Newcastle United owner and Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley is preparing to give evidence at a High Court trial after being sued by a finance expert who says he reneged on a £15 million deal.
Investment banker Jeffrey Blue says Mr Ashley promised to pay him £15 million if he used his expertise to increase Sports Direct's share price to £8 a share.
He says Mr Ashley paid only £1 million and he wants £14 million damages.
Mr Ashley, who disputes Mr Blue's claim, is scheduled to give his side of the story at a High Court trial in London on Wednesday.
A judge began analysing evidence on Monday.
Read more: Mike Ashley ‘vomited’ after ‘pub lock-in’ management meeting, court told
Mr Justice Leggatt has heard that the dispute between Mr Blue and Mr Ashley relates to a conversation in a London pub in 2013.
Mr Blue says Mr Ashley made a promise during a meeting in a London pub called the Horse & Groom four years ago.
The investment banker has told the judge that Mr Ashley is a "serious businessman" who "sometimes does business in unorthodox ways and in unusual venues".
Mr Blue said Mr Ashley had vomited into a fireplace after a Sports Direct senior management meeting which was "effectively a pub lock-in".
He said Mr Ashley would nap under tables at "boring" meetings.
Mr Blue also said Mr Ashley had lambasted Sports Direct's non-executive directors after a dinner at a London restaurant three years ago.
Read more: Mike Ashley ‘vomited’ after ‘pub lock-in’ management meeting, court told
"Dinner was held in a private dining room at Benares restaurant at 12a Berkeley Square House," said Mr Blue, in a witness statement.
"The dinner commenced with Mr Ashley ordering ... drinks, in this case the most expensive red wine available from the sommelier (Richebourg at around some £3,000 per bottle).
"When supplies of this had been exhausted, Mr Ashley continued with the Penfolds Grange (£875 per bottle).
"Following dinner, the party retired to Les Ambassadeurs, a London casino where Mr Ashley and the non-executive directors played at the roulette table."
He said the next day Mr Ashley complained about being lectured about corporate governance.
"Mr Ashley (was) outraged that the non-executive directors were, in his view, hypocrites," said Mr Blue.
"Mr Ashley said words to the effect of: 'How dare they lecture me about corporate governance when they're all happy to sit around and get pissed on £3,000 bottles of wine at the company's expense and then go to a casino, not believing their f******luck when they wake up the next morning with a £20,000 casino chip in their pocket or purse."
Mr Blue came under attack from Mr Ashley's lawyers as he gave evidence during the second day of the hearing on Tuesday.
Barrister David Cavender QC, who is leading Mr Ashley's legal team, accused Mr Blue of ''making up evidence''.
Mr Ashley watched from the back of the court as Mr Blue was questioned by Mr Cavender.
Read more: Mike Ashley ‘vomited’ after ‘pub lock-in’ management meeting, court told
Mr Cavender has described Mr Blue's claim as an ''opportunistic try-on''.
''The claim appears to have been issued on the basis that the threat of negative press alone would compel Mr Ashley to settle,'' he has said in a written outline of Mr Ashley's case.
''In truth, there was no purported agreement and Mr Blue could not have thought so at the time.''
Mr Cavender said Mr Ashley ''fairly'' said he could not recall details of conversations in the Horse & Groom ''particularly in the light of the amount of drinking''.
''He does recall 'that there was a lot of banter and bravado','' said Mr Cavender.
''He does not recall any discussion about whether Mr Blue would be paid a sum of money if the share price reached £8 a share.''
Mr Cavender added: ''He says if there was 'it would have been obvious that he was joking'.''
Mr Ashley has told the judge, in a written statement: ''I can't believe that (Mr Blue) is now trying to take me for £14 million off the back of some drunk banter that he is seeking to engineer into something more.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article