| The
Dun Laoghaire Golf Club & Ballyman Financials
“One
of us is a liar and it's not me.”
Derek
Montgomery, DLGC, 9TH January 2003
I.
|
Introduction
“ One of us is
a liar and it's not me.”
This statement was made by Derek Montgomery,
chairman of the DLGC/Ballyman relocation committee (“CRC”)
and former club Council member at an EGM on 9th January
2003 called by the members of DLGC, under the rules of the club,
to seek clarification on important information, concerning the
Ballyman financials, which Montgomery disclosed to another member,
Patrick Coen, at a meeting on 26th August 2002.
While this statement by Montgomery is not
recorded in the “official” minutes of the meeting (Appendix
12), it has been confirmed, both verbally and in writing,
by members of DLGC who were present at the meeting.
That Montgomery was allowed make this statement
without rebuke by the chair notwithstanding the very audible
and justifiable reaction from the floor is indeed a disgraceful
reflection on the chairman of the meeting – the club president, Peter
McKimm. The 2002 club captain (Pearse Rayel), the
2002 club secretary (Frank Sexton) and the current club
president (Terry Reynolds) all shared the podium with
Montgomery at the meeting.
When asked to vote on the DLGC
move to Ballyman, Coen had the expectation of full disclosure
of all relevant
and material information that would allow him make a balanced
and informed decision on the matter. Such an expectation
represented a fundamental right to be told the truth about the
most important decision in the club's 92-year history. It also
represented a fundamental expectation of trust in those responsible
for ensuring the members of DLGC were fully informed on the
proposed relocation to Ballyman. Based on Montgomery's
disclosures at the meeting on 26th August 2002, Coen
was left in no doubt that he and his fellow members had been
misinformed and deceived, such trust was seriously misplaced
and that his vote had been obtained under false pretences.
Coen's immediate reaction to the information
he had received from Montgomery on 26th August 2002
was threefold. Firstly, such information was too material to
withhold from the members of DLGC. Secondly, its existence challenged
the very substance of the Ballyman deal and thirdly, it must
be brought to the member's attention without delay. This
reaction was made very clear to Montgomery at the meeting on
26th August 2002 and is clearly reflected in Coen's
letter to Montgomery of 7th September 2002 (Appendix
4).
Such important information was most certainly
not “imparted” to the members of DLGC at the January
2003 EGM as a result of Montgomery's denials and lies to that
meeting and also his denials and lies in his letter to the captain
of DLGC of 3rd February 2003 (Appendix
13).
Montgomery lied to the members and captain
of DLGC on the following important matters.
i) |
At the
January 2003 EGM, Montgomery stated that he had no DLGC/Ballyman
files in his possession at the meeting with Coen on
26th August 2002 and that all files in his
possession at that meeting were “personal business
files which he did not wish to leave in his car in the
club carpark.” This statement
is not reflected in the “official” minutes of the
meeting
but has been confirmed, verbally and in writing, by
DLGC members present at that meeting.
In a letter to
the captain of DLGC, on 3rd February
2003 (Appendix
13) Montgomery clearly acknowledges that
he did in fact have a DLGC/Ballyman correspondence
file in his
possession at the meeting with Coen on 26th August
2003. Did Montgomery therefore,
not lie to the members of DLGC
on 9th January
2003?
|
|
- 1 –
The
Dun Laoghaire Golf Club & Ballyman Financials
“One
of us is a liar and it's not me.”
Derek Montgomery, DLGC, 9TH January 2003
I.
|
Introduction (cont/d….)
ii) |
At the EGM on 9th January
2003 and in the letter to the captain of DLGC (Appendix
13) Montgomery stated
that “no notes were taken by Mr Coen” at the
meeting on 26th August 2002. However, Coen's
letter of 15th June 2002 (Appendix
1) clearly indicates the figures which Coen recorded
at that meeting. A member of DLGC has confirmed
in writing that he saw Coen's notes within
days of 26th August 2002 meeting.
Note:
At an EGM in DLGC in December 2003 Coen furnished a copy
of his letter of 15th June 2002 (Appendix
1) to the chairman of the meeting (McKimm) with
a request that it be placed into the record of that meeting
for the information of the members of DLGC. The
minutes of the meeting make no reference to this event
or to the document in question! Why does the Parent Council
of DLGC not want the members of DLGC to see this document? |
iii) |
At the January 2003
EGM, Montgomery “categorically denied” at least
twice that he did not furnish
Coen with the information reflected in the December
2002 circular (Appendix 11). Also,
in his letter to the 2003 Captain (Appendix
13) Montgomery states “the information I
provided to Mr Coen at the meeting (26th August
2002) was entirely consistent with the information I
and others imparted to the members at the June 2002
EGM and the proceeding information meetings.”
