Celtic FC seeking to settle Boys Club sex abuse cases
Lawyers acting for more than 20 former players have been told the club intends to enter settlement negotiations.
In recent years several former coaches and officials at the club have been convicted of sexual offences against teenage players spanning decades.
Celtic said it “has always taken allegations regarding abuse at Celtic Boys Club extremely seriously”.
A statement released by the club added: “Celtic Football Club and their lawyers have made strenuous efforts to investigate these matters and they continue to do so.
“Celtic’s lawyers continue to investigate and discuss these cases with the lawyers acting for those who suffered abuse at Celtic Boys’ Club. Those discussions are ongoing.
“It would not be appropriate for Celtic Football Club to comment any further while there are ongoing legal proceedings”.
Celtic had previously said it was not responsible because the boys’ club was an “entirely separate” organisation.
Earlier this year a judge gave the go-ahead for a US style “class action” group litigation to proceed against Celtic for alleged abuses at Celtic Boys Club.
The boys’ club was established as a feeder team to the senior Celtic side in 1966 and the two clubs had close ties, sharing players, officials and premises.
Lawyers acting for the former players argue the boys club and Celtic were “intimately connected” and the senior club was “vicariously liable” for assaults carried out in the youth set up.
The litigation, run by Thompsons Solicitors, relates to historical claims of sexual assault by convicted paedophiles Jim Torbett – the founder of the Boys Club – and Frank Cairney, a former coach.
statement from Thompsons said it was “pleased to confirm” that Celtic had indicated its intention to enter settlement negotiations within the group litigation.
It said: “Celtic Plc have not formally admitted liability or made any other formal concessions but their desire to now enter negotiations to explore the possibility of a settlement of this action has been made clear.
“This means that parties will ask the court to adjourn the forthcoming proof [hearing] to allow work to be undertaken to value individual cases.”
The firm said it would not be commenting further.
