The official statement (as is the often the way with these things raises more questions for me than it answers. Some of the questions that come to mind are:

1. Who was actually running the project? We are told that the Classac committee was a sub-committee of the Cluain Tarbh Branch, but Diarmuid (who Breandán identifies as the Branch Secretary) states that the Project Manager was in Head Office (a statement which has not been contested) and the statement indicates that the bills were being paid from CCE HQ. It would seem that the project was not as far removed from HQ as we are being led to believe.

2. Why did HQ become so exercised about the VAT refund being returned to Revenue instead of to them? The statement seems to concur with the view that the refund wasn't properly payable in this case. The money was therefore the property of the exchequer, and ultimately the Irish taxpayer. This being the case we can only assume that the money would have gone back to Revenue in any event. While this is being played down at the moment, it would appear to me that the refund of the money directly to Revenue was the action that precipatated the dissolution of the Branch.

3. Why did the trustees have a problem with guaranteeing the loan negotiated by the Classac committee? We are told there were technical reasons why the trustees felt unable to guarantee the loan and that they were exercising their fiduciary duties to protect other Comhaltas property. But statements from the branch on their website indicate that the loan was ringfenced to Classac - was this not the case?

Democracy is about people having the right to choose those who represent them. We are now bing told that it is good for democracy that the committee chosen by the Branch (I presume) is being replaced by a "better" committee, chosen by HQ. I'd hate to live in a "Democracy" run by Comhaltas HQ.