That is according to former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson, who exclusively told Football Insider he would be “surprised” if the Hammers decide to push their legal dispute further.

As part of West Ham’s rental agreement with the London Stadium, an “anti-embarrassment clause” was included requiring the club to pay their landlords a share of any profit they received from the sale of shares.

Daniel Kretinksy’s purchase of a 27 per cent stake in 2021 saw the clause become active, with the Hammers paying £2.6m to their landlords as a result.

The Irons challenged the claim an additional £3.6m was owed, but the London Stadium was successful after an expert determination.

West Ham’s financial situation is currently under the spotlight after their latest accounts revealed significant losses.

💰West Ham United Finance Update💰

Inside the transfer budget, PSR compliance, ownership investment, and the latest London Stadium commercial news.

Why West Ham are unlikely to succeed in legal battle

West Ham successfully overturned the expert determination at the High Court, but the Court of Appeal has now found in the London Stadium’s favour.

In a new update, The Athletic reported on 25 February the Hammers are considering launching an appeal to the Supreme Court after being ordered to pay the extra £3.6m.

Speaking exclusively to Football Insider, Borson discussed West Ham’s chances of overturning the verdict again.

“Obviously, the case has been looked at now by multiple judges,” said Borson.

“As you go through each appeal, you get less likely to succeed. It’s all about the construction of the contracts.

“There was a clause in the contract, which was effectively an anti-embarrassment clause, whereby if the club was sold within 10 years of the deal to move into the Olympic Stadium, whether the council effectively shares some of the upside of that transaction by receiving effectively a one-off payment.

“Part of the deal that was done with Daniel Kretinsky, one element of it was an option that was never ultimately exercised but it was paid for, so one of the questions is whether that should have been included in how you calculate the fee.”

How much West Ham will pay to take case to Supreme Court

Borson revealed it won’t cost West Ham much money if they take the case to the Supreme Court.

“It’s all very technical,” said Borson.

“It’s quite interesting if you’re into football business because you see what the contract says in the decision of the court. It’s unlikely that they win. They’re not really fighting for that much money. It’s not that big of a deal.

“I mean, it’s neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. When you get to this stage, if they can appeal to the Supreme Court and you can’t always do it, so you very often will be turned down in terms of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“But if they could get the right to do it, it wouldn’t cost them that much. Now, because it would really probably be a day or two of a barrister arguing in front of the Supreme Court judges with another barrister on the other side about the correct interpretation of the contract and why the appeal court got it wrong, it’s not a very expensive exercise.

“It’s probably in the low hundred thousands. But the prize isn’t that big either, so I don’t know. I’d be surprised if they bothered.”

Meanwhile, former Everton CEO Keith Wyness told Football Insider West Ham’s financial situation is “very concerning” after they posted a £104m pre-tax loss last season.

⚒️ Don’t Miss a Beat: Your West Ham Insider Access

Get the full story from the London Stadium and Rush Green with our dedicated expert hubs: