Ahern and Reynolds in stadium talks, tribunal told

Albert Reynolds and Bertie Ahern both visited the US to discuss a proposed stadium in west Dublin with an American investment bank in the early 1990s, the Mahon tribunal was told yesterday.

Mr Reynolds visited Los Angeles in September 1993 when he was taoiseach and met Bill O'Connor, of Chilton O'Connor Investment Bankers. Mr Ahern made his trip in March 1994.

The US company was considering investing in a national stadium proposed for Neilstown, which was being mooted by Cork developer Owen O'Callaghan, with the support of lobbyist Frank Dunlop, architect Ambrose Kelly and the late Liam Lawlor.

Mr Lawlor's son, Niall Lawlor, was working for Chilton O'Connor at the time.

Mr Dunlop said yesterday he did not know who set up the meetings between Mr Reynolds, Mr Ahern and the bankers, but it may have been Mr Lawlor.

In a letter to Mr Dunlop, written after Mr Reynolds' visit, Kevin Burke, vice-president of Chilton O'Connor, said the company was "very confident that the level of support which the Republic of Ireland has committed will create a very attractive security".

Mr Dunlop had said he did not believe the government had given any commitment to funding the project.

However, Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, highlighted notes taken at a meeting between Mr Dunlop and three solicitors from Arthur Cox & Co in September 1993. The solicitors all separately recorded that Mr Dunlop told them the government had made a commitment of £5 million per annum for 10 years to the stadium.

"That would suggest, unless you are in the business of misleading your solicitor, and I wouldn't suggest you'd do such a thing . . . that a commitment of some sort had been given for State funding," Ms Dillon said.

Mr Dunlop said he could not say he made such a statement, because he did not remember any such commitment.

He said there was an agreement between Mr O'Callaghan, Mr Lawlor, Mr Kelly and himself that they would each take a 25 per cent stake in the stadium when it was built. But, he said, someone would hold Mr Lawlor's stake for him because they did not want it known that he was involved in the project. "People's perceptions of the matter might have been skewed by virtue of the fact that Liam Lawlor was attached," Mr Dunlop said.