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

The SFA also refusing to accept responsibility

Does anyone know if match officials were paid for their services on a Saturday afternoon / Wednesday evening back in the day and if so by whom?
Has the rules changed over the years re Umbrella membership and affiliation.
I understand Specsavers sponsor match officials today however taking the top flight as an example a match referee gets anything from £700.00 - £1000.00 depending on the Category level of the fixture plus add on 2 x assistants and a 4th official x 6 games , and add on the various fees from the other top flight League fixtures for match officials x 36 events a season no way is the Sponsor paying all that as well as admin and expenses.
So who paid the Refs back then it must have been the SFA as they can ban match officials (Mr Callaghan anyone?) with that many changes over the years anyone aware of the set up years ago?
 
The SFA also refusing to accept responsibility

To be honest I got as far as Chris McLaughlin. I’ll leave it there. I can’t recall him ever writing anything on the abuse at his beloved club. Or maybe I’ve just not read it. I usually skip it if it’s written by an apologist.
 
To be honest I got as far as Chris McLaughlin. I’ll leave it there. I can’t recall him ever writing anything on the abuse at his beloved club. Or maybe I’ve just not read it. I usually skip it if it’s written by an apologist.
It's another piece in the jigsaw.Stevenson abused hundreds of boys and I'll take an educated guess that included Tommy Burns.As you will be aware they met when Burns was a teenager playing for Eastercraigs in 1970.I believe the SFA position to date is that Stevenson was a nonce and he was their nonce but the abuse never took place at his work place , so no liability.For the record Stevenson was rarely seen without his blazer with SFA badge on it.
Another class action looming but at the door of the SFA rather than the piggery.
 
To be honest I got as far as Chris McLaughlin. I’ll leave it there. I can’t recall him ever writing anything on the abuse at his beloved club. Or maybe I’ve just not read it. I usually skip it if it’s written by an apologist.

Yep.

McLaughlin’s second article he’s written about child abuse in Scottish football.

The first one was to try to suggest that Rangers & other clubs had abuse histories at their clubs, BUT NOT CELTIC FC.

It was all the fault of CBC at The Theatre of Screams, so it was.
 
Here’s a piece of McLaughlin’s previous reporting on the issue of CSA in Scottish football.
Very interesting when you get to the last paragraph. A certain club doesn’t seem to be mentioned. Can anyone guess why?

Scottish football clubs should issue an unequivocal public apology to those who have been affected by historical child sex abuse, a report has found.

It heard personal accounts from 33 people stretching back to the 1970s.

In the majority of cases, the Scottish FA-commissioned review found no-one in the game had concrete evidence of abuse at the time.

But it said there were varying levels of suspicion that could have been acted on.

The harrowing sex abuse allegations in the report concerned team officials, scouts and coaches.

SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell said the content of the 191-page review had left him "deeply upset".

Senior clubs including Rangers, Hibernian, Motherwell and Partick Thistle were all named in the testimonies.
 
To be honest I got as far as Chris McLaughlin. I’ll leave it there. I can’t recall him ever writing anything on the abuse at his beloved club. Or maybe I’ve just not read it. I usually skip it if it’s written by an apologist.
See 100% where you are coming from @BN94 in regard to that reptile . However its important not to give the impression that we only have concern for some CSA victims and not others , irrespective of who highlights the issue.
 
See 100% where you are coming from @BN94 in regard to that reptile . However its important not to give the impression that we only have concern for some CSA victims and not others , irrespective of who highlights the issue.
I won’t go into detail on how Stevenson was brought to justice. As for McLaughlin then I stick by my previous post.
Spotlight have tried to enter into dialogue with apologist journalists in the past with no reply. We know who they all are and we also know the deflection tactics that they use.
I do understand the point you’re making. Spotlight are involved in bringing these animals to justice.
Unfortunately we can’t divulge any of this at the moment.
If selective journalism didn’t exist along with an apologist group of amateurs running the country then I could almost guarantee that this issue would be a lot further forward.
 
Just caught the end of a report on the 9.

It was about historical sex abuse in football. Unsure if it was about Celtic or other cases. Anyone catch it?
 
Here’s a piece of McLaughlin’s previous reporting on the issue of CSA in Scottish football.
Very interesting when you get to the last paragraph. A certain club doesn’t seem to be mentioned. Can anyone guess why?

Scottish football clubs should issue an unequivocal public apology to those who have been affected by historical child sex abuse, a report has found.

It heard personal accounts from 33 people stretching back to the 1970s.

In the majority of cases, the Scottish FA-commissioned review found no-one in the game had concrete evidence of abuse at the time.

But it said there were varying levels of suspicion that could have been acted on.

The harrowing sex abuse allegations in the report concerned team officials, scouts and coaches.

SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell said the content of the 191-page review had left him "deeply upset".

Senior clubs including Rangers, Hibernian, Motherwell and Partick Thistle were all named in the testimonies.
In fairness, your selective quote misses out a large part of the report which was about Celtic Boys Club.
 
In fairness, your selective quote misses out a large part of the report which was about Celtic Boys Club.
Yes. You’re right. It was about Celtic Boys Club.
It’s very difficult sometimes when it comes to an open forum to put how certain journalists choose to come in at certain times.
I get your point and accept it.
The full article is easily accessed.

4 years of our lives have been dedicated to this.
To witness a pathetic SFA review that let down so many people was heartbreaking to watch. Survivors and families relied on it. They had to. What other choice did they have?
I personally contacted Westminster a long time ago and spoke with a respected politician who is still in government. It was heartbreaking what his reply was and he was right. But I never gave up and he helped us.
I promise you personally I will show what we have done one day.
And what is still going on.
Through our experience then we know who wants to know, and we also know who doesn’t.
Spotlight will continue.
When journalists move on. We don’t.
Some claim they can’t remember and have even put that to the courts.
Some have friends in high places. Some can attempt to bury the truth.
We can only provide the truth.
I really do get your point and I respect it.
 
Here's what i expect them to pull.

Remember the name change in 1994 ????

Wouldn't go very well with their:

"One Club Since 1888" - that they actively promote

Perhaps another "Separate Entity" ploy that they'll not get away with.
 
When you read all the stuff Celtic put in their 'newspaper' about their Boys Club, like it was the greatest ever production line of upcoming youth for their club, any club in fact, it sends shivers down your spine knowing now that they knew what was going on but couldn't give a monkeys about the very fact, an operating paedophile ring within.

Big Jock eh? In the Scotland Hall of Fame as well. That statue, dearie me.

Burn that place down now and compensate the victims.
 
Yes. You’re right. It was about Celtic Boys Club.
It’s very difficult sometimes when it comes to an open forum to put how certain journalists choose to come in at certain times.
I get your point and accept it.
The full article is easily accessed.

4 years of our lives have been dedicated to this.
To witness a pathetic SFA review that let down so many people was heartbreaking to watch. Survivors and families relied on it. They had to. What other choice did they have?
I personally contacted Westminster a long time ago and spoke with a respected politician who is still in government. It was heartbreaking what his reply was and he was right. But I never gave up and he helped us.
I promise you personally I will show what we have done one day.
And what is still going on.
Through our experience then we know who wants to know, and we also know who doesn’t.
Spotlight will continue.
When journalists move on. We don’t.
Some claim they can’t remember and have even put that to the courts.
Some have friends in high places. Some can attempt to bury the truth.
We can only provide the truth.
I really do get your point and I respect it.


I have never really said must on this thread, but all the respect goes to you all of Spotlight and the fight against the bastards who have caused so much hurt against the victims.
Never give up.
 
Thing is, there is a greater tribunal that those who committed these crimes against children - and those who enabled and covered for them - cannot evade. On the Day of Judgement every wrong will be righted and every sin against children will get it’s just desert. No friends in high places, no sympathetic judges, no corrupt politicians, no bent coppers. Just these evil men before the throne of God. They may escape justice in this life but they will not in the next. May the hands of those who are pursuing that justice in the here and now be strengthened. That is right and necessary. But that will not be the final word.
 
Every manager..from Stein right through to Burns knew what was going on.

Let that sink in.

The point I always wondered (and could be wrong) is that mid 90s to 2000s you could guess some foreign managers and players knew little or nothing?

