How a dark Williams chapter could yield a delayed bonus

One of the most tawdry and unedifying affairs in late-period Formula 1 may be approaching settlement. No, not the FIA race director deciding on an extemporaneous interpretation of the rulebook in Abu Dhabi – that matter is still 
very much live – but the mysterious case of the missing Williams sponsor.

PLUS: What the FIA must do to restore F1’s credibility

In May 2020 the venerable grand prix team announced it was parting ways with its recently arrived title sponsor ROKiT, an “innovative, rebellious and proud” (its words) group with interests in everything from telecommunications to e-bikes via beverages and – dread phrase – “content production and distribution”.

It was certainly rebellious when it came to settlement of monies owed. In a series of hearings last year, a London Court of Arbitration tribunal presided over the particulars of the contractual dispute between Williams and its erstwhile sponsor. The filings make for fascinating reading, not least since the first tranche details ROKiT’s failure to pay its £20,000 share of the court’s advance fees by the due date of 16 March 2021.

This is small change in comparison with the meat of the dispute: $24.4m which Williams claimed it was contractually owed as payments for the 2020 season, ROKiT having signed (and made initial payments on) a three-year contract from the beginning of the 2019 season which ROKiT quickly extended by another two years. The failure of that money to arrive put the team’s future in jeopardy and ultimately resulted in the Williams family putting it up for sale.

The court sided with Williams to the tune of $35.7m, which the team is now pursuing through a federal court in California, where part of the ROKiT group is based. Should Williams recover the money it will be a useful windfall for its new owners

In June 2020 Williams made “a Calderbank offer”, a without-prejudice compromise deal to settle out of court. ROKiT’s solicitors didn’t respond. Hence the arbitration procedure, during which Williams also sought to recover the costs of the initial 2020 season branding (with ROKiT) and the subsequent rebranding (without it). Arbitrator Klaus Reichert noted in his ‘final award’ that ROKiT “would have been in a far better legal position” had it accepted the settlement.

ROKiT's defaulting was one of the stumbling blocks that resulted in the Williams family selling up in 2020

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

The tribunal was also shown a document emailed to Williams on 6 March 2020 “which bears all the indicia of an instruction to a bank to wire $24,400,000 to the [Williams] bank account”. This was the amount of the invoices the team had sent, plus $1m ROKiT boss Jonathan Kendrick had verbally agreed with Claire Williams as a bonus via an email in which he had described himself as “blown away” by the success of the partnership. That money never arrived. “A most curious state of affairs,” said the arbitrator.

Reichert was unconvinced by ROKiT’s claims that it failed to pay because 
Williams was in breach of contract – 
all the contemporary communications from 
the company indicated happiness and appeared to be “unambiguously promising” the payments. “To now accept the Respondents’ [ROKiT’s] position, generally,” he concluded, “would require the Sole Arbitrator to suspend any meaningful or evidential approach, and see the matter through a glass, darkly.”

The court sided with Williams to the tune of $35.7m (the original contractual sum plus damages, interest and costs), which the team is now pursuing through a federal court in California, where part of the ROKiT group is based. Should Williams recover the money it will be a useful windfall for its new owners.

PLUS: The jubilation and sorrow Williams experienced in its 2021 F1 recovery

Sponsors who don’t pay – or stop paying – are frustratingly common in F1. In late 2018 Williams was so strapped for cash it nearly went to the altar with the now-notorious Rich Energy. Will the new Concorde Agreement, with its ‘franchise value’ and more equitable sharing of the commercial revenues, make teams less desperate,
 and less likely to fall prey to fly-by-nights? You have to hope so.

It is hoped that the increased franchise value of teams will protect their interests

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images