In his letter to the
captain of DLGC (Appendix
13) Montgomery refers to his meeting with
Coen and to “negotiating procedures adopted by the
CRC” and “explanations provided.” Was such information
also provided to the members at the information meetings? Montgomery
most certainly did furnished Coen with the information
and breakdown of the Ballyman development costs (Appendix
1) and (Appendix 11), including
the figure of ˆ8 million for the Ballyman clubhouse
– a figure not “imparted” to the members of DLGC until
9th January 2003 – over 4 months later.
This figure of ˆ8 million is reflected in all
Coen's correspondence and circulars between 7th September
and 31st December 2002. Furthermore,
if what Montgomery disclosed to Coen was consistent
with information already imparted to the members,
why should Montgomery ask Coen, at the conclusion
of their meeting on 26th August 2002, to
treat such information in confidence? |
iv)
|
In his
letter to the captain (Appendix
13) Montgomery states that Coen was fully satisfied
with the explanations provided at the meeting on 26th August
2002. Nothing could be further from the truth as evidenced
by Coen's subsequent actions and his letter to Montgomery
of 7th September 2002 (Appendix
4) – 12 days after the meeting.
|
Do such lies not represent sinister, perverse,
and disgraceful conduct on the part of the chairman of the DLGC/Ballyman
relocation committee, Derek Montgomery?
If Montgomery lied to the members of DLGC
and the captain of his club on such important matters, did he
also, on the balance of probability, lie on every other
issue concerning his meeting with Coen on 26th August
2002? Did he lie about the Lisney valuations and the Ballyman
development costs, including the figure of ˆ17.4 million?
If so, what are the consequences of such lies? Would the EGMs
of 19th June 2002 and 9th January 2003 not be null
and void as a result of false
and misleading information furnished to the members of DLGC
at these meetings? Would such lies not suggest that the
Ballyman “deal” represents a sham and that the contract with
the developers might be voidable? Are there elements within
DLGC who would never admit to such consequences, irrespective
of the truth?
If Coen lied about the meeting with Montgomery
on 26th August 2002 what could he possible hope to
achieve by doing so. If the information and proof was readily
available to disprove Coen's account of the meeting, why not
make it available to the members. Why seek to withhold
such information on the grounds of “confidentiality”? Why
did the Parent Council not seek this very simple solution thereby
avoiding two very unpleasant, expensive (ˆ98,518) and
divisive EGMs within the space of 12 months? |
- 2 -
The
Dun Laoghaire Golf Club & Ballyman Financials
“One
of us is a liar and it's not me.”
Derek
Montgomery, DLGC, 9TH January 2003
I.
|
Introduction (cont/d….)
As a member of the club's “establishment” was
being accused of disgraceful and unacceptable conduct, why did
the Parent Council of DLGC not appoint an independent person to
investigate the matter as they had done in December 2002 to deal
with a very minor issue? Does their failure to investigate such
a serious matter in a comprehensive and transparent manner suggest
a cover-up and if so why?
When Coen met with representatives
of the Trustees (Byrne) and Parent Council (Sexton) on 25th November
2002 he was not advised that the information furnished
to the Trustees (Appendix 5) had
been denied by Montgomery. Sexton advised Coen that the
members of DLGC were not entitled to be informed of the information
in Coen's letter to the Trustees (Appendix 5) because:
-
i) |
The Club had entered
into a commitment with the developer (Appendix
10)
|
ii) |
The disclosure
of such information would undermine the confidence
of people who had given a considerable amount of their
time to the project! (Appendix
10) |
Is the truth not a sufficient
reason to disclose such important information to the members
of DLGC? What
justification is there for such an admission against the rights
of the DLGC members to be truthfully and fully informed about
the Ballyman financials?
Equally perverse, as evidenced
by the minutes of that meeting (Appendix
10), was
the statement by Sexton that the information in the letter to
the Trustees (Appendix 5) represented
Coen's "views" (emphasis
added) rather then the disclosures
by Montgomery at the meeting on 26th August 2002!
For the Parent Council of DLGC to deny members
access to all relevant and material information concerning the
Ballyman “deal” on the grounds that such information is confidential
only to the Parent Council or might undermine the confidence
of certain “establishment” individuals, is to treat DLGC and
its members like Orwell's Animal Farm – all members
are equal but some members are more equal then others! Is
this what DLGC has become?
