VI.

Montgomery's Response.

Montgomery's response to Coen's account of the information received at the meeting on 26^th August 2002 can best be considered under the following.

Montgomery's Letter 4th / 8th October 2002 (Appendix 7)

The first point about this letter is that it is dated 4^th October 2002 but not posted until 8^th October 2002, the same date that Coen wrote to and hand delivered his letters to the Trustees of DLGC.  The cynic might wonder!

This letter was in response to Coen's letter of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4) in which Coen clearly states the break-down of the ˆ40 million development costs, including the cost of the clubhouse at Ballyman (ˆ8 million) and the breakdown of the ˆ17.4 million non-development costs which Montgomery had furnished at the meeting on 26^th August 2002. Coen also raises the question of the interpretation of Clause 14 of the Heads of Agreement and the need for full disclosure to the members of DLGC.

Montgomery's letter states in it's opening paragraph, “Thank you for your letter of 7^th September 2002 which I acknowledge and “note” (emphasis added) its contents.”  The letter ignores completely the issues raised in Coen's letter of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4).  In view of Montgomery's subsequent categorical denials and lies that he furnished Coen with any such information at their meeting on 26^th August 2002, it does raises the very important question – WHY NOT?  Why should a person in Montgomery's position respond to a letter, the contents of which he categorically denies, and make no attempt to do so?

Montgomery also states in his letter “ The Council and Officers of the club were fully informed on all matters at every stage of the negotiations….”  If what Montgomery told Coen on 26^th August 2002 was the truth and Coen has no reason to dis-believe Montgomery and if the reader accepts that Coen is telling the truth about this matter, then this statement would appear to contradict Ryan's (2002 Treasurer) statements to Coen that he knew nothing of the information and also what the club Captain (Rayel) appeared to know in late November 2002. Who therefore is telling the truth – Rayel and Ryan or Montgomery?  Why would Rayel and Ryan both individually and at separate times lie about such a matter?

How did the Trustees and Parent Council of DLGC, in the course of their apparent investigation, reconcile Montgomery's complete lack of denial in this letter with his subsequent “categorical denial” before 300 of his fellow members in DLGC on 9^th January 2003?  Is the reader not inclined to reflect on the words of Sir Walter Scott “Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.”

Coen replied to Montgomery's letter on 9^th October 2002 (Appendix 8).

Montgomery's “silence” between 4th October and 9th January 2003.

In view of Montgomery's subsequent “categorical denials” at the EGM on 9^th January 2003, his silence in this three month period is all the more strange.  Why was Montgomery allowed to wait three months until a very divisive and costly EGM (ˆ24,000) to inform the members of DLGC that he categorically denied Coen's claims when he could have done so for the price of a postage stamp in his letter of 4^th / 8^th October 2002? Does Montgomery's silence in this period not demand explanation?

VI.

Montgomery's Response. (cont/d….).

Montgomery's statements to the EGM on 9^th January 2003.

Montgomery’s demeanour on the podium on 9th January 2003 was clearly that of a man under pressure – as anyone would be if they were about to lie to such an audience. Montgomery spoke twice to the meeting, the second time immediately following Coen's address to the meeting and Coen's disclosure to the members of his Sworn Affidavit (Appendix 3). Montgomery was clearly in a panic when he spoke the second time and the decision to do so, despite the pleas from his fellow CRC members (O'Rourke and Burke) to remain seated, was clearly ill-advised.  McKimm, the chairman of the meeting, did Montgomery, the CRC, the Parent Council and the Trustees of DLGC a considerable dis-service when he allowed Montgomery to speak for a second time on that occasion. The full implications of McKimm's decision are very likely yet to be determined!

The “official” minutes of the meeting on 9^th January 2003 (Appendix 12) are materially inaccurate as regards the various statements made by Montgomery. These inaccuracies have been confirmed in writing by members present at the meeting. The “official” minutes attribute the following statements to Montgomery.

What the minutes of the meeting of 9^th January 2003 (Appendix 12) do not record are the statements below by Montgomery.

VI.

Montgomery's Response. (cont/d….).

Montgomery's letter of Complaint 3^rd February 2003 (Appendix 13)

Was this letter written by someone on behalf of Montgomery to ensure a document was on file that would, if push came to shove, provide certain parties in DLGC with an “exit”?  Equally, the cynic might ponder, given its contents, why this letter had not been written months earlier?

Montgomery maintains that all Coen's statements and assertions concerning the meeting on 26^th August 2002 are inaccurate, misleading, a gross misrepresentation and are false.  Such statements are a direct challenge to Coen's Sworn Affidavit (Appendix 3), the documentation attached to this document by way of Appendices and Coen would totally reject such claims by Montgomery as being an attempt to compound one lie with another. Montgomery's claims under each of these headings are dealt with below.

The meeting on 26^th August 2002 was not informal.  Montgomery was clearly aware of its purpose as evidenced by the contents of Coen's letter of 15^th June 2002 (Appendix 1) which the meeting had been called to discuss. Also, if the meeting was only informal, why did Montgomery attend the meeting with two bulky Ballyman files? Montgomery's lie has already been exposed on this very important point.

Montgomery most certainly misinformed the members of DLGC and there is no question of the information being alleged. Coen’s notes of the meeting are clearly recorded on his copy of the letter of 15^th June 2002 (Appendix 1) as evidenced by another member of DLGC within days of the meeting on 26^th August 2002.  Montgomery has also lied on this very important point.

The question of whether Montgomery was “concerned or not with the accuracy or inaccuracy of Coen's figures in his various correspondence” is a total irrelevancy. If Coen's figures were false and did not represent what was said at the meeting on 26^th August 2002, why did Montgomery not refute and challenge such figures at the first opportunity he had – his letter of 4^th / 8^th October 2002?

