VII.

The Trustees / Parent Council Response.

The Trustees and Parent Council of DLGC were unofficially informed of the information Coen had received from Montgomery in early September 2002 when Coen spoke with Terry McSweeney and Brendan Ryan respectively.

With no response from Ryan and as McSweeney's refused to meet with Coen on the matter, Coen wrote to the Trustees on 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5).  Coen's decision to write to the Trustees was twofold.

Coen hand-delivered the letter (Appendix 5) to the home of the Trustees. Coen received an acknowledgement on 17^th October 2002 which stated: “I am writing on behalf of the Trustees to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 8^th October 2002 and enclosed correspondence.  The contents will be considered as soon as all the Trustees are available, following which you will be contacted.”  Other then this reply, the Trustees of DLGC never responded in writing to Coen's letter of 8^th October 2002.

On 29^th October 2002 Coen was contacted by the club president, McKimm requesting a meeting to discuss the letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5). McKimm questioned Coen on the appropriateness of writing to the Trustees on the matter. Coen explained his reasons for doing so and that the seriousness of the matter warranted the Trustees involvement.  McKimm acknowledged how serious the correspondence was and went on to advise Coen that, “the matter might be a lot more serious then you think.”  There is absolute certainty in Coen's recollection on this point.

On 1^st November 2002 Coen spoke again with McKimm and advised him that he would attend the meeting alone and that he would only meet with McKimm. Coen also requested the meeting on neutral territory rather then in McKimm's home.  McKimm declined this request and advised Coen that he would have to revert to the other Trustees for direction. McKimm then censured Coen for writing the letter of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5). Coen considered McKimm's comments to be both threatening and intimidating. The telephone conversation continued for the best part of an hour and can best be summarised as follows.

VII.

The Trustees / Parent Council Response (cont/d….).

On 19^th November 2002, Coen was invited to a meeting with representatives of the Trustees and Parent Council, on 25^th November 2002 “…. to discuss the points raised by you in respect of the Ballyman Project.  Coen attended the meeting with another full member, Des Bodley, whose function was to act as witness and to record the minutes of the meeting. Bodley's minutes (Appendix 10) accurately record the proceedings of this meeting and can be summarised as follows.

VII.

The Trustees / Parent Council Response (cont/d….).

The minutes of this meeting were drafted by Bodley and delivered to Sexton the following day. On 3^rd December 2002 Sexton returned the minutes to Coen, unsigned and with extensive amendments (Appendix 10).

The extent of the amendments suggest that Sexton and Byrne were attempting to introduce matters into the record of the meeting which they would like to have said, maybe should have said but simply did not say. After due consideration, Bodley and Coen concluded that the nature and extent of such amendments could not be accepted and Bodley wrote to Sexton on 8^th January 2003 advising him of this decision (Appendix 10).

On Saturday 30^th November 2002 the Parent Council of DLGC held an emergency meeting to discuss the Member's requisition which had been lodged with the club the previous day. On 5^th December 2002 an unsigned and undated Notice from the club captain, Pearse Rayel, was posted in the clubhouse advising members that the EGM had been requisitioned. This Notice included the following statement.

“……the information requests and submissions made by the member, all of which have been fully investigated, the Parent Council, together with the Officers and Trustees of the club, are absolutely satisfied with all aspects of the transaction to date.”

How was it possible that the content of Coen's letter to the Trustee's of 8^th October 2002 (Appendix 5) could have been fully investigated if at no time Coen was interviewed or questioned on his account of the meeting with Montgomery on 26^th August 2002?  Had Montgomery been interviewed as part of this investigation and if so by whom?

On 23^rd December 2002, a meeting of the past captains of DLGC was held in the clubhouse. This meeting was attended by the Trustees, certain members of the Parent Council and the CRC.  The president of the club, Peter McKimm, who would chair the forthcoming EGM was also in attendance. The purpose of this meeting apparently was to consider how best to “respond” to the member's requisition and also no doubt to ensure that all past captains were “on side” and would support the Parent Council at the EGM. A certain “dissenting” past captain who attended this meeting was subject to shameful and disgraceful intimidation.

VII.

The Trustees / Parent Council Response (cont/d….).

In this period, certain members who had signed the requisition calling the EGM were also subject to regrettable conduct by a trustee, a past captain and by supporters of the Parent Council, including past Council members.  Unquestionably, such conduct reflects poorly on those involved.