Social media was non existent. Scottish media stopped reporting on it (not that they do today mind you) and Celtic FC had stated that rumours were false (weird that they felt compelled to talk about a "separate entity").

Larsson, Petrov? What would they know? (Again, if someone knows that evidence of abuse had been presented to them when they signed, then I will retract).

Lennon - different story. Played for Celtic Boys Club, knew Bennell, currently has mental health issues. I won't go into my thoughts on him.

But any player who has signed over the last 10 years? Manager? They will all know what has went on. The news, online, any random Joe who has commented on Twitter will tell them.


And they still want to be part of that and support it?


Ange Postecoglou supports paedophilia and the cover up of child sex abuse. There is no evidence to suggest he doesn't.
 
In fairness, your selective quote misses out a large part of the report which was about Celtic Boys Club.

Yes, a separate paragraph talking about Celtic Boys Club, not Celtic Football Club, who had more employees convicted than the other listed clubs added together.

I’m referring to Chris McLaughlin’s summary but the SFA Report is consistent with my point.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a separate paragraph talking about Celtic Boys Club, not Celtic Football Club, who had more employees convicted than the other listed clubs added together.
McLaughlin is a scumbag.

The separation of the clubs listed and the CBC part in the article was deliberate. It was clearly a not-so-subtle attempt by McLaughlin to consolidate the club’s ‘separate entity’ stance, by refusing to add CFC to the list of senior clubs, whilst still mentioning CBC.

The tragedy and scandal that started in the late 60’s continues to this day, aided and abetted by complicit Celtic minded journalists like McLaughlin, Keevins, and many more.

Predators will always try and worm their way into organisations, and it has to be noted that the way things were flagged and dealt with many years ago has now changed, much for the better. But what happened at Celtic was a completely different thing to what happened at other clubs and organisations. That was a decades long ring, involving many abusers and many victims, that was covered up and facilitated. It was allowed to happen. Whatever individual occurrences happened elsewhere in British football is massively incomparable to what happened at Celtic. The only similar comparison that can be made is the abuse that went on, and still goes on, within the Catholic Church.

Regardless, whatever happens going forward, everybody knows what that club has done, and what they continue to do. They will forever be tainted, and they stand alone, worldwide, in terms of abuse. They could have partially atoned for the historical abuse by dealing with things properly, humanely and decently in the current day, but in a sense the abuse is still continuing by their refusal to hold their hands up. And every Celtic minded person who refuses to acknowledge it is also complicit.
 
McLaughlin is a scumbag.

The separation of the clubs listed and the CBC part in the article was deliberate. It was clearly a not-so-subtle attempt by McLaughlin to consolidate the club’s ‘separate entity’ stance, by refusing to add CFC to the list of senior clubs, whilst still mentioning CBC.

The tragedy and scandal that started in the late 60’s continues to this day, aided and abetted by complicit Celtic minded journalists like McLaughlin, Keevins, and many more.

Predators will always try and worm their way into organisations, and it has to be noted that the way things were flagged and dealt with many years ago has now changed, much for the better. But what happened at Celtic was a completely different thing to what happened at other clubs and organisations. That was a decades long ring, involving many abusers and many victims, that was covered up and facilitated. It was allowed to happen. Whatever individual occurrences happened elsewhere in British football is massively incomparable to what happened at Celtic. The only similar comparison that can be made is the abuse that went on, and still goes on, within the Catholic Church.

Regardless, whatever happens going forward, everybody knows what that club has done, and what they continue to do. They will forever be tainted, and they stand alone, worldwide, in terms of abuse. They could have partially atoned for the historical abuse by dealing with things properly, humanely and decently in the current day, but in a sense the abuse is still continuing by their refusal to hold their hands up. And every Celtic minded person who refuses to acknowledge it is also complicit.
Well stated mate. The covering up by our elected Government is most concerning at my time in life. The scourge for all concerned in the fight for Justice. The catholic church has engulfed us under their fight for 'independence' the SNP are nothing other than a wing for Sinn Fein.
Sorry for going off topic but the state my country is in hell bent by foreigners protecting paedophiles for that rancid club boils my blood.
 
The SFA also refusing to accept responsibility

We should be careful with posts like this, they(sfa) appear to be presenting an implausible defence, which will be over ruled.
The SFA are setting themselves up to be the culprits for historic CSA cases. Scottish football will be held legally and morally responsible for the behaviour of CFC., and every club will be held culpable. That is the SFA long game, to accept liability for the hundreds even thousands of children abused by CFC.
 
We should be careful with posts like this, they(sfa) appear to be presenting an implausible defence, which will be over ruled.
The SFA are setting themselves up to be the culprits for historic CSA cases. Scottish football will be held legally and morally responsible for the behaviour of CFC., and every club will be held culpable. That is the SFA long game, to accept liability for the hundreds even thousands of children abused by CFC.
Their whitewashed inquiry acknowledged Rangers sacked the paedo but also claimed that they covered it up. The need to involve others to protect that bastardised team was obvious from the beginning.
They (authorities/media) would allow the whole of Scottish football to fail rather than the only team that when made aware of children being sexually abused centralised responses to protect its standing and reputation in a game.
 
Last edited:
We should be careful with posts like this, they(sfa) appear to be presenting an implausible defence, which will be over ruled.
The SFA are setting themselves up to be the culprits for historic CSA cases. Scottish football will be held legally and morally responsible for the behaviour of CFC., and every club will be held culpable. That is the SFA long game, to accept liability for the hundreds even thousands of children abused by CFC.
That reads like a long shot to me that could not stand up to a legal challenge.
Surely CFC, and anybody else, is, to coin a phrase, a separate entity from the SFA.
 
McLaughlin is a scumbag.

The separation of the clubs listed and the CBC part in the article was deliberate. It was clearly a not-so-subtle attempt by McLaughlin to consolidate the club’s ‘separate entity’ stance, by refusing to add CFC to the list of senior clubs, whilst still mentioning CBC.

The tragedy and scandal that started in the late 60’s continues to this day, aided and abetted by complicit Celtic minded journalists like McLaughlin, Keevins, and many more.

Predators will always try and worm their way into organisations, and it has to be noted that the way things were flagged and dealt with many years ago has now changed, much for the better. But what happened at Celtic was a completely different thing to what happened at other clubs and organisations. That was a decades long ring, involving many abusers and many victims, that was covered up and facilitated. It was allowed to happen. Whatever individual occurrences happened elsewhere in British football is massively incomparable to what happened at Celtic. The only similar comparison that can be made is the abuse that went on, and still goes on, within the Catholic Church.

Regardless, whatever happens going forward, everybody knows what that club has done, and what they continue to do. They will forever be tainted, and they stand alone, worldwide, in terms of abuse. They could have partially atoned for the historical abuse by dealing with things properly, humanely and decently in the current day, but in a sense the abuse is still continuing by their refusal to hold their hands up. And every Celtic minded person who refuses to acknowledge it is also complicit.
I agree with every word of your post.
I’d only add that, despite every reasonably minded person knowing, too many do not care.
They don’t give a sh1t about the victims.
To me, it seems like they’d be quite happy for the whole topic to be swept out into the sea, never to be heard of again.
Other than if the culprit were a member of the Royal family or, maybe worse, a Tory.
 
Celtic FC don't do accountability ,victimhood is there forty.
The club like no other indeed, no compassion, no contrition and no remorse?
Scottish football has lost its integrity and moral standing with its handling of this national scandal and it would seem that no appetite to persecute the main perpetrators is forthcoming.
Hundreds of young victims ignored and cast aside all for the reputation of one club?
They (the victims) are serving a life sentence, while the guilty are mollycoddled and given every compassionate consideration available. The justice system in modern Scotland is irreversibly broken.
Meanwhile the narrative is business as usual for the ambulance chasers and there apologist allies, disgusting and predictable.
 
Another head shot.
I wonder if the boys club negotiated separately or were paid separately,

Excellent point mate.

If they were a Separate Entity - then there would be a separate contract between CBC and the Sponsors.

And it would be careless (impossible) for CBC/CFC and/or CR Smith to not have those evidence/contracts available.