The facts and figures which are the subject of Montgomery's complaint (Appendix 13), are the exact same figures which were included in Coen's letter to Montgomery of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4); Coen's letter to the Trustees of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5) and Coen's circulars to the members of DLGC in November 2002 (Appendix 9). Why therefore did Montgomery not so challenge Coen's “alleged claims” months earlier? Why was it necessary for Coen and his fellow members to call an EGM to get Montgomery to respond? Does the evidence suggest that Montgomery's decision to deny and lie about his meeting with Coen on 26^th August 2002 was only made when confronted with the realities and implications of the January 2003 EGM.  Is this what Brendan Ryan meant when he informed Coen on 24^th December 2002, “everything is sorted”.

Montgomery states in his letter “clause 14 of the Heads of Agreement was inserted by the club and was necessary to protect us against any future (emphasis added) changes in Stamp Duty and Vat.”  Is Montgomery seriously suggesting that the CRC had some foresight that these taxes would increase in the December 2002 budget?

VI.

Montgomery's Response. (cont/d….).

Montgomery's letter of Complaint 3^rd February 2003 (cont/d….)

What Montgomery is suggesting is that clause 14 only applies to any future costs and not the costs identified as part of the contract which were not disclosed to the members of DLGC before the June 2002 EGM.  Such an argument and its timing smacks of bolting the barn door after the event!  Montgomery should really have informed Arthur Cox of this interpretation as their written opinion on clause 14 – see pages 17 and 29 – is in stark contrast and would suggest that Montgomery's interpretation is clearly wrong.

Montgomery's letter continues:

The information which Montgomery furnished to Coen at the meeting on 26^th August 2002 had most certainly not been “imparted” to the members of DLGC at any time before they voted on the Ballyman “deal” on 19^th June 2002.

It should be remembered that Montgomery insisted that the information which he had furnished to Coen at the meeting on 26^th August 2002 had been “imparted” to the members at the information meetings.  Coen disagreed and this fact is reflected in his letter to Montgomery of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4). Montgomery is now changing tack in claiming that he told Coen nothing more then the other members of DLGC had been told at such meetings. Montgomery's request that Coen should treat such information in confidence was an afterthought and was only made at the conclusion of the meeting as both returned to the clubhouse when Montgomery realised Coen reaction to the information furnished at the meeting. If Montgomery told Coen nothing that had not already been “imparted” to the members of DLGC, what reason could he possibly have for asking Coen to treat such information in confidence?  Did Montgomery request the members of DLGC at the information meetings to treat what they had been told in confidence? Was such a request by Montgomery not an act of treachery and dishonesty towards his fellow DLGC members?

Montgomery states in his letter “at the conclusion of the meeting Mr Coen indicated that he now understood the procedures adopted by the negotiating team and was fully satisfied ……… the following week I reported to the CRC that the meeting went well and that Patrick Coen seemed satisfied with the explanations provided.” This statement raises a number of questions.

It is interesting to note that Montgomery acknowledges the existence of his letter of 4^th October 2002 (Appendix 6), in fleeting terms and fails to dwell on its contents.

VI.

Montgomery's Response. (cont/d….).

Montgomery's letter of Complaint 3^rd February 2003 (cont/d….)

In view of such vigorous denials of everything that Coen asserts was said at the meeting on 26^th August 2002, Montgomery fails to address the key issue as to why he did not reject and refute the statements made by Coen in his letter of 7^th September 2002 (Appendix 4) or why he simply “acknowledged its receipt and noted its contents.”  Was the issue of the letter of 4^th October 2002 a case of expediency over the truth?

Alas, Montgomery now acknowledges that he had a Ballyman correspondence file in his possession at the meeting on 26^th August 2002 but that he had no other files or quantity surveyor's reports or other documentation on costs. This statement is in direct contradiction to what Montgomery said at the EGM on 9^th January 2003 – “these were personal business files which I did not want to leave in my car in the club carpark.”

Why is it simply not possible or credible?  Was Montgomery, as chairman of the CRC, not in possession of such information and therefore in a position to furnish such information? It is very believable and is very credible that Montgomery could and most certainly did furnish Coen with the information which is included in Coen's various correspondence and communications over a four month period between September 2002 and January 2003.

And the best shall be kept till last!  Montgomery would have the world believe that Coen's real agenda and ulterior motive for going to so much trouble on this issue was all because he wished to mount a witch-hunt and damage Montgomery's good name and reputation within DLGC! Some people might say Montgomery has most likely done that all by himself.  As to why Coen would wish to do so to a man that he met once, spoke to a handful of times and with whom he has never had any business or social association, Montgomery fails to explain!

It is somewhat ironical that Montgomery should unwittingly admit, in a letter to Dempsey (captain 2003), - a man who has at all times backed Montgomery to the hilt, metaphorically speaking of course - that he lied to the members at the EGM a number of times about his account of the meeting with Coen on 26^th August 2002.

Why did the Parent Council of DLGC ignore Montgomery's request to have his formal complaint investigated (Appendix 13)?  This is all the more alarming when one considers their reaction and response to two other separate and minor issues.  Did the Parent Council know or strongly suspect that Montgomery's complaint would not withstand such an investigation and close scrutiny?

Equally sinister was the decision by the Parent Council of DLGC to withold the existence of Montgomery's letter of 3^rd February 2003 (Appendix 13) from Coen for 8 months thereby depriving Coen of the opportunity to challenge its contents.

Has Montgomery's denials and lies caused serious damage and undermined the well being of DLGC?  If so, does such conduct warrant expulsion as a member of DLGC?