance companies don’t just pay out willy nilly either.
 
No amount of money will ever make this go away for the survivors but I imagine it will provide a small sense of justice. I honestly don't care where the money comes from as long as they get some level of compensation to make their lives a tiny bit better.

Most importantly, I want the evil bastards exposed, I want that club to take responsibility and admit to the survivors what they did and for them to find some sort of peace.
I want the stench of these heinous crimes to stick to them forever and for the whole world to know what they did.
I want the the word Peadophile to be intrinsically linked to the name of Celtic FC in the same way it is to the likes of Savile.

Everything else is irrelevant.
 
sonowilliam1 said:
I’d imagine they will be desperate to avoid a trial and see out of court settlement as best option, avoid the legal fees and the potential PR crisis of having a highly public court-case and all that could bring out, however, out of court settlements could easily open the floodgates for many others to come forward. Eifher way, this ruling is huge and they’re in a real spot now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can reasure you that there will be no out of court settlements.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why you believe this will be the case?
 
To address the OP's thread theme....there is not an insurance policy available anywhere in the UK which would cover a businesses unexpected financial outgoings of compensating victims of serious crimes committed 40/50 years ago by club employees. Public liability doesn't even come close. Employees liability insurance may be relevant but there is no compulsion on businesses to have this. And its quite a novel product so unlikely they had one in place so long ago. The timescales involved here as well would almost certainly be fatal in allowing CFC to recover any liabilities from insurers even if they had a current ELI policy. I'm unsure of any time limitations in place but the fact Celtic have dragged this out for so long would suggest they have no such fallback. Look at it this way. When you insure yourselves as an individual or business imagine having to ask for a clause which would cover any liabilities such as this. You'd get chased out the office in jig time!
And a final point...why do you think Celtic have been stockpiling cash for the last decade? They knew this day was coming - just not quite when.
 
Last edited:
I'll hazard a wee guess here...no such policy exists that covers child sex abuse...not then...not now...not in future.

they'll have public liability insurance and they're fucked and will need to take what justice is heading their way.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
You can in the US for youth and recreational sports organisations, albeit I've only noticed it in the last few years. No idea in the UK and I wouldn't imagine it would be retroactive.

It'll also be a significant point as to the name of the insured. If it's 'Celtic Football Club', for example, then they can hardly claim separate entity.
Click to expand...
Their claim of "separate entity" officially died on Tuesday, with the court ruling. The name of the insured will be Celtic Football Club, and I would imagine that their insurers, rather than cough up millions, either (a) will have suggested that, as some form of defence, they pursue the "separate entity" line, and now that that is closed off, will be seeking to deny their liability to pay a claim as Celtic, by their actions, eg re-hiring Torbett for one, did nothing to minimise their liability.

As another poster suggested, they "are not in a good place" - just IMHO, of course.
 
Kilpatricknick said:
To address the OP's thread theme....there is not an insurance policy available anywhere in the UK which would cover a businesses unexpected financial outgoings of compensating victims of serious crimes committed 40/50 years ago by club employees. Public liability doesn't even come close. Employees liability insurance may be relevant but there is no compulsion on businesses to have this. And its quite a novel product so unlikely they had one in place so long ago. The timescales involved here as well would almost certainly be fatal in allowing CFC to recover any liabilities from insurers even if they had a current ELI policy. I'm unsure of any time limitations in place but the fact Celtic have dragged this out for so long would suggest they have no such fallback. Look at it this way. When you insure yourselves as an individual or business imagine having to ask for a clause which would cover any liabilities such as this. You'd get chased out the office in jig time!
And a final point...why do you think Celtic have been stockpiling cash for the last decade? They knew this day was coming - just not quite when.
Click to expand...
There actually is.
You can actually buy Sexual Molestation and Abuse policies.
Not saying they have something like that or whether it would actually cover them for the cover up and apparent ‘ring’, but you can buy such protection.
It was discussed a little more in the thread from earlier today.
 
kensington blue nose said:
There actually is.
You can actually buy Sexual Molestation and Abuse policies.
Not saying they have something like that or whether it would actually cover them for the cover up and apparent ‘ring’, but you can buy such protection.
It was discussed a little more in the thread from earlier today.
Click to expand...
Problem with policies like that (despite they wouldn’t have been around in the 70’s-90’s I suspect) is that they would have very strict rules in place.

No working with children checks? Policy void

No means for anonymously reporting suspected abuse? Policy void

Not reporting alleged abuse? Policy void

Reemploying suspected abuser? Policy void

Etc etc etc
 
Watch the shitshow unfold and the pantomime routine outpouring from the usual suspects. Don't expect condemnation of the level that Goodwillie has received recently. The beasts will wriggle and wrestle, they will nevertheless ever again be able to deny the magnitude of there abuse scandal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top