Temple signals legal action in dispute over Dundalk FC ownership deal

John Temple has signalled potential legal proceedings against Dundalk FC owner Chris Clinton, stating that he was not paid the full purchase price promised to him following the handover of control on October 30th.

Mr Temple had rescued the club from the brink of liquidation in September 2024, stepping in after a turbulent and short-lived tenure by Brian Ainscough, who had brought fellow US-based businessman Mr Clinton on board as a minority shareholder earlier that February.

READ NEXT: Inside Track: Hunterstown aiming to make in on to the roll of honour

Under the terms agreed on October 30th, Mr Temple was to transfer his 65% ownership stake to Mr Clinton on the understanding that he would receive the full purchase price stipulated in their agreement, along with the commitment of all associated expenses and capital gains taxes.

However, Ogier Ireland LLP, acting on behalf of Mr Temple, maintains that although €70,000—believed to be less than half of what is owed—has been paid, the outstanding balance remains unsettled.

This failure to honour the agreed terms has prompted the firm to issue a seven-day notice to Mr Clinton, underscoring that Mr Temple continues, in legal terms, to hold majority ownership of the company.

The correspondence, sent on November 26th to Mr Clinton and seen by The Democrat, reads: “Our client has yet to receive the full purchase price.

“Please note that our client is not obliged to transfer the shares, or indeed to transfer control of any operational matters, such as ownership of the email system, until the purchase price has been paid and Completion of the transaction has taken place. Therefore, unless and until the full purchase price is paid, our client remains the majority shareholder of the Company.

“Despite this you have made public statements that you have acquired our client's shareholding in the Company. That is incorrect and constitutes a malicious falsehood which is actionable under the Defamation Act 2009.

“The statement, "Chris Clinton has confirmed following discussions with former director John Temple, that he has acquired the 65% shareholding Mr Temple previously held", constitutes a malicious falsehood for the following reasons:

1. The statement is factually incorrect. Our client remains the majority shareholder of the Company unless and until the full purchase price is paid (which is not the case) and the shares have been formally transferred.

2. You are fully aware that this statement is incorrect since you signed the Agreement which stipulates that the transaction is not complete unless and until the full purchase price is paid.

3. Our client has suffered a loss as a result.”

Further statements made by Mr Clinton cited in the correspondence included: “I am delighted to take control of Dundalk FC and look forward to progressing the club onto solid foundations, on and off the field,” “we also need to address how the club is organised off the field of play,” and “there are various discussions ongoing with several potential new partners to attract income and investment to the club to help stabilise the current financial situation and to build for the longer term.”

Mr Temple’s representatives responded: “These statements, when taken together, create the impression and innuendo that our client has been forced out of the club and forced to sell his shareholding in the Company, that the club did not have "solid foundations, on and off the field" and was not well organised "off the field of play" during our client's tenor as majority shareholder and chair and that our client create a financial situation which was unstable.

“These statements have caused defamation of our client's good name and character amongst the Dundalk Town FC community, and his professional reputation as a barrister, causing severe loss, damage, inconvenience and expense to our client.

“In light of the above, our client demands that you:

1. Issue a letter addressed to our client correcting the malicious and defamatory statements and apologising to our client for those statements. Further, we require you to issue this apology through the Dundalk FC media and social media;

2. Immediately detract the malicious and defamatory statements made about our client in a statement to be published on the Dundalk Town FC website. Our client will approve the wording;

3. Provide a written undertaking that you will cease and desist from making any further malicious and defamatory statements about our client of any nature whatsoever; and

4. An appropriate donation to charity.

“If we do not receive a response to this letter including the required undertaking from you within 7 days of this date of this letter, we are instructed to issue proceedings against you without further notice.”

In relation to the monies owed to Mr Temple, the correspondence stated: “To date, our client has received circa €70,000 from you directly but no further funds have been transferred to him since. Your approach to the sum owed to our client has been to notify him that other third parties have been paid in advance.

“It is clear from the foregoing that you have misconstrued the terms of the Agreement. You appear to be acting under the misunderstanding that payment can be made in instalments with no definitive timelines.

“ Completion is conditional on the purchase price being paid. Our client is not obliged to transfer the shares, or indeed to transfer control of any operational matters, such as ownership of the email system, until the purchase price has been paid and completion of the transaction has taken place. Therefore, unless and until the full purchase price is paid, our client remains the majority shareholder of the company.

“Your failure to pay the purchase price, and your statement that no payment will be made until our client transfers the email system, constitutes a repudiatory breach of the Agreement, demonstrates a clear intention not to be bound by your contractual obligations, and deprives our client of the whole benefit of the Agreement.

“If full payment is not made within 7 days of the date of this letter, our client will accept your breach and will issue proceedings in the High Court for payment of the purchase price, expenses, taxes and consequential loss.

“Upon receipt of the full purchase price, our client confirms that he will take all steps required under the Agreement to satisfy the completion conditions.”

According to the correspondence, Mr Temple was issued minutes of a board meeting at which he was recorded as having resigned as a company director, despite not having attended the meeting.

“We are instructed that our client received a document purporting to be minutes of a board meeting of the Company held at Oriel Park on 30 October 2025, which was purportedly attended by you, Owen Clinton and Our Client. The minutes note resolutions that were purportedly approved, including the following:

• That a share transfer was approved by the Board for the transfer of 65 ordinary shares from our client to Eircode Investments LLC for consideration of €50,000.

• It was noted that John Temple has tendered his resignation as a Director of the Company.

“This meeting never took place. It is extraordinary that our client has received minutes which records his attendance, and purportedly approves resolutions that were never proposed or resolved at a board meeting of the Company.

“Notwithstanding the fact that this meeting did not occur and the resolutions were not passed, the following details are also factually incorrect:

• The consideration of €50,000 mentioned in the 'minutes' for the sale of our client's shares is wholly at odds with the stated purchase price in the Agreement.

• Our Client has not resigned as a director of the Company.

“Given the issues raised in this letter, we invite you to confirm that the board meeting did not take place, and the resolutions referred to were not resolved by the Board. If that confirmation is not forthcoming, our client wholly reserves his right to take further action.

“We note from an article on the Dundalk FC website on 25 November 2025 (here) that a meeting of the "newly constituted Management Board" was held.

“Our Client did not receive notice of any meeting of the board of directors and any decisions taken at a purported meeting of the Board of Directors would be null and void in those circumstances. Please confirm that the 'Management Board' meeting did not purport to be a meeting of the Board of directors of the Company.

“Our client remains a director of the Company. In fact, as you may be aware, the number of directors at the Company cannot be less than two and the quorum for any board meeting is two.

“Please propose an appropriate date and time for a board meeting of the Company and provide an agenda in advance.

“In order for our client to ensure that the Company is continuing to comply with the Companies Act 2014, we also formally request copies of the accounting records for the Company from 30 October 2025 to date. As a director, our client is entitled to this information under company law.”

The correspondence also draws attention to Dundalk FC’s application for a League of Ireland Premier Division licence, in which Mr Clinton identified himself as the club’s majority shareholder.

“The FAI Club Licencing Regulations require that where a person has acquired significant control of a League of Ireland club it must be formally declared to the FAI.

“The Buyer's purported acquisition of the club would constitute the acquisition of significant control, when completed, and would therefore be notifiable to the FAI.

“Upon completion, our client is happy to support any such application, as necessary. However, unless and until the purchase price is paid to our client, our client remains a majority shareholder of the Company and any purported notification to the FAI in those circumstances would be incorrect. We will formally notify the FAI of this fact.”

It concluded: “We hereby put you on notice that our client will grant you 7 days from the date of this letter to remedy the repudiatory breach of contract by making full payment of the purchase price, with expenses and all taxes owed pursuant to the Agreement.

“If your client fails to do so, our client will accept your breach and will issue proceedings in the High Court for payment of the purchase price, expenses, taxes and consequential loss.

“If it proves necessary for our client to issue proceedings, our client will rely on this correspondence on its application for the costs of those proceedings.”

The Democrat has contacted Mr Clinton for comment.