Lies, dishonesty, deception
and possibly even fraud concerning the single most important
issue in the club's
history should be exposed. Why has the Parent Council and Trustees
of DLGC failed to investigate this matter in a comprehensive
and transparent manner? Does such failure also suggest
that by exposing Montgomery's lies they might also expose their
own incompetence? Do such people not have a fiduciary
duty and responsibility to all the members they
serve? Are Trustees and Officers of a golf club not responsible
and accountable for their actions?
The principles of trust, honesty
and integrity represent the bedrock of any golf club. Have these principles
been rendered meaningless in Dun Laoghaire Golf Club? This
is a very serious and important issue the current members of
DLGC should reflect upon – even if it means facing the truth
and its consequences. What is a golf club without such principles? As
for Patrick Coen, he is satisfied that he acted at all times
in the best interests of his former fellow club members and
that his disclosures about the meeting
with Montgomery on 26th August 2002 represents the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – something
which Montgomery might wish to reflect upon.
Montgomery's lies and deception
towards his fellow members must be challenged, as must his
unwarranted and
unjustified accusation that Coen is a liar. For a member
of a golf club to knowingly lie to his fellow members on any
issue, either on the golf course or in the clubhouse, strikes
at the heart of what golf is about. For Montgomery to
lie to his fellow members, as indicated above, represents disgraceful
and unacceptable conduct. To seek to defend such lies
by accusing another member of lying is obscene. Does such
an individual really deserve to be a member of any golf club? |
- 3 -
The
Dun Laoghaire Golf Club & Ballyman Financials
“One
of us is a liar and it's not me.”
Derek
Montgomery, DLGC, 9TH January 2003
I.
|
Introduction (cont/d….)
This
document is not about Coen's expulsion from DLGC for seeking
to expose Montgomery's
lies nor is it
about Coen's attempts to highlight the disregard of certain
important club rules by the Parent Council of DLGC. This
document seeks only to establish the truth about the meeting
between Coen and Montgomery on 26th August 2002 and
to identify the “real liar” at the EGM in DLGC on 9th January
2003. The principles of truth, honesty and integrity in a golf
club do matter and the disregard for such principles is ethically,
morally and reprehensibly wrong and should be exposed.
This document should also assist the reader
decide for themselves whether, on the balance of probability,
Montgomery also lied to the members of DLGC about the key
elements of the Ballyman “deal” – the Lisney valuation reports
(ˆ100
million and ˆ40 million for DLGC and Ballyman respectively)
and the Ballyman development costs, including ˆ17.4 million (Appendix
11). If so, should the reader then conclude that
such lies and deception represents grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented conduct
on the part of Montgomery which has no place in any golf club?
There
are those who will no doubt argue that DLGC is a private
members club and as such,
the issues raised
in this document is a private matter solely for the members
of DLGC. That may have been the case until 13th March
2003, a “defining moment” in the club's history.
In order to avail of a special
“sports club” tax exemption – equivalent to 20% of the
transaction value which is ˆ100 million but which might
be ˆ200,
ˆ300, ˆ400 or even ˆ500 million - the members of
DLGC were prevailed upon by the Parent Council and by
way of a
special
contribution from Frank O'Rourke, a “senior” member,
a Trustee and member of Montgomery's CRC, to adopt a
number of changes
to the club's constitution which had the effect of dis-enfranchising
the members of DLGC of any financial interest they might
have in the assets and property of DLGC. Clearly,
the implications of not having such a tax exemption
were enormous even if the
circumstances under which it was obtained might be questionable! As
of 13th March 2003, the ultimate beneficiary,
in perpetuity, of the club's assets arising from a winding-up
or disposal, is some unknown charitable organisation. The
members of DLGC would be entitled to nought.
More importantly, one of the rule changes
adopted at the EGM on 13th March 2003 (Coen voted
against the motion) states “no addition, alteration or
amendment shall be made to or in the provisions of the main
objects, income and property and winding-up rules for the time
being in force unless the same shall have been previously approved
in writing by the Revenue Commissioners.” (emphasis
added). Does such a condition not make the Revenue Commissioners
a Quasi Member of DLGC?
Footnote
During 2004, Coen commenced the process of defamation
proceedings against Montgomery. Coen however decided on
this document as an alternative strategy to expose Montgomery
's lies and establish the truth about the meeting on 26th August
2002. |
******
- 4 - |
