Richard Lamb issues statement on failed bid to buy Bradford Bulls

Richard Lamb

Richard Lamb

First published in Sport
Last updated
by

Richard Lamb has issued the following statement after seeing his bid to buy the Bulls rejected last week by the RFL.

The London-based businessman fronted a consortium including former Bulls chief executive Abi Ekoku and wealthy property developers from the capital.

Their offer for the club was accepted in principle by administrator David Wilson last Thursday before the RFL requested proof of funds of £1million by the following day in order to seal the deal.

Lamb was unable to meet that deadline

Lamb's statement reads: "After a long few weeks I would like to clarify my role in the attempted purchase of Bradford Bulls.

"When the club went into administration at the end of January, I made approach to the administrators with regard to the purchase of the club. The process and timings were clear & a bid was made under the auspice of Lucid. This was rejected in favour of Bradford Bulls 2014 and confirmation was received that evening.

"After the failure of Bradford Bulls 2014, another approach was made to the administrator with regard to purchasing the club. Some limited information was made available to understand the financial position of the club at which point I approached a number of private investors to get involved to support the club.

"A bid was made and confirmed by the administrators w/c 17th March under an investment vehicle with share capital of £2 million. Proof of funds was asked for & shown to the RFL by the main investor on March 18th to a very significant level.

"On March 19th we were asked by the RFL to show proof of funds to the value of £1 million within 24 hours. Having spoken to a number of other owners, proof of funds has not been involved in the purchase of a club only the funds to buy the club. Any company that is bought out of administration the main focus is showing that funds are available to purchase, what happens next is down to the new owners.

"When I met with the main investor that evening & spoke to his lawyers we confirmed we would work to that deadline. Sadly due to the investor being abroad over Friday-Sunday period the lawyers on Friday am expressed concern re sharing that level of information without written approval of the main investor on the Friday. This confirmation was shared with the RFL.

"Over the Friday-Sunday period I tried to get clarity from the RFL & administrators about who needed to see the £1 million funds & why, as the Administrator didn’t and the RFL only wanted to show funds to keep the club afloat to the end of the season. At all times I confirmed that I could purchase the club with cash.

"On Monday we received confirmation that we were no longer the preferred bidder as the RFL had chosen someone else. It is disappointing for us that more time was not given to us as on Monday we could have shown those available funds.

"Getting involved in any new sport is often hard & people are nervous about your motives.

"Rugby League is a great sport, which needs new investment and support, and as Marwan has stated it needs to engage and encourage new people and companies to get involved. At the moment it is a very hard club to break into."

* Four pages of reaction to Marc Green being announced Bulls owner in tomorrow's T&A

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21pm Wed 26 Mar 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

If this statement is correct then how come the Legal eagles on this forum say that the RFL do not choose the bidder.Apparently they wait for the Administrator to present,in his opinion,the best bid.As i have said all along the Administrator has no say in the proceedings.The RFL choose who they do or do not want.I fear now that this farce could run and run.A couple of hours ago I was satisfied with the outcome,now I am not so sure.
If this statement is correct then how come the Legal eagles on this forum say that the RFL do not choose the bidder.Apparently they wait for the Administrator to present,in his opinion,the best bid.As i have said all along the Administrator has no say in the proceedings.The RFL choose who they do or do not want.I fear now that this farce could run and run.A couple of hours ago I was satisfied with the outcome,now I am not so sure. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 8

9:49pm Wed 26 Mar 14

NG1972 says...

The truths will come out. Ive said all along that RFL will be fully engaged with the decision making process and they have been hence deciding that marc greens bid was the best. This decision has been made based on mr green being one of the creditors. I would like to see mrs ks bid she for me was the only to get us out of the mess we are in and take us back where we belong and the RFL dont want that they are totally anti bradford you only have to watch officials every week. Im still very cautious about this because i still believe there is another twist that is going to happen.
The truths will come out. Ive said all along that RFL will be fully engaged with the decision making process and they have been hence deciding that marc greens bid was the best. This decision has been made based on mr green being one of the creditors. I would like to see mrs ks bid she for me was the only to get us out of the mess we are in and take us back where we belong and the RFL dont want that they are totally anti bradford you only have to watch officials every week. Im still very cautious about this because i still believe there is another twist that is going to happen. NG1972
  • Score: 5

9:55pm Wed 26 Mar 14

AUGUST1964 says...

