Tottenham told what it will take to ‘settle off the claim’ from Nottingham Forest for Gibbs-White

Tottenham Hotspur’s pursuit of Morgan Gibbs-White has become one of the summer’s most heated transfer battles, with Nottingham Forest digging in over the circumstances surrounding the midfielder’s potential move to North London.

The situation escalated after Forest accused Spurs of making an illegal approach for Gibbs-White, following revelations that the Premier League side had knowledge of a £60 million release clause embedded in the player’s contract—information Forest insists was confidential.

Forest owner Evangelos Marinakis has taken strong exception to Tottenham’s actions, prompting the club to submit a formal complaint to the Premier League.

As talks stall, Gibbs-White has returned to training with Forest, though his presence at the City Ground appears increasingly temporary. Behind the scenes, the expectation remains that the transfer will still happen, albeit not without some compromise.

Football finance expert Stefan Borson has weighed in on the dispute, offering a realistic solution for both parties. Speaking to talkSPORT, Borson outlined the possible outcomes stemming from Forest’s complaint.

Once a formal grievance is lodged with the Premier League, Forest will either seek arbitration under league regulations or push for an official investigation into Tottenham’s conduct.

In either scenario, Spurs could be accused of inducing a breach of contract and violating confidentiality agreements, both of which are considered serious infractions.

Borson suggested that the most effective way for Spurs to resolve the issue would be to settle the matter financially.

He argued that Tottenham may have no choice but to pay more than the £60 million release fee in order to compensate Forest for the breach of trust and any perceived undervaluation.

From Forest’s perspective, they appear to be shifting the conversation away from a straightforward trigger of the release clause to a full-blown negotiation, asserting that Spurs’ actions have distorted the terms of the clause.

Should Marinakis successfully leverage this complaint into a higher transfer fee, it would represent a financial win for Forest.

However, the club has already begun exploring replacements for Gibbs-White, suggesting that they’re preparing for life without him.

Reports have linked Forest with a number of attacking midfield options, including Aston Villa’s Jacob Ramsey, Manchester City’s James McAtee, and Liverpool’s Harvey Elliott—each capable of stepping into Gibbs-White’s role and offering similar levels of creativity and flair.

Despite the legal wrangling, those close to both clubs remain confident that the deal will eventually be finalized. Gibbs-White has shown no indication of extending his contract at Forest, nor has he signaled any intention of remaining at the club long-term.

His ambition to play Champions League football and be part of Thomas Frank’s Tottenham rebuild remains firm, and his return to training appears more a formality than a sign of commitment to stay.

As the situation drags on, Forest run the risk of missing out on their preferred targets to replace Gibbs-White. Other clubs are monitoring the likes of Ramsey and McAtee, meaning Forest must act quickly if they want to secure a high-quality successor.

Delaying the inevitable transfer could prove costly—not only financially but in terms of squad preparation ahead of the new season.

Tottenham, meanwhile, will want to avoid unnecessary scrutiny from league authorities and close the deal in time for Gibbs-White to join their pre-season tour.

Spurs have been active in the market already, and adding Gibbs-White would complete a significant offensive reshuffle that includes the arrivals of Mathys Tel and Mohammed Kudus.

What’s clear is that the dispute over the release clause has turned a routine transfer into a legal tug-of-war, but the conclusion seems inevitable. Gibbs-White wants the move, Spurs remain determined, and Forest have already moved toward securing alternatives.

The sooner all parties reach an agreement, the better positioned they’ll be for the season ahead—especially Forest, who can then reinvest and strengthen without the distraction of an unresolved saga.

Ultimately, this standoff between Forest and Spurs may prove less about the legal argument and more about extracting maximum value.

For Tottenham, settling the issue with an adjusted fee could be the simplest path to securing their priority target—and for Forest, it provides an opportunity to cash in and reset with fresh attacking talent.