With each new day of evidence to the Flood tribunal, the questions facing the members of the Independent Radio and Television Commission who awarded the first national commercial broadcasting licence to Century Radio continue to mount. It is clear now that the IRTC made the crucial decision to award the licence to Century from a position of extreme ignorance, having been kept in the dark about important aspects of the bid. For example, the IRTC didn't know who was investing in the venture, and was unaware that Century was involved in another bid for a Dublin licence.
Furthermore, it appears from the evidence of Century's cofounder, Mr James Stafford, that the commission failed to ask vital questions at the oral hearings in January 1989 which might have had a bearing on Century's application. It didn't ask about the station's costings for transmitting its signal, which were significantly lower than those of the other bidders.
And, it seems, Century knew it wouldn't be asked any such awkward questions.
Now we learn that on the day after the hearings Mr Stafford met the chairman of the IRTC, retired High Court judge Mr Justice Seamus Henchy, and the secretary, Mr Sean Connolly.
It was, as Mr Stafford underlined in subsequent correspondence, a "very satisfactory" meeting. In other words, Century had got the gig. It wasn't until six days later that the official announcement was made, at a commission meeting in Cork. But, as Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, asked, what was Mr Stafford doing, meeting the IRTC representatives on the day after a public presentation?
The meeting commands further interest in that Mr Stafford noted that Mr Henchy and Mr Connolly promised to "challenge" RTE on the matter of transmission charges and to "justify" £300,000 as the amount Century would have to pay RTE.
At the time, RTE was looking for considerably more, so the IRTC's seeming advocacy of a lower charge must have been welcome to Century. All the more so since the Department of Communications and RTE had already agreed a fee of more than £600,000 by this time.
But Century was no slouch when it came to opening doors in high places. Before he had even submitted its application for a licence, Mr Stafford had prepared a briefing document for the Minister for Communications, Mr Burke, on the transmission fee issue. He put forward a figure of £375,000 as an acceptable fee for RTE to charge for retransmission, long before Century ever got into negotiations with RTE. This matter will be explored further as Mr Stafford completes his evidence next week.
The other main issue yesterday concerned the nature of the witness's knowledge of the £35,000 payment by his Century colleague, Mr Oliver Barry, to Mr Burke in May 1989.
Mr Barry claims his co-founder Mr Stafford knew about the payment in advance. What does Mr Stafford say? Well, he told the tribunal in private last May that the first he "actually" knew about the payment was when he read newspaper reports of Mr Barry's evidence last February.
Up to then, according to his version yesterday, he knew about it but didn't "actually" believe it was true. Mr Barry owed him £29,000 and he thought this was just another story to avoid having to repay the debt.
Mr Hanratty said he was lying. It was "screamingly obvious" that he had misled the tribunal by getting everyone to believe that he only learned of the payment in the newspapers.
Mr Stafford denied this. He dated his knowledge of the payment to a meeting he had with Mr Barry in March 1991, almost two years after Mr Barry made the contribution to Mr Burke.
The paper trail followed by Mr Hanratty yesterday casts considerable doubt on Mr Stafford's account. For a start, Mr Stafford's hand-written note of Mr Barry's revelation is dated March 1990; the witness said this was an error.
The documents show the considerable efforts Mr Stafford made to ensure that a sum of £40,000 was repaid to Mr Barry by Century. Mr Hanratty said this related to the £35,000 figure plus a £5,000 contribution Mr Barry had made to Fianna Fail.
No, Mr Stafford explained, this related to another repayment, coincidentally for the same amount of £40,000, due to Mr Barry for services rendered. But as Mr Hanratty pointed out, no invoices exist for these services. Where Mr Barry did provide services to Century, he was in the habit of invoicing, counsel demonstrated.
Finally, Mr Stafford's own notes - made later when he sued his former colleagues over unpaid debts - states that Mr Barry "said he was entitled to £40,000 in respect of certain payments he had made". Mr Stafford said this note was incorrect.