Edit: ()
 
Last edited:
That reads like a long shot to me that could not stand up to a legal challenge.
Surely CFC, and anybody else, is, to coin a phrase, a separate entity from the SFA.
All Scottish clubs operate under the auspices of the SFA, in compliance with their regulations
Some of the language used by the SFA give me a genuine concern, that they will accept that the duty of care to children playing for SFA registered clubs is ultimately their responsibility.
If the current case against a (deceased) match official finds that the SFA is liable for his behaviour, despite the SFA 'separate entity' defence, then there is a likelihood that the same will also apply to clubs.
Celtc will look at every avenue to get them off the hook for their crimes against children.
 
Last edited:
Celtic FC don't do accountability ,victimhood is there forty.
The club like no other indeed, no compassion, no contrition and no remorse?
Scottish football has lost its integrity and moral standing with its handling of this national scandal and it would seem that no appetite to persecute the main perpetrators is forthcoming.
Hundreds of young victims ignored and cast aside all for the reputation of one club?
They (the victims) are serving a life sentence, while the guilty are mollycoddled and given every compassionate consideration available. The justice system in modern Scotland is irreversibly broken.
Meanwhile the narrative is business as usual for the ambulance chasers and there apologist allies, disgusting and predictable.

The viewpoint that it was ignored wasn't for the sole purpose to protect the club - but so as it could continue.
 
All Scottish clubs operate under the auspices of the SFA, in compliance with their regulations
Some of the language used by the SFA give me a genuine concern, that they will accept that the duty of care to children playing for SFA registered clubs is ultimately their responsibility.
If the current case against a (deceased) match official finds that the SFA is liable for his behaviour, despite the SFA 'separate entity' defence, then there is a likelihood that the same will also apply to clubs.
Celtc will look at every avenue to get them off the hook for their crimes against children.
That won’t wash.

SFA are responsible for their paid employees, whilst clubs are responsible for their paid employees.
 
Their whitewashed inquiry acknowledged Rangers sacked the paedo but also claimed that they covered it up. The need to involve others to protect that bastardised team was obvious from the beginning.
They (authorities/media) would allow the whole of Scottish football to fail rather than the only team that when made aware of children being sexually abused centralised responses to protect its standing and reputation in a game.
Neely was sacked by Rangers after knowledge of incidents with one player came to light, and never worked in professional football again. In subsequent years, more allegations also came to light regarding Neely, including incidents at other clubs prior to him being at Rangers. Rangers allegedly reported him to the police at the time (it is impossible to expect an informal report from 30 years ago to still exist in police databases), and the boy’s father was also aware and present when Neely was confronted and sacked, given it was the player and his dad who took the issue to Rangers. There are a few things though that need to be highlighted:-

1) The small article in the Rangers News wishing Neely well in the future was clearly wrong and shouldn’t have been put to print. Whether that was deliberate or the result of a reporter with no knowledge of what had happened, we don’t know. However, given the small goldfish bowl of Scotland, the integrity of the people at our club, and the fact Neely never worked in professional football again, then it is safe to assume that word was spread by us that there was incidents with Neely and that he was to be avoided. Otherwise he would have popped up at another club, especially having been a coach with us. Ideally though, news should have filtered out from us into the wider press to make the general public aware of the incidents.

2) The player in question appears to solely blame Rangers for what happened. But surely it was the role of the boy’s father to decide whether to take the matter further with the police and press for criminal charges? Clubs can sack abusers and even notify authorities, but if there is no willingness from the parents to take the matter further at the time, and this includes parents of those knowingly abused at Celtic, then there is little any club can do with regards the pressing of criminal charges. As much as Celtic could have done so much, much more to stop the abuse, there has to be some partial blame on parents who knew but did not take the matter further, even if it was not the done thing at the time.

3) Convictions. Unless there is a criminal conviction, or a clear admission of guilt by the abuser, then it is difficult for any organisation, and again I include Celtic in this, to legally admit guilt and offer compensation. And this is where you would hope Thompson’s have done their homework in this regard in terms of cases they have taken on, as basic accusations on their own may not stand up without it having being legally proven to have happened.

4) Lastly, if it ever turns out Rangers are proven to ever acted inappropriately in any way, then I fully expect us to do the right thing by apologising to the victims and offering compensation. Nothing less will suffice.

That said, I hope every victim at every club gets some form of justice, even if it can never truly make up for the abuse they have suffered.
 
Thing is, there is a greater tribunal that those who committed these crimes against children - and those who enabled and covered for them - cannot evade. On the Day of Judgement every wrong will be righted and every sin against children will get it’s just desert. No friends in high places, no sympathetic judges, no corrupt politicians, no bent coppers. Just these evil men before the throne of God. They may escape justice in this life but they will not in the next. May the hands of those who are pursuing that justice in the here and now be strengthened. That is right and necessary. But that will not be the final word.
Ffs don’t sully this discussion with mumbo jumbo please
 
Excellent point mate.

If they were a Separate Entity - then there would be a separate contract between CBC and the Sponsors.

And it would be careless (impossible) for CBC/CFC and/or CR Smith to not have those evidence/contracts available.

Edit: ()
At the time we’re we still sponsored by CR Smith. I would have thought the verbiage on both contracts would be similar as to who within the organization could use the name and sponsored merchandise.

The excuse will be something along the lines of “They wore ra Sellick taps that they boat out o’ Greaves”

There may be a line in the CR Smith contract describing CBC as a related entity for the purposes of using their branding.
 
Neely was sacked by Rangers after knowledge of incidents with one player came to light, and never worked in professional football again. In subsequent years, more allegations also came to light regarding Neely, including incidents at other clubs prior to him being at Rangers. Rangers allegedly reported him to the police at the time (it is impossible to expect an informal report from 30 years ago to still exist in police databases), and the boy’s father was also aware and present when Neely was confronted and sacked, given it was the player and his dad who took the issue to Rangers. There are a few things though that need to be highlighted:-

1) The small article in the Rangers News wishing Neely well in the future was clearly wrong and shouldn’t have been put to print. Whether that was deliberate or the result of a reporter with no knowledge of what had happened, we don’t know. However, given the small goldfish bowl of Scotland, the integrity of the people at our club, and the fact Neely never worked in professional football again, then it is safe to assume that word was spread by us that there was incidents with Neely and that he was to be avoided. Otherwise he would have popped up at another club, especially having been a coach with us. Ideally though, news should have filtered out from us into the wider press to make the general public aware of the incidents.

2) The player in question appears to solely blame Rangers for what happened. But surely it was the role of the boy’s father to decide whether to take the matter further with the police and press for criminal charges? Clubs can sack abusers and even notify authorities, but if there is no willingness from the parents to take the matter further at the time, and this includes parents of those knowingly abused at Celtic, then there is little any club can do with regards the pressing of criminal charges. As much as Celtic could have done so much, much more to stop the abuse, there has to be some partial blame on parents who knew but did not take the matter further, even if it was not the done thing at the time.

3) Convictions. Unless there is a criminal conviction, or a clear admission of guilt by the abuser, then it is difficult for any organisation, and again I include Celtic in this, to legally admit guilt and offer compensation. And this is where you would hope Thompson’s have done their homework in this regard in terms of cases they have taken on, as basic accusations on their own may not stand up without it having being legally proven to have happened.

4) Lastly, if it ever turns out Rangers are proven to ever acted inappropriately in any way, then I fully expect us to do the right thing by apologising to the victims and offering compensation. Nothing less will suffice.

That said, I hope every victim at every club gets some form of justice, even if it can never truly make up for the abuse they have suffered.
The fact he didn’t participate at a SFA approved level again didn’t even merit a mention in their whitewashed inquiry as it didn’t suit the number one objective; to muddy the waters to protect one football team.
When paedos like Neely dies the victims best chance of getting justice will be for independent inquiries to get finding of facts and make judgments on this, this inquiry did none of that. They were interested in that small article to engineer an equivalent to what happened at that bastardised team to muddy the waters. The complete opposite to what it should of been about.
 
At the time we’re we still sponsored by CR Smith. I would have thought the verbiage on both contracts would be similar as to who within the organization could use the name and sponsored merchandise.

The excuse will be something along the lines of “They wore ra Sellick taps that they boat out o’ Greaves”

There may be a line in the CR Smith contract describing CBC as a related entity for the purposes of using their branding.

CR Smith sponsored us from 1984-1987 (we then moved onto McEwans) and cfc from 1984-1991.

It would be expected that cbc would be included in the cfc sponsorship deal - as cbc also traveled locally and at times internationally.
 
Back
Top