An in-depth, and highly entertaining, article in the latest edition of BusinessF1 reveals the 'Buttongate' saga to be a sorry tale of deceit, ineptitude and rank unprofessionalism.
Only BAR and David Richards emerge from the piece intact and with any credibility, while Button, WilliamsF1 and the English driver's management are all tarnished, albeit to varying levels.
Surprisingly, no mention is made of the 'bonus points' issue that so many believed was the crux of the issue, instead, the article, believed to have been written by BusinessF1 editor-in-chief, Tom Rubython, singles out the guarantee from Honda that it was to supply competitive engines to BAR in 2005 and beyond.
It would appear that while the ink was still drying on Button's contract with BAR, signed on 22 July 2002, Button's management, Essentially Sport, was looking for a way of returning its charge to WilliamsF1. Indeed, on that very day, the English driver told Pitpass editor Chris Balfe that there was a contract in place that prevented him talking about his relationship with the team that brought him into F1 in the first place.
According to the article, on the Friday of the British GP (9 July), Button's manager, John Byfield, met with David Richards and BAR's lawyer Caroline McGrory, at which time Byfield was given a sealed letter from Honda in which the Japanese manufacturer committed itself to continuing with the Brackley outfit and supplying it with the latest-spec engines. It was this condition that Button's management had allegedly demanded before Button would take up the option of staying with BAR.
The (sealed) letter was allegedly handed to Byfield, who claimed to be entirely satisfied with its contents. The letter, written by Shoichi Tanaka, and on paper bearing a Honda Racing Development letterhead, assured Byfield that it was Honda's full intention of supplying engines to BAR in 2005.
Next day (Saturday 10 July), Byfield told two respected journalists, Bob McKenzie (Daily Express) and Kevin Eason (The Times), that Button would definitely drive for BAR in 2005, consequently both men went away and filed stories to that effect.
However, Byfield is alleged to have found the get-out he had been searching for. Firstly, the letter was on the wrong Honda letterhead, and secondly there was no guarantee that Button would receive the latest-spec engines. It was at this point that Byfield visited Sir Frank Williams in the WilliamsF1 motorhome and revealed that there was a way Button could drive one of the blue and white cars in 2005. Sir Frank was mighty interested.
It's understood that Byfield, who, it must be remembered, is a lawyer of long-standing, visited a Queens Counsel (leading barrister), to ensure that the case was watertight. The QC advised Button's manager that he would need detailed notes of the Friday 9 July meeting with Richards and McGrory. Unfortunately, Byfield didn't have any.
Therefore nine days after said meeting, he sat down and wrote up notes from the meeting, while McGrory - as should always be the case - had written up her (detailed) notes at the time.
Ask yourself, how many of you could write up detailed, accurate notes from a meeting which took place nine days earlier - notes that would stand up to a serious legal scrutiny?
As BusinessF1 points out, this is essentially (no pun intended) where it all fell apart, legally speaking. Byfield's notes, written well after the event, had little relevance. However, Williams and the British team's legal experts were unaware of this fact and therefore pursued the chase for Button's signature.
On Thursday 22 July, Richards and Tanaka signed a new contract, in reality this was a mere formality, for the terms had been agreed some time in advance. The following day (23 July), at the German GP, the continuation between the two parties was made public.
A few days later (31 July), with all the paperwork completed, the I's dotted and the T's crossed, McGrory sent the option letter - stating that the team would be taking up its option on the English driver's services for 2005 - to Byfield, and an additional copy to the driver, the issue was settled. Or so everyone thought.
Almost a week later (4 August), Byfield, Button and Williams met at Grove. Satisfied that all was in order - and totally unaware of the problem regarding Byfield's notes of the British GP meeting - the English driver signed a three year contract with the WilliamsF1 team.
With the ink still wet, news began to filter out to the media, which in turn contacted a clearly bemused Richards, who was still blissfully unaware of what was happening.
At approximately 16:30 that same day, David Richards received a fax from Byfield informing him what had happened. The fax allegedly stated that BAR and Honda had not exercised its options correctly.
Still in shock, Richards attempted to call both Button and Byfield, but the calls went unanswered. Eventually, Richards contacted Button's father, who was outraged by what Richards told him, though more as a result of the fact that the news had come in a fax rather than the 'revelation' that his son was rejoining WilliamsF1. Button is then alleged to have contacted his son, who was equally unhappy at the way the news had been broken to his employer.
