Bick hoist on his own petard

When I first spoke to David Bick about the Harris bid he said "the bid is funded by three guys, they have all made a lot of money and, whilst they have no wish to lose it, they are not bothered about making a fast buck out of it".

He went on to describe Alan Hitchins, our veterinarian friend, as a man who had "made a lot of money in investments and wanted to give something back".

They have since described Pascal Najadi and Alan Hitchins as "passive investors" on numerous occasions.

On Saturday Bick warmed to his theme:

‘With us, there’s no public funds involved, it’s just three individuals.’

Keith Harris tonight said in the Guardian:

"I'm not in it just to make money, but I'm not doing it to lose money."

Except I have been told that by a certain bunch of lawyers that to say anything other than "Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid" is defamatory. And they wished me to publish this. There you go then. Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid. Which means Keith and Alan are not putting any money in but Bick and Harris are saying they are.

Both versions cannot be true. Either one of them is solely funding the bid or three of them are. This is everything that the past has taught us to be wary of. Why can't they answer a simple question?

I sent David Bick a list of questions I wanted answered. He wanted all of his replies used verbatim so here we go, (I have redacted the other questions he refused to answer for a follow up blog):

1. On Saturday you again claimed that the Harris bid was funded by three private individuals, yet I am also told that Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid. Which is true?

2. Is Keith Harris on any form of bonus/inducement/no win no fee from Portpin?

David Bick:

Micah

I know you already face one libel action, which hardly surprises me, so I will not be goaded into another against you. It is rather contradictory for you to say to me over the telephone that I am known as a person of integrity and then imply lying on my part. Your questions are baseless and contain several material actual and implied inaccuracies.

Let me ask you a question or two: is your concern really that Keith Harris' bid is materially superior in virtually every respect compared to the other bid. While I respect the endeavours of a minority of the supporters to find a solution to the Club's plight, could it be that you know really that Keith's bid has the best interests of the Club at heart?

Let your conscience speak.

David Bick

I responded and asked these two questions again:

Micah,

If you read the email again carefully, I have given you a clear answer to every question. For guidance, the key word is 'baseless'.

I also referred to your inaccuracies. Given your ceaseless search for the truth no doubt you will correct these. I presume you have no wish to run into further issues with the law of the land on defamation.

If you wish to quote my two email responses, please do me the courtesy of reproducing them verbatim.

And the answers to my questions appear to have been avoided?

I responded thus:

David,

I can't believe that you are finding it so hard to answer two simple questions.

I'll ask you again:

1. On Saturday (and again in todays Guardian actually) you again claimed that the Harris bid was funded by three private individuals, yet I am also told that Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid. Which is true?

2. Is Keith Harris on any form of bonus/inducement/no win no fee from Portpin?

I'm giving you the chance to answer these questions again. If you do not, I will run the blog and simply say that although contacted you refused to answer..

Micah Hall

David Bick:

I can't believe you won't answer mine. They are easy to understand. What is your problem with providing answers?Just stick to the truth and you'll be fine.

I am quite satisfied that my aggregated answer to your questions is crystal clear.

I replied:

David,

I shall therefore quote you as saying that it is "baseless" to suggest that Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid.

I will also quote you as saying it is "baseless" to suggest that Keith Harris is on a no win no fee from Portpin.

Are you sure those are the answers you wish to give to these simple questions?

He replied:

David Bick:

Works for me. Please note my request for verbatim reporting though. Courtesy never hurts anyone.

He can consider this noted. I replied once again:

1. On Saturday (and again in todays Guardian actually) you again claimed that the Harris bid was funded by three private individuals, yet I am also told that Pascal Najadi is the sole funder of the bid. Which is true?

2. Is Keith Harris on any form of bonus/inducement/no win no fee from Portpin?

He replied:

David Bick:

And your answers are?

I then responded once again with a summary of what I intended to publish and gave him 30 minutes to think it over and answer the questions.

David Bick:

I don't respond to threats either. Publish that if you have integrity.

His wish is my command. I'm not that keen on threats myself. And coming from a man who rang me to gloat when I received a Letter before Action for defamation it rings a bit hollow.

There are also 4 texts for completeness:

1. David, just sent you some questions for 10pm blog deadline - check email.

2. Please check further emails.

3. Please see further email.

4. Please see further email?

---

Note: On legal advice I have slightly amended the form of one of the questions but it still means exactly the same thing.

Why is it so hard to answer these two simple questions?

I will now proceed to answer Bick's question to me:

The Harris bid is financially superior to the PST bid in one respect: the money it pays to Portpin. In both other key areas, I believe it is inferior:

1. It offers less to unsecured creditors

2. It offers £3m of working capital on which some kind of return is expected - as opposed to the £3m investment from fans which is not in any way a speculation and which the fans are prepared, in overwhelming numbers, to see used simply to see the club survive and not to generate any financial return for the investors.

The other key point of course which Mr Bick has spectacularly failed to grasp - with the PST bid we know who is involved, what they are investing and why. We know they are fans. We know the people running the bid and funding it love Portsmouth FC dearly.

What we know about the Harris bid is that there was one bid, which was to rent Fratton Park for some nebulous future purchase. Then there was the same bid but this time offering 15% to the fans he is competing with. We now know there is a third bid.

We know that the first two bids were structured the way Portpin wanted it done - source David Bick, "they wanted it that way".

We also know Keith Harris took £650k from Portpin to sell the club to CSI - which was a disaster waiting to happen, and works out at about £100k per month CSI survived. We also know he tried to sell the club to Bassini, who is thankfully now banned from football after his time at Watford.

In short, we know Keith Harris played a major role in the unfolding disaster of the last two years and was richly rewarded for it. There is nothing illegal in that. It's not wrong to do it if you are a broker. However, not a single person involved in running the Fans bid would have taken that £650k from Portpin to sell it to CSI. And that is the difference between a fan businessman, like the HNW investors and Trust, and someone like Harris.

I once asked Bick whether he would be happy if Harris had sold his beloved West Ham United to CSI then rolled up offering to invest his commission in the club.

"Of course not" was the answer.

So there's your answer David, out of your own mouth.

I asked Tavistock (for Portpin) question 2 but to be fair to them it was late and they had no way of checking at this advanced hour so they declined to comment. I have invited them to come back with a response at their convenience and I will append it to the piece.