22/11/2004
FEATURE BY CHRIS BALFE
 |
You would be forgiven for thinking that Friday's main story was David Richards' departure from BAR.
In reality however, the main story was Honda's purchase of 45% of the Brackley outfit, a move which commits another manufacturer to the sport and gives the team added security as it looks to the future, a future in which it must eventually wean itself off the tobacco habit.
The departure of Richards however is major news, even if for many it is not actually news, but merely final confirmation of something that has been whispered behind the motorhomes for the last couple of months.
No matter how friendly and positive the soundbites, be under no illusion, David Richards departure has been on the cards since early August.
On August 20, two weeks after WilliamsF1 announced that it had signed Jenson Button for the "2005 season and beyond", Pitpass was told, by a highly reliable source, that David Richards' future at BAR was bleak, and that the Englishman would not be at Brackley come the end of the year.
Quite simply, the Japanese manufacturer wasn't so much miffed at the prospect of losing its star driver, Jenson Button, but the fact that that it got to learn of the situation. like many F1 fans, via the media. Admit it, how would you feel?. When the Honda buy-in came to pass, it might appear as if the new Japanese masters made Richards' departure a condition of purchase.
There were many occasions during the whole Buttongate saga when it appeared that certain information was being fed to sections of the media, something which regular readers will know that Pitpass often referred to. Based on experience, and having talked to various parties, including legal experts, we are utterly convinced that some of those involved in the saga were deliberately feeding information and misinformation to contacts in the media.
Although David Richards will remain at BAR until the beginning of the new year, his time with the Brackley team is effectively over, and it is unlikely that we will hear much of him in his official capacity in the coming weeks.
There remain many unanswered questions regarding Buttongate, and since we ran our previous story we have attempted to clarify many of the issues left unanswered.
Then again there is the future of Jenson Button and his management. It is widely assumed that the youngster will end his agreement with John Byfield and Essentially Sport, for many, the cause of the shambles that was Buttongate, with former Jaguar media manager Nav Sidhu being named by many
as the man looking to take over the driver's affairs. Certainly we have heard that there will be a partnership between Mr Sidhu and Mr Button from 1 January 2005, however at this moment in time we do not know the exact nature of the 'relationship'.
There has been talk of David Richards wanting to get involved in managing Button, with one source telling Pitpass that Richards "wants to own Button".
Certainly the Buttongate saga has damaged the driver's public image, with some now seeing him as disloyal and ungrateful, while others feel that the 'bad press' will finish if, and when, the youngster climbs on to the top step of the podium for the first time.
In terms of 'exposure' however, Button is lagging behind almost all of his rivals. Despite the fact that he finished third in the 2004 drivers' championship, his management team has seemingly failed in its attempts to use his success and image to successfully market him, to secure the sort of lucrative sponsorship deals all sportsmen and women crave. With Button's track record, and image, the sponsors should be beating down the door, but to our knowledge the only deal he has secured is a £50k deal with Burton, a British menswear group that sells the sort of clothes that the dashing young driver is unlikely to want to be seen in, in public, in daylight.
Dare we suggest that Button's management seriously capitalise on his very name 'Button', surely a deal with the British Mushroom Growers Association could be secured. Why mushrooms, you ask. Well, other than the obvious 'button mushroom' connection, there is also the clear fact that much like the highly popular fungus, poor Jenson - management-wise - appears to have been kept in the dark and fed copious amounts of bull-shit.
Then again, BAR too has failed to capitalise on its success. It's all very well Honda buying a 45% stake, but the sponsorship people at Brackley should also be wondering why there aren't sponsors beating at the door. This year's achievements should be worth at least £20m - £30m to the team, so where is it?
Long before David Richards switches off the lights in his office, expect further major changes at BAR, especially in the marketing and sponsorship department.
Back to Buttongate, and it would appear that the outcome of the legal case as to who had the valid contract with Button for 2005 was far more marginal than originally thought.
In its recent investigation into the Button-saga, BusinessF1, like many others, is puzzled as to why it took WilliamsF1 a month before it submitted its contract (with Button) to the Contract Recognition Board (CRB). The contact had been signed on Wednesday 4 August but was not submitted to the CRB until Monday 6 September.
