Victims lawyer urges Celtic to set millions aside

BlueLagoonCo

Well-Known Member
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
Plenty of assumptions in that piece
 
Prediction on events taken from reddit:

I actually do work in the law and you seem to be asking in good faith, so I'll have a bash:

Intro

Might have more success here , would anybody with knowledge on the subject be able to fill me in on the validity of all this ‘tick tock court case is coming’ talk , what’s true and what’s bullshit and how this could affect the club ?

I'll assume you know the outlines of the Celtic Boys Club child abuse scandal: In short, a paedophile ring at a Celtic-affiliated youth club abused children for decades. Some Celtic FC staff probably knew or ought to have known that this was happening.

Personal Injuries Claims

tick tock court case is coming’ talk

Patrick McGuire, a solicitor with Thompsons, is acting for at least 20 men who allege that they were abused by staff at Celtic Boys Club.

The Scottish Parliament recently passed the Limitation (Childhood Abuse) (Scotland) Act 2017, which abolished the Scottish law of limitation for childhood abuse cases. Previously, survivors of childhood abuse had to launch their cases within 3 years of turning 18. Now, however, anybody abused after 26 September 1964 may sue for personal injury. This is important, because the "current" Celtic Boys Club scandal is essentially the same scandal as was revealed in the 1990s when Torbett was prosecuted for the first time - but this time, as attitudes towards male survivors of sexual abuse change, more survivors have had the courage to come forward. Parliament's move has also opened up - for the first time - the prospect of these men receiving just compensation for what they were subjected to.

So far as I know, legal proceedings haven't actually begun yet - even if they do, cases of childhood abuse are generally heard confidentially. Thompsons are most likely waiting until the police investigation is over. There may be other PI firms involved, like Digby Brown or Slater Gordon, but Thompsons have been the most visible.

Celtic and Survivors' Positions

Celtic's position is outlined in their infamous statement of 7th November last year:

Although Celtic Football Club is an entirely separate organisation, we have always taken these allegations extremely seriously because of our historic contacts with Celtic Boys’ Club. All investigations by the police and other inquiries were given our full support. (emphasis mine)

Generally speaking, organisations cannot be sued for the actions of other organisations. Celtic FC is - legally - correct to say that Celtic Boys Club was never part of Celtic FC. It was a private youth football club given permission to use the Celtic name and crest by Kevin Kelly.

However, Celtic Boys Club had close links with Celtic FC - they shared the Barrowfield training ground, Celtic highheidyins attended CBC functions, Celtic directors gave money to CBC directors, it was a funnel club for the Celtic first team, and - allegedly - Celtic lawyers became involved when the abuse allegations first came to light and Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC upon hearing rumours of his crimes (although the Kellys let him back in after Stein's death). The survivors state that Celtic FC effectively controlled the Boys Club and that Celtic FC staff a) knew (or ought to have known) what was happening b) could have done something to stop it, and c) didn't do so.

Suing Celtic

The law says that companies are "jointly and severally liable" for the actions of their employees in the course of their employment. What that means is that, where an employee of a company causes injury, the injured person can sue the company, the employee, or both. So, if you get run down by a DHL van, rather than being limited to suing the driver (who won't have enough assets to cover the cost of your injuries) you can instead sue DHL (who will).

what’s true and what’s bullshit

Personally, I don't want to make sweeping proclamations before everything is tested in a court case, and most of the websites talking about this are pretty dubious-looking Rangers fansites (whose motives I don't trust). I also just don't like reading about child abuse. We know, of course, that ex-CBC staff have been convicted of various offences (if not the gory details, which are rightly kept private). We know as well that Hugh Birt testified Jock Stein removed Torbett from CBC but didn't inform the police. We also know that Kevin Kelly was in business with Torbett during the period he was abusing, but Kelly maintains he didn't know.

What the survivors need to prove, essentially, is this:-

A) They were abused at Celtic Boys Club.

B) Staff working for Celtic FC either abused them or knew it was taking place.

C) Those Celtic staff did not tell anyone -or-

D) Those Celtic staff did tell someone higher up at Celtic.

E) Having become aware that children were being abused at CBC, Celtic -or- their staff took no action (or at least took no action that was effective.)

F) If Celtic had taken action, their abuse could have been stopped.

G) Their abuse continued after Celtic staff knew it was occurring and should have taken action to stop it.

The civil standard of proof is "more likely than not".

Financial Consequences for Celtic

how this could affect the club ?

It depends, but Celtic aren't about to get liquidated over this. There is no "tick-tock".

Unlike in the United States, Scots law does not have punitive damages. In other words, damages in Scotland are designed to compensate the victim, not to punish the wrongdoer. So the big seven/eight figure damages awards you read about in American cases like this one (Sandusky's victims received over $100m) aren't going to happen. One benchmark would be the recent case of Ian Samson, a beast who abused children at a Kirk home in Edinburgh. The Kirk agreed to pay £500,000 to one girl who was made pregnant by him and £250,000 each to her siblings. However, that was a private settlement between the Kirk and the victims - courts would likely have been less generous. The family of a man who died of mesothelioma recently received £340,000. Assuming all 20 of Thompsons' clients were to be awarded £500,000 (which they won't be) and their legal fees, Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

In reality, of course, not all the victims of the CBC paedophiles will have been as horrifically abused as Mr Samson's victims were, and Celtic may well win if this is taken to court. So the actual financial effect on Celtic will be much lower and may be as little as the cost of fighting the court cases, which I would imagine would come to around £1.5m at most.

All of this, of course, assumes that Celtic aren't insured for these claims - I suspect that they are, and that their insurers are the ones who have decided not to accept liability If Celtic are insured, then the only direct cost to them will be higher premiums going forward.

What happens next?

The criminal cases against ex-CBC staff will end. Then Thompsons will raise their claims.

I predict one of two things happens then:

• Celtic admit liability and enter negotiations to compensate the survivors.

• Celtic deny liability and force Thompsons to take it to court.


Once this goes to court, Celtic will say that Thompsons' pleadings are irrelevant because Celtic was not Celtic Boys Club. Thompsons will ask for a debate on that point. Thompsons will get their debate. At the debate, Celtic will argue that the case should be tossed. Thompsons will argue that the court should fix a proof (i.e, a hearing with evidence) on the issue of Celtic's connection with CBC only. At the proof, Thompsons will present evidence that Celtic controlled Celtic Boys Club. Celtic will present evidence it did not. The court will decide one way or another. If Thompsons wins, Celtic will negotiate with them to settle the cases. If Celtic wins, the action will be dismissed.

Either way, a giant humiliating trial is the last thing either Thompsons or Celtic want.
I think that’s pretty accurate. This may cost Celtic 5-10 mil in claims but anyone who thinks this is gonna put them under or have any sporting sanctions is kidding themselves. At most it might effect there transfer budget for a year
 

BackJardine

Well-Known Member
BJ. It's a little unclear who the author of this piece is.Are these your words or those of somebody on Reddit.It would be helpful to know who the writer is for the sake of clarity.
I don't know him, or can't vouch for his credibility. He is answering a question in the r/scottishfootball forum. He claims to work in Law and is his opinion on how things may unfold. It sounds as if he knows what hes talking about. Punitive cost seem as if it will only occur if the Americans lawyers are able to gain traction for claims their end. Other wise it seems as though the victims are looking at about £75k each. Which is shocking
 
I don't know him, or can't vouch for his credibility. He is answering a question in the r/scottishfootball forum. He claims to work in Law and is his opinion on how things may unfold. It sounds as if he knows what hes talking about. Punitive cost seem as if it will only occur if the Americans lawyers are able to gain traction for claims their end. Other wise it seems as though the victims are looking at about £75k each. Which is shocking
Thanks for the update/clarification.I suspected that it wasn't your piece,hence the question.Would be interesting to know if he is a neutral or fielding for them.Overall it seems a little conservative in the estimates.
 

BackJardine

Well-Known Member
Celtic would be looking at a payout in the £12.5m figure. Which would hurt, but not sink it - Celtic could have paid that entire sum last year and still make a pretax profit of £4.8m.

Once they pay out to settle a claim the real damage will be in the ongoing association with the abuse. It will have been confirmed and that should impact upon their ability to deal with sponsors and sign certain players.

Insurance ? I doubt public liability covers child abuse....especially if confidentiality agreements are exposed.
As soon as a tie between Celtic and CBC are confirmed and they
Plenty of assumptions in that piece
Absolutely. Bare in mind this is his opinions on the facts which are present currently. So th
Plenty of assumptions in that piece
Absolutely. Nobody knows for certain whats going to happen though. I think this sounds probable though.

However once they compensate they will be liable for further claims. Which given how long they allowed it to operate. Could continue span on for quite some time
 

SC81

Well-Known Member
Just read that twitter feed.

Michelle & her mum are fantastically strong women. Massive respect to them. And support in their ordeal with this mob. Dornan & Wee Burnie being roasted. Noticeable that a number of English people getting in there too.

And mad Charlie Lawson got his ten bobs worth in too.

I've copped a 48 hour twitter ban for rinsing that piece of shit Dornan.
 

1707

Well-Known Member
They really are a vile football club and to think they are being helped by a compliant mhedia is disgusting and yet they hounded us over not paying a face painter.
What a shower of Bas tards and shame on the lot of them.
 

jexx

Well-Known Member
"It's Time!"------Time to admit it Celtic, Time to take responsibility, Time to give closure and compensation to these poor souls who's childhood was destroyed by Monsters at your club.
 
Any comment yet from the filth.
They have just been found guilty of enabling the biggest paedo ring known in world football.
Surely they have something to say.
Maybe they're regretting their previous "separate entity" comment realising how uncaring it sounded and think it better to say nothing as further denial is looking more and more callous. After keeping their powder dry until the settlement outside the courtroom door a couple of lines of meek apology will be read out too little too late. They hope that's it dealt with. They move on.
 

Tagsbear

Well-Known Member
I anticipate backtracking on an unprecedented scale as politicians and media lickspittles begin to realise they’re implicated in the cover-up every bit as much as Celtic Football Club, Dornan’s just the first.
I said at the time that their ‘separate entity’ nonsense would be a major PR disaster for them, for a club usually shit hot at controlling the narrative that was a bizarre route to take. They pissed off a lot of people by telling them they didn’t ‘really’ play for Celtic.
 
Has Mark Daly read him in on all the info he has? This appears to be almost a complete 180° turn from him here.
James Doran's 180 switch here is quite something - there are 2 options here though:

1 - like you say, Mark Daly has shown him stuff so damning and undeniable that Dornan has realised he has been in the wrong and its actually grown a conscious

2 - Dornan is up to something in the background to try and save some face for him and Celtic
 
Top