John Terry will continue to captain Chelsea who have taken "firm disciplinary action" against him, chairman Bruce Buck has confirmed.
The former England captain was suspended for four matches and fined £220,000 by the Football Association earlier this month for racially abusing QPR defender Anton Ferdinand.
Terry decided this week not to appeal the decision, leaving Chelsea to decide what action of their own to take.
Manager Roberto Di Matteo refused to say on Friday whether Terry would remain captain but Buck has confirmed he would and that he would not be given an additional ban by Chelsea, although the club have fined him.
Buck said on talkSPORT: "John will continue to be captain of the club. We have taken disciplinary action and we think it is firm disciplinary action and appropriate for the circumstances."
Buck insisted the details of the fine would remain confidential in line with club policy but said it was the heaviest fine "by far" they had ever meted out to a player.
He said: "We have kept it mind first of all that a court of criminal law found him not guilty. Of course we also note the FA decision and we certainly respect that decision. We've kept these factors in mind, we've consulted with the owner Mr Abramovich.
"This is not a decision we've taken lightly, it's not a decision we took in a half-hour meeting, we discussed it over a long period of time and we think we've taken appropriate disciplinary action."
Chief executive Ron Gourlay argued Terry's long service to Chelsea should also be taken into account but condemned his behaviour in the Ferdinand incident.
He said on talkSPORT: "What you've got to take into consideration as well is John's played over 550 times for the football club, he's captained the side over 400 times, he's led the club and the team tremendously well during these games.
"We believe this was an error of judgment, it was out of character for John. He did fall below the high standards we expect at the club. The language used on the day, whatever the context, was wrong. We've come down on John very, very heavily.
"We are not sweeping this under the carpet. We have had to deal with this for the last 12 months. John let himself down, he let the club down, the words were inappropriate that he used."
Buck insisted the issue would not be forgotten once Terry returns to action, saying: "We would like to draw a line under this but, by drawing a line under it, it does not mean we want to forget it.
"We know the Ferdinand family will remember it, we know John Terry will remember it, we know the media will remember it and we will remember it too."
Asked if Chelsea should have sacked Terry to send a clear signal that the club has a zero tolerance to racism, Gourlay said: "We haven't tolerated the language that John Terry used. We've said it was not acceptable and we have taken action.
"We don't believe for one minute that John is a racist and we must not forget that he was cleared in a court of law. We have taken action and we hope it gives out a clear signal that it is not acceptable.
"We know that not everybody is going to agree with this decision but we have tried to focus on improving and on doing better. The club is disappointed, the player is disappointed we are all disappointed and we have got to put things right."
Buck added: "I think we can say that with John Terry at the club and captaining the club we can move forward from this incident but we won't forget this incident.
"We think we have done what is appropriate. You can either agree with that or not."
Buck also addressed the punishment meted out to Ashley Cole following his foul-mouthed tweet directed at the FA after his evidence was called into question in their report.
The defender later apologised in person to FA chairman David Bernstein but was charged and fined £90,000.
Buck questioned the sanction, saying on talkSPORT: "The club was surprised by the level of the fine imposed on Ashley Cole.
"I don't want to sound like an apologist for him. But he apologised to David Bernstein and the England manager and we would have viewed that as mitigating circumstances."
Ferdinand has refused to shake hands with Terry or Cole since the incident and has himself come in for abuse from the stands at Stamford Bridge and other grounds.
Buck apologised to the Ferdinand family for what they have been through, something Terry did not do in his statement two days ago.
Buck said: "I understand, and as a club we understand, what they have gone through since a year ago and Chelsea Football Club would like to apologise to them. It has been a very difficult year for them and they didn't do anything wrong. And we are sorry."
what do you think?
Typical hypocrisy in our great game. Chelsea make a big thing about stamping out racism and how they won't tolerate it then impose a mere fine on a player paid six figures on a weekly basis, shame on you Chelsea, your an embarrasment to the game.
Ofcourse Chelsea are racist. I mean , only a couple of years ago a mere 75 of their squad were black/ of ethnic minority. How discriminatory is that!!
This comment has been removed for violations of our Terms and Conditions.
@ Matt, where did I say Chelsea were racist? I think they are being hypocritical , which only the most ignorant supporters would disagree with. Try reading before you comment.
Peter, As it worries you fella, what would you impose bearing in mind the cost to John Terry already both financially and career-wise despite being cleared in court, ad were you so vocal in calling for further club sanctions when Rio copped his fine for his racist tweet, Frimpong for his, and what did you call for when Suarez was dealt with by the FA with no court case verdict beforehand to cloud your thinking?
@ Pat Sorry Pat but what has it cost him career wise? He retired from playing for England voluntarily and his Chelsea career is unaffected. Financially he copped roughly a weeks wages in fines, and then gets paid for the weeks he is banned, which pays his court fees. The article is not about any of the players you mention, it's specific hence the comments are specific, if the debate was about racism overall in football then I would happily talk about their cases and the many more you don't mention, all of which, if proven, we're wrong.
Peter.. "Voluntarily" "Unaffected" Oh dear, anything but. (Reply below, as Orange have ruled it to long for a reply to a post)
Chelsea are bottlers terry is a waste of space who thinