Dunphy, Flood in public row

AS the FAI saga rumbles on, lurking beneath the surface is Wimbledon's proposed relocation to Dublin; an issue either inextricably linked with the association's recent travail (and, as one officer maintained, the root of the problems) or else merely a coincidental sideshow.

Even as a sideshow, it took a needlessly nasty twist yesterday in the form of a public spat between the Shelbourne chairman Finbarr Flood and the journalist

Eamonn Dunphy. The Evening Herald revealed that Dunphy has been a significant broker between connections at Wimbledon and on this side of the Irish sea in recent times, one of the consequences of which was a meeting between Flood and the Wimbledon chairman Sam Hamman on February 8th.

As Dunphy sees it, that meeting (which took place in Dobbins Bistro) was confidential, but as Flood recalls it, there was no mention of confidentiality. "I was asked by a journalist if had met Sam Hamman, and what was I to do? If I said no, I was lying, and if I said `no comment' I was compromising myself. If I had wanted to keep it a secret, why would we have met in Dobbins Bistro?" Dunphy said: "I have been talking to people, in an entirely informal and confidential way, about the feasibility of Wimbledon moving here. I'm good friends with both Sam Hamman and Joe Kinnear (the Wimbledon manager).

"Sam is a pal and on his behalf I went to a number of people in the League of Ireland. I don't consider myself compromised because this Wimbledon thing isn't an issue. I would like to see a premiership club based here and

I believe it would be good for the game in this country, but only if it serves the interest of the league clubs here and Irish soccer, and no-one was more enthusiastic about the venture than Finbarr Flood."

Recalling their meeting of February 8th, Hamman said yesterday that Flood "was loo per cent for it, and I mean 100 per cent, not 99 per cent," after which he was shown around Tolka Park by Shelbourne secretary Ollie Byrne with a view to the ground providing an interim home, if needed, for Wimbledon pending the completion of a new stadium.

The Shelbourne chairman admits: "I wouldn't have been saying it was a bad idea. My whole thinking was that when the idea was up and running it should be put to the council as a positive thing, and that it should be up front. There was any never doubt about that.

"I understood I was being briefed. I wasn't against it or otherwise.

When you say 100 per cent, I wasn't against it or otherwise, I have to say it was an exciting project, but I wasn't asked to be 100 per cent behind it. I wasn't asked to make any commitment. I understood I was being kept briefed, as were other people. I couldn't say I was negative about it. I wouldn't have been.

"In terms of the project itself it was being presented very positively and very excitingly and my understanding was that it would ultimately be presented to the council in a positive fashion.

"I thought it was an exciting project, but my key thing was that the clubs would be against it, just like us, unless there was a positive package for the league and everybody else. That's what I was doing.

The irony is that Dunphy and Flood, despite their falling out, are essentially coming from a similar viewpoint, as are several others associated with the domestic game. But to be seen to be in any way actively involved in the process is interpreted as compromising the individuals concerned. This follows uniformity from the floor at the council meeting of December that Wimbledon's relocation should be a non-runner, even though ho hard proposals have ever been put to them.