We understand, and this is confirmed by BusinessF1, that on the day Button signed the contract with WilliamsF1 (Wednesday 4 August), John Byfield faxed David Richards to tell him that Button would not be driving for BAR in 2005 because the option "was not taken up correctly". Later that night, Frank Williams and Richards had a private telephone conversation, with the WilliamsF1 boss asking that the matter be treated and expedited in confidence. We understand that Williams was even happy to allow the matter go all the way through to adjudication away from the glare of publicity that the story would clearly attract.
According to BusinessF1, the following day (Thursday 5 August), Richards spoke to Kevin Eason of The Times, "one of the few journalists in the paddock he really trusted". Eason subsequently phoned Frank Williams to ask what was going on. The story had effectively been broken by Richards, prompting Williams to issue the press release announcing that Button had signed. BAR clearly appeared to be using the media to drive their cause from the outset.
The following morning, BAR issued its own statement claiming that Button was contracted to drive for the team in 2005. The fight was on.
It was soon clear that BAR and WilliamsF1 would be going head-to-head, the question was, where would the fight take place?
At the time, there seemed to be contrasting views, with David Richards expressing his view strongly in the media that the CRB was the correct forum to resolve the dispute. As ever, there was a reason for Richards' publicly expressed interest in the CRB - BAR was much more likely to win the case with the influence of European lawyers than had the case appeared in front of the High Court in the UK. If Button's management had taken their case in front of the British legal authorities, Button would almost certainly be sitting in a Williams on the grid in Melbourne next March.
However, it is our suspicion that the negative publicity heaped on Button after the story broke persuaded the young British driver not to pursue his future in the courts, which might have fuelled further negative press commentary from BAR.
This would explain the delay in Williams' submission of a contract to the CRB. It is our suspicion, backed by the odd comment that appeared in the public domain at this time (most notably from Frank Williams himself) that during this period, Williams, Button and his management were discussing the pros and cons of appearing in front of the CRB or the British courts.
Although it has been claimed that the CRB case ultimately fell apart mainly due to the fact that Byfield had not made contemporary notes of his meeting with Richards and BAR lawyer Caroline McGrory on the Friday of the British GP, our enquiries suggest the final findings of the CRB were far more marginal, and accepted strong legal arguments put by both sides. As BAR & WilliamsF1 are bound by strict confidentiality over the final adjudication, we may never know exactly what happened, but amid all of the propaganda, it is perhaps not intelligent to take the suggestion that BAR won convincingly at face value.
Another mystifying detail appeared in the BusinessF1 report, suggesting that BAR was made aware of the findings of the CRB around midday (October 20), but opted not to go public out of respect for WilliamsF1, and not wishing to appear as though it were "gloating".
During the CRB sitting in Milan, the Williams press office set up a texting service, as there was no published timetable to allow the media to follow the developments in the case.
Williams' press office offered the same service on the day that the CRB judgment was due to be delivered. The Pitpass editor, Chris Balfe, received his text from the Williams at 18:53:36, confirming the verdict. We clarified this apparent discrepancy in timing with the WilliamsF1 press office. They said, "The judgment was issued by fax and was 58 pages long. Our legal counsel read the executive summary, and indicated they (CRB) had not found in our favour. He asked for an additional ten minutes to check the detail, and then confirmed we could make the verdict public. We issued a text to a list of around 100 media within fifteen minutes of receiving the CRB's decision, which was around ten to seven that evening. We then got on with the business of issuing a formal, written statement to the press."
Given the willingness of the WilliamsF1 press office to offer an immediate response service to the press over the course of the CRB affair, it could be concluded that either BAR did receive the verdict early, which might be indicative of an breach of due process, or it is wilful spin. Remember, BAR did issue one infamous statement at the outset of the CRB process which appeared to deliberately mislead the press, and it would seem, orchestrated a damaging campaign to ensure Button did not take his case in front of the courts in Britain, the precedent for disinformation would appear to be pretty clear.
Hopefully, the whole Buttongate saga will soon be a thing of the past, and all involved can move on. However, there remain many unanswered questions with some parts of the story distorted out of all proportion. Hopefully, we've gone a little way towards putting the record straight.
Chris Balfe
Editor
To check out previous features from Chris, click here