V.

Coen's response to Montgomery.

Within days of his meeting with Montgomery, Coen consulted with another member of DLGC to discuss the matter. This member, like Coen, had voted in favour of the move to Ballyman. This member was shocked with Montgomery's disclosures and subsequently confirmed, in writing, the information he had seen and discussed with Coen on this occasion.

At this time, early September 2002, Coen spoke with a club Trustee, Terry McSweeney who being aware of the meeting with Montgomery, enquired as to the outcome. When Coen advised McSweeney of the information he had received from Montgomery, McSweeney responded by stating that if such information was correct, “the decision of the EGM in the Royal Marine Hotel on 19^th June 2002 was null and void and a new meeting would have to be called.”  There is absolute certainty in Coen's recollection on this point.

Following his meeting with McSweeney, Coen wrote to Montgomery (Appendix 4) and placed on record his understanding of the information which Montgomery had furnished at the meeting on 26^th August 2002.

In September 2002, Coen called to the home of his brother-in-law, Brendan Ryan, who was the then club Treasurer. Ryan is the current (2004) Captain of DLGC.  Coen was aware from previous discussions on the Ballyman deal that Ryan was very much a “Council” man with a very definite “eye” on the club captaincy.  Coen informed Ryan of the information he had received from Montgomery on the valuations and the non-development costs of ˆ17.4 million.  To Coen's amazement, Ryan admitted that he was not aware of such information but that he would speak with Montgomery and revert back on the matter. Coen concluded from this meeting with Ryan, that if the club Treasurer was not aware of such information, then it was reasonable to assume that the Captain (Pearse Rayel), the Officers and the Parent Council were also not aware of such information.  If this was true, how could the Captain and the Parent Council unanimously recommend acceptance of the Ballyman deal to the members of DLGC at the EGM on 19^th June 2002?  Approx. 10 days later Coen invited Ryan to his home to discuss the matter of their previous meeting.  Ryan admitted to Coen that he had “forgotten” to discuss the matter with Montgomery but would do so as a matter of urgency. Coen was highly sceptical of this assurance.

Coen then decided that he should speak again with Terry McSweeney, a Trustee of the club. Coen was shocked with the bluntness and selfishness of McSweeney’s response. He refused to meet and suggested Coen speak instead with Ryan!

As a result of this response from McSweeney and because no reply had been received from Montgomery to Coen's letter of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4), Coen wrote directly to the Trustees who, under the Rules of DLGC, are guardians of the club's assets.  Coen's letter (Appendix 5) was hand delivered to the home of each Trustee on 8^th October 2002.  Coen's letter to the Trustees clearly states the information disclosed by Montgomery at the meeting on 26^th August 2002. Coen also wrote to Montgomery (Appendix 6).

As a matter of courtesy, Coen telephoned his brother in law, Brendan Ryan, on the evening of 8^th October 2002 to advise him that he had written to the Trustees. To Coen's surprise, Ryan informed him that he had already read a copy of the letter to the Trustees (Appendix 5) and he advised Coen that in his (Ryan's) view “ I think you would have been better off letting sleeping dogs lie.” There is absolute certainty in Coen's recollection on this point.

The following day, Coen telephoned McSweeney and offered to meet with him to discuss and explain any aspects of the correspondence attached to the letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5). McSweeney requested an opportunity to consider the offer and the following day decline such a meeting. Did McSweeney’s refusal to meet Coen suggest that the decision had already been made to circle the wagons and if so, by whom? Were the barbarians at the gate!

V.

Coen's response to Montgomery. (cont/d….)

By 17^th October 2002 Coen had discussed his meeting with Montgomery with only a very small number of DLGC members – he was fully aware of the sensitivity of the information and he wished, naively as it has since transpired, to allow the Trustees of DLGC adequate time to deal quietly and confidentially with the issues outlined in his letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5).

On 17th October 2002, a meeting was arranged between Coen and a past captain, John Clancy.  Coen advised Clancy of his meeting with Montgomery and of the subsequent correspondence, including the letter to the Trustees of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5). Clancy agreed with Coen that in view of the seriousness of the matter, the Trustees were the correct body to write to. Clancy congratulated Coen for his actions and expressed the opinion, in the presence of the other member, that Coen had done the correct thing as regards the club and its members.

Clancy however advised Coen that it was not the practice in DLGC for past captains to challenge or question the decisions or actions of the current captain and parent council and as such he felt he would be of little assistance to Coen with the matter.  Coen was shocked by such a response especially given the very serious nature of the information he had received from Montgomery and its implications for the members of DLGC.

At this stage and as a consequence of a telephone conversation and an informal meeting with McKimm, the club president, Coen had become alarmed and concern with what he believed was the clear failure on the part of the Trustees of DLGC to respond to the very serious issues in his letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5).  He wrote again to the Trustees on 11^th November 2002 seeking a response to his letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5).  Other then a brief acknowledgement of receipt, the Trustees of DLGC never replied in writing to the contents of Coen's letter of 8^th October 2002.

In the absence of any response from the Trustees, Coen became increasingly concerned about the information in his possession.  He then began to discuss the matter with other members who expressed alarm at the information they were told. In November 2002, Coen prepared a document “The Ballyman Proposal” (Appendix 9) for circulation to the members of DLGC advising them of the information received from Montgomery.  A copy of this document came to the attention of the then Captain, Pearse Rayel, who expressed ignorance of its contents and also expressed the view that an EGM should be called based on its contents.  It would appear that the Captain of DLGC was being kept in the dark about very serious matters in his club.  Had the barbarians finally taken control?

On 11^th November 2002 the Trustees responded to Coen's correspondence by inviting Coen to a meeting on 25^th November 2002 to “discuss” the issues of concern in his letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5).

In mid November 2002, Coen made a number of further attempts to open dialogue with McSweeney, a Trustee and Ryan, the club Treasurer.  Coen was advised that McSweeney would not meet with him. Ryan advised Coen: “I must support my colleagues on Council.” Again, Coen is absolutely certain on this point.  Was Ryan suggesting that he could not or would not break ranks irrespective of the truth or irrespective of the member's rights to such information?  Can the captaincy of DLGC be worth such a price?

It was therefore clear to Coen that the only remaining option was to call an EGM under rule 19.8 of the club's constitution which he did with the support of 19 fellow members. Prior to the EGM in January 2003, Coen prepared a further document  “The Ballyman  Proposal – what the members of DLGC should know” (Appendix 11) for circulation to the members.