No matter what the best bid maybe, if the RFL decide to make it awkward for that bidder, and they create conditions that cannot be met, and subsequently that bidder pulls out or fails to meet those conditions then they are controlling which bidder wins.
It is not in the best interests of the creditors surely ,if the RFL know something is untoward with a bid it should be made public knowledge.
The RFL should now explain why they needed confirmation of funds so urgently.
No matter what the best bid maybe, if the RFL decide to make it awkward for that bidder, and they create conditions that cannot be met, and subsequently that bidder pulls out or fails to meet those conditions then they are controlling which bidder wins. It is not in the best interests of the creditors surely ,if the RFL know something is untoward with a bid it should be made public knowledge. The RFL should now explain why they needed confirmation of funds so urgently. AUGUST1964
  • Score: 6

10:52pm Wed 26 Mar 14

axelf1963 says...

Viking 1964 after been rumbled again as man from the pru
Viking 1964 after been rumbled again as man from the pru axelf1963
  • Score: -2

6:23am Thu 27 Mar 14

raisemeup says...

AUGUST1964 wrote:
No matter what the best bid maybe, if the RFL decide to make it awkward for that bidder, and they create conditions that cannot be met, and subsequently that bidder pulls out or fails to meet those conditions then they are controlling which bidder wins.
It is not in the best interests of the creditors surely ,if the RFL know something is untoward with a bid it should be made public knowledge.
The RFL should now explain why they needed confirmation of funds so urgently.
A very unsettling scenario to welcome a new owner. The conduct of the RFL is once again in question.
We can only hope that he (Marc Green) means what he says, because we sure as H..L can't trust the RFL to give us a consistent or believable story.
They have slandered everyone in the past couple of years and been the main stumbling block to our future.
Another blight on what should have been a celebration of a new dawn??
Like spanglish I feel a little less confident?

More questions need to be asked and answered by the present hierarchy at the RFL?
[quote][p][bold]AUGUST1964[/bold] wrote: No matter what the best bid maybe, if the RFL decide to make it awkward for that bidder, and they create conditions that cannot be met, and subsequently that bidder pulls out or fails to meet those conditions then they are controlling which bidder wins. It is not in the best interests of the creditors surely ,if the RFL know something is untoward with a bid it should be made public knowledge. The RFL should now explain why they needed confirmation of funds so urgently.[/p][/quote]A very unsettling scenario to welcome a new owner. The conduct of the RFL is once again in question. We can only hope that he (Marc Green) means what he says, because we sure as H..L can't trust the RFL to give us a consistent or believable story. They have slandered everyone in the past couple of years and been the main stumbling block to our future. Another blight on what should have been a celebration of a new dawn?? Like spanglish I feel a little less confident? More questions need to be asked and answered by the present hierarchy at the RFL? raisemeup
  • Score: 2

8:51am Thu 27 Mar 14

spanglishbull.uk says...

Raise,
I would not believe a word of what comes out of Red Hall.If they told me it was Thursday today I would make sure I checked my diary.
Raise, I would not believe a word of what comes out of Red Hall.If they told me it was Thursday today I would make sure I checked my diary. spanglishbull.uk
  • Score: 1

9:04am Thu 27 Mar 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

Timescale for proving funds to last beyond the end of the season (no short term fix) was asked for and wasn't provided.
I can't see a problem, unless the rest of you are happy to finish the season then hit a wall once the season ends again and end up right back where we started.
Timescale for proving funds to last beyond the end of the season (no short term fix) was asked for and wasn't provided. I can't see a problem, unless the rest of you are happy to finish the season then hit a wall once the season ends again and end up right back where we started. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Thu 27 Mar 14

bradfordbronco says...

Thee Voice of Reason wrote:
Timescale for proving funds to last beyond the end of the season (no short term fix) was asked for and wasn't provided.
I can't see a problem, unless the rest of you are happy to finish the season then hit a wall once the season ends again and end up right back where we started.
How many checks have the RFL done in the past and still we hit a wall. Are you saying now we won't hit a wall because the RFL have done their checks. They did their checks on Caisley, Hood, Kahn, Moore & Co, Lamb and previous owners at salford, Wakefield, Castleford, London and others and still the walls get hit as you put it. Who's to say if they hadn't interfered things would have been any worse ?
Are you completely happy with the way the RFL have acted throughout? I'm not
[quote][p][bold]Thee Voice of Reason[/bold] wrote: Timescale for proving funds to last beyond the end of the season (no short term fix) was asked for and wasn't provided. I can't see a problem, unless the rest of you are happy to finish the season then hit a wall once the season ends again and end up right back where we started.[/p][/quote]How many checks have the RFL done in the past and still we hit a wall. Are you saying now we won't hit a wall because the RFL have done their checks. They did their checks on Caisley, Hood, Kahn, Moore & Co, Lamb and previous owners at salford, Wakefield, Castleford, London and others and still the walls get hit as you put it. Who's to say if they hadn't interfered things would have been any worse ? Are you completely happy with the way the RFL have acted throughout? I'm not bradfordbronco
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree