Tottenham expected to receive £10m less than first reported in frustrating financial twist

1 hour ago 19

Football finance expert Stefan Borson has given his take on the damages that INEOS have paid to Tottenham Hotspur after the parties settled their dispute out of court.

The main bone of contention was that after INOEOS announced a multi-million-pound, five-year deal with Spurs in December 2022, they decided to end the agreement prematurely last year.

Subsequently, Tottenham took High Court legal action on June 12 against INEOS, and it was reported by some sources that Spurs were seeking £11m from Man United’s minority owners.

Last week, an out-of-court settlement was reached between the two parties, with The Telegraph claiming that Spurs were paid around £5.5m in damages.

Stefan Borson rubishes claims about damages paid out to Tottenham

Stefan Borson has poured cold water on the claims made by the media regarding the amount paid by Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s company to Tottenham Hotspur.

The finance expert claimed that the damages received by the North London club would not have amounted to more than £1m-£2m.

Borson told Football Insider about the two parties’ settlement: “I saw one report that was something like £11m. I don’t think it’s anywhere near that. I said before I expected it to settle when you read the case.

“I did pay to download the pleadings to have a look at what the case was about and who had the better of the case. If I had to estimate, I would think it was only settled for about £1m in Spurs’ direction. Maybe £1.5-2m, but it’s that sort of order, not £10-11m.

“I don’t think they had a particularly strong chance of winning their upper limits of damages, but I do think they had a case, particularly in relation to the season where INEOS effectively attempted to just cancel in mid-season. I do think they had a case there. I can see why there would be some payment to them, and it seems sensible.”

Borson claims Spurs were never going to take the case to court

Borson explained that neither Tottenham nor INEOS would have wanted legal proceedings, as that would have set both parties back financially.

He suggested that the mediation between the two parties that led to a settlement would not have lasted more than a day.

Borson added: “To take this to trial would have been hundreds of thousands of pounds, which wouldn’t really have made sense.

“I suspect what happened was that once they have the pleaded cases from both sides, somebody suggested a mediation and probably over a period of maybe a day, they got a mediator involved, who shuttled between the two parties and got them to a £1m settlement for them to shake hands and everybody walked away.”