In this period the members of DLGC were informed that the Parent Council of DLGC had obtained Senior Counsel's opinion on the member's requisition calling the EGM and were advised that a point on the requisition was invalid and would not be taken at the EGM.  When Coen requested a copy of this opinion it was again refused on the grounds of confidentiality.

The EGM on 9^th January 2003 was described as a Tiger Woods style presentation and cost the members of DLGC ˆ24,000.

A critical aspect of the Parent Council's presentation to the members of DLGC at the EGM on 9^th January 2003 was Montgomery's denials and lies concerning Coen's account of the meeting on 26^th August 2002.  Without such denials and lies, the Parent Council's presentation would have been meaningless and a farce.

The EGM on 9^th January 2003 can be summarised as follows.

Note : The reader should note that this information had not previously been disclosed to the members of DLGC by the CRC or the Parent Council and such information appears to be very similar to the information Coen received from Montgomery on 26^th August 2002.  In particular, the figure of ˆ8 million for the clubhouse corresponds with Coen's note of the meeting with Montgomery on 26^th August 2002 (Appendix 1).

No explanation was offered by the Parent Council as to why ˆ16 million of these costs were not covered by Clause 14 of the Heads of Agreement. The Club's solicitors, Arthur Cox, wrote to Coen's solicitors on 4^th April 2003 and stated in relation to clause 14 of the Heads of Agreement.

“Clause 14 of the Heads of Agreement could not be more clear. All costs of whatever nature relating to the proposed transaction are to be borne by the developer. This is in addition to the developer's obligations to discharge its own costs arising in connection with the transaction.”

VII.

The Trustees / Parent Council Response (cont/d….).

Sexton also accused Coen and the requisitioners of  “asserting that ˆ17.4 million was missing………..”  Why should Sexton make such a statement?  Coen never made any such assertion.  All Coen has sought and continues to seek is Montgomery's admission that he furnished the breakdown of the Ballyman development costs including  ˆ17.4 million, at the meeting on 26^th August 2002.  Was Sexton's statement a cynical attempt to move the member's attention away from the real issue – Montgomery's disclosures to Coen?

Sexton also stated “clause 14 should not be taken in isolation …………it was inserted to protect the club from future costs.” While this would now appear to be the “official line” on the issue, it is somewhat amazing that both Montgomery and Sexton, on behalf of the captain (Dempsey), the Parent Council and the Trustees, should place a diametrically opposite interpretation on clause 14 to that of the club's solicitors – see pages 17 and 29.

The approach by the parent council of DLGC to the members at this meeting was very clear – you must believe what we tell you without question or challenge irrespective of the facts and we will not provide you with any evidence to support our claims.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Parent Council of DLGC spent ˆ24,000 of their member's money in staging the EGM on 9^th January 2003, - this must be worthy of an entry in the Guinness Book of Records - the members did not receive one shred of documentary evidence to support Montgomery's denials and lies and the apparent unqualified support of such denials and lies by the Trustees and the Parent Council of DLGC.

The meeting on 9^th January 2003 allowed Montgomery to simply deny that he did not provide Coen with the information that had been reflected in numerous documentation between 7^th September 2002 and 9^th January 2003, a period of 4 months - without any demand that he explain why he had not done so months earlier when he clearly had the opportunity to do so.

The Law of meetings, a publication which is endorsed by a High Court Judge, states that the minutes of a meeting should be Authentic, Accurate, Concise yet Complete and Clear and Unambiguous.

The minutes of the EGM on 9^th January 2003 (Appendix 12) fall well short of these legal requirements.  When certain members of the club, including a past captain, sought to question the accuracy and content of the minutes of this meeting at the club's AGM in January 2004, they were ruled “out of order” by the chair, Peter McKimm.

People outside DLGC will no doubt wonder why the members of the club would allow such a sad state of affairs prevail in their golf club.  The reason is very simple – intimidation and bullying and a perverted attitude by the "establishment" that ensures that no member will question or challenge their actions or decisions.

Following the club's Annual General Meeting in January 2004, a senior and respected member of the club who spoke at the meeting was approached separately after the meeting by the club president, Peter McKimm and a former captain and Council member, Liam O'Riordan, who advised the member concerned.

Do such statements not reflect poorly on the calibre of the “establishment” in DLGC?