Accusations of duplicity and the surprise role played by Oscar Piastri's infamous tweet denying he would race for Alpine are among new revelations from McLaren's ongoing court case against IndyCar champion and would-be Formula 1 driver Alex Palou.
McLaren is claiming more than $20million in lost profit following Palou's shock U-turn two years ago, when he reneged on a deal to drive for McLaren's IndyCar team and have an F1 reserve role.
The case is being heard in the UK commercial court with several fresh - and in places dramatic - revelations emerging this week following the release of Palou's witness statement and testimony given by him and McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown.
F1 as a negotiating tactic
The crux of Palou's argument is that he was misled by Brown into believing he had a clear-cut F1 opportunity with McLaren.
"At the time I thought he was genuine," Palou said in his witness statement recalling the build-up to signing a McLaren contract in October 2022.
"I now consider that Zak made me think that there was an opportunity to have the full-time F1 seat as a negotiating tactic to get me to sign for McLaren's IndyCar team."
The reason this mattered is that Palou never wanted to race for McLaren in IndyCar.
He had just won the title with Chip Ganassi Racing when McLaren made an approach at the end of 2021. Palou claims to have instructed his then-management to reply to McLaren's offer and say "I would only be interested in driving for McLaren in F1" and that "the only attraction to me in the approach from McLaren was the chance to go to F1".
The deal that Palou subsequently agreed with McLaren in 2022 included private F1 testing, simulator work, Friday practice outings and a reserve role - but no specific guarantee of a race seat.
After McLaren then signed Piastri for 2023 - more on that in a moment - Palou felt his situation changed and that in 2023 he was a reserve and nothing more.
According to reports from the trial this week, Palou reiterated in his testimony that he felt he was not told "the truth" and McLaren was "misleading me" over his F1 prospects.
He then felt justified in not honouring the contract and instead agreed to stay with Chip Ganassi Racing in IndyCar - leading to Palou's decision in August 2023 to refuse to race for McLaren in IndyCar in 2024 after all.
"I thought I had the right to terminate an agreement that was based on lies and false impressions," Palou said.
He rejected a claim from McLaren's counsel that he had "strung McLaren along" but did not reply directly when it was put to him that he had no intention of driving for McLaren's IndyCar team if F1 did not work out.
"My intention was to get to F1, following all the opportunities that Mr Brown said I was going to have," said Palou.
Piastri's infamous Alpine tweet
"I understand that, without my agreement, Alpine F1 have put out a press release late this afternoon that I am driving for them next year. This is wrong and I have not signed a contract with Alpine for 2023. I will not be driving for Alpine next year."
Current F1 championship leader Piastri's infamous tweet on August 2, 2022, was a stunning moment as the then-Alpine protege rejected the team's claim that he would replace Fernando Alonso in its F1 line-up in 2023.
Piastri had instead signed up for a shock McLaren switch to replace the struggling Daniel Ricciardo in a dramatic driver market saga, with his tweet a surprise twist that stunned everybody who read it – including Palou.
"In 2022, I saw Oscar Piastri posting tweets that were similar to mine," Palou said.
"Oscar made it clear he would not be driving for Alpine's F1 team but would be driving for McLaren's F1 team.
"Around a month later, McLaren announced that Oscar would be on their F1 team for 2023.
"That was the first time things changed."
Palou's argument is that the conditions around his role at McLaren and his F1 prospects were fundamentally altered by the Piastri move and he expressed surprise and disappointment that he had not been aware it was even on the cards.
He added that "the first time I heard about Oscar signing for McLaren's F1 team was on Twitter" and "I was very upset, worried, and angry that McLaren had signed another rookie driver that was not me".
"Zak told me that it was not his decision to hire Oscar," said Palou. "He said it was the decision of the team manager, Andreas Seidl.
"Zak told me that Oscar's performance would be evaluated against mine for the 2024 seat."
According to reports from the court this week, Brown claimed in his testimony that Palou's options were as a back-up.
McLaren's Plan B was for Palou to step in as a reserve if either Piastri or Lando Norris was ill or injured; Plan C was to replace Piastri with Palou if Piastri struggled badly as a rookie in 2023.
Brown's fiery exchange over 'absolute rubbish'
This week, Brown has been at court to give evidence. He was questioned on his witness statement by Palou's counsel, who suggested Brown made "false promises of F1 glory" before "shafting" drivers - specifically accusing Brown of "stringing Mr Palou along".
"All that time you have been stringing Mr Palou along," said Palou's lawyer Nick De Marco.
Brown replied: "I never told him he would be under consideration for 2023. There was some optionality to join F1."
According to several reports from those in attendance, the legitimacy of Brown's testimony was targeted by Palou's counsel, who accused him of destroying evidence relevant to the case by deleting WhatsApp messages.
Motor Sport Magazine, which has reported extensively from the court this week, published images of WhatsApp conversations submitted as evidence that included Brown and referenced McLaren's use of WhatsApp's disappearing messages function.
Brown is said to have strongly defended his integrity and, when told he was speaking "absolute rubbish made up on the spot", replied that Palou's counsel was the one doing that.
Alonso's role in Palou's defence
Palou's justification for spurning McLaren in the end to stay with Ganassi was partly because McLaren's IndyCar team was not at the level his current team was and "were not in the equation to win the championship".
And he used Fernando Alonso (among other drivers) to illustrate his argument that he alone could not have dramatically changed McLaren's fortunes - which forms part of Palou's defence against McLaren's alleged "lost profits" without him driving for the team.
Palou stated that in motorsport, "if a driver does not have the machinery and the best team around, then that driver cannot win races" and that there are "many examples of big names in motorsport who were not able to perform because of the machinery they were given".
Alonso was cited extensively by Palou, both in terms of his wider F1 career context but also with Alonso's unsuccessful Indianapolis 500 attempts with McLaren.
"Fernando Alonso is a two-time F1 champion and probably one of the best drivers in the recent era," said Palou. "In fact, many people would say the best.
"In 2019, Fernando tried to qualify for the Indy 500 with McLaren. However, he failed to qualify against a driver who was a rookie and had no previous experience in Indy 500 [Kyle Kaiser].
"In 2017 Fernando qualified for the Indy 500 with another team (Andretti) and almost won until the car broke. In 2020, Fernando finished 21st for the Indy 500 with McLaren."
Palou said that McLaren has had "really good drivers" in IndyCar without getting good enough results to win a championship and that McLaren would not have had better results over the next two seasons had he joined.
"Maybe a driver can in one race do something a little more aggressive, but I do not consider that a driver can during the course of a full year or four or five years have too much impact," said Palou.
"This has been seen with many other drivers, such as Fernando Alonso."
How a Marko F1 approach went wrong
When Palou got cold feet on joining McLaren and felt that the commitment was not there from Brown to get him into F1 with McLaren or another team, Palou considered if he had any other options.
He said in his witness statement he was pushing his management to "get me an F1 seat in any team in F1". Though sections of testimony here have been redacted, the implication is that Palou felt getting an alternative F1 deal would give him a way out of his McLaren contract on a legitimate basis - perhaps because of a clause that allowed him to take up a race seat somewhere else.
As was known at the time, Palou briefly ended up on Red Bull's radar. Palou has now disclosed that he contacted Red Bull motorsport advisor Helmut Marko in June 2023 and Marko was "open to discussing a possible F1 seat with me, and asked me about the conditions to get a release from the McLaren contract for F1".
Palou instructed one of the people working as part of his team to ask Brown about the conditions for a release but did not say they "could tell Zak who I had spoken to".
A day later, Palou was informed that Brown had been approached, but in turn he had gone to Marko.
"I was not part of and do not directly know what happened in that conversation between Helmut and Zak, but for sure it did not help because Helmut, who was the most open to speaking about my future in F1, was suddenly not interested anymore," said Palou.
A further attempt from Palou to establish the terms for a release from McLaren - "to know for any future approaches" - appears to have amounted to several millions of dollars, made up from income from sponsor NTT, General Motors, lawyer fees and F1 testing.
In short, Palou's claim is that McLaren wanted to be reimbursed for what it had invested in him, and what it stood to lose from him not racing for its IndyCar team. This is more or less what its court claim is over now.
"I did not understand how the number for my release to a F1 team could be [redacted]," said Palou.
"In F1 if a team invests in a rookie driver, like me, that team incurs the costs associated with his F1 testing. Zak had also said he would cover my legal fees. I was also very surprised that any release would have to cover costs relating to sponsorship agreements with GM and NTT as I did not bring those sponsors to McLaren.
"I was surprised how much money Zak said the release would cost if I was going to another F1 team, especially because he would not pay me close to that and he also would not pay me more than his other drivers."
Terms of F1 salary outlined
Though the details were redacted, Palou said there was an agreement of a compensation package with McLaren "if I had been promoted to F1" that was divided into two contracts, marketing and racing.
There were race win and championship bonuses - with a cap - and it amounted to "a lot of money" but at the same time was "not very competitive against other F1 teams".
"When a team like McLaren takes a driver, even if he has won an IndyCar Championship, and gives him the opportunity to get into F1 with one of their cars, it might be understandable that maybe the compensation at the beginning is not as high as for other drivers," said Palou.
"At the end of the contract, I would say it is starting to be competitive. Obviously everybody wants to have the same conditions as other drivers, or other people doing the same business.
"But, at the same time, McLaren were giving me an opportunity I did not have elsewhere."
Palou's case therefore seems to be arguing that having an F1 salary set and agreed was part of why he was initially led to believe that a race seat was a serious prospect.
Incidentally, Palou also claimed in his testimony that he discovered he was going to be McLaren's lowest paid IndyCar driver.
As the summer of 2023 approached, and Ganassi was keen to retain Palou, he tried to get his McLaren deal renegotiated on more favourable terms. Brown had a falling out with Palou's management team in May 2023, then met with Palou personally at the end of that month.
"In that discussion, I was a bit upset because Zak very openly disclosed to me the conditions of McLaren's other two IndyCar drivers, Pato O'Ward and Alexander Rossi," said Palou.
"Their conditions were better than what I was going to receive, and they were not champions.
"I was surprised that I would be paid the least and that I was not going to get a real chance in F1 as I expected and was told at the beginning."
When a revised McLaren offer emerged, Palou claimed it included "all the possible bonuses, such as bonuses for winning races or the championship, to make it look like it was competitive" compared to Ganassi's offer – but "from what I remember, the base salary was almost half of that in the CGR offer".
Palou also felt "frustrated and a bit deceived" to discover - he claimed - that the legal fees from past mediations with Ganassi and F1 testing fees were being factored into Palou's salary.
How much F1 work he did
Palou's McLaren F1 work was shortlived but still included private test days, simulator days and an Austin FP1 outing.
His account of his work with McLaren includes two days at its factory in August 2022 before sharing a three-day test with O'Ward at Barcelona in September; working as a support driver on the simulator for the 2022 Singapore Grand Prix weekend; two simulator days in March 2023 to prepare for being a reserve driver in Miami; testing the car again in Hungary in June 2023.
Palou's witness statement also details some of the other work involved behind the scenes, including various virtual meetings of several hours' duration, but primarily intended to argue that McLaren got as much out of his simulator work and testing as he did - so he should not be liable for the costs.
One claim is that McLaren could have used other drivers - or sold the mileage - had Palou not benefitted instead. Palou argued there were two benefits to McLaren in him doing this work compared to others, as it prepared him best to do the job McLaren needed him to do and he felt he could help give valuable feedback on its car and also improve McLaren's simulator tools given his experience.
What McLaren wants
The release of Palou's witness statement, and his testimony in court, means a huge amount of attention has been on his perspective in recent days.
As for McLaren (whose witness statement has not yet been released) what has emerged has mainly only clarified what it is seeking and some of its arguments, as this is is claim so its position has been well established for some time.
Among what McLaren wants to be recompensed for is the renegotiation of an NTT sponsorship deal in the wake of losing Palou; other commercial renegotiations; and O'Ward's contract renewal (to ensure it had a top-line driver in Palou's absence)
The sum total is now widely being reported as over $20m not $30m as a year ago: $7.2m comes from the NTT renegotiation, then an additional $6.8m in lost sponsorship, $1.3m in additional salaries paid to its other three IndyCar drivers, and the demanded return of Palou's $400,000 bonus (paid to his racing organisation, which is why that is connected to the lawsuit).
McLaren's official position on proceedings at the start of the case being heard was that: "Alex Palou has already conceded that he was in clear breach of his contract with McLaren Racing and this was confirmed by the High Court judgement against him.
"His actions - and subsequent failure to come to a mutually acceptable resolution - resulted in a demonstrable commercial impact with millions lost in sponsorship and prize money, and we are confident that we will clearly demonstrate this during the course of the trial."
Brown said Palou's actions had caused "significant financial and reputational consequences for McLaren" and the situation was "exacerbated by the fact that he did not even inform me as a courtesy of his decision, in a way which might have enabled me to better manage the relationships involved, including with NTT".
"Instead, Alex effectively rolled a grenade into the room and let it go off, leaving me to deal with the consequences with our sponsors," said Brown.
The case continues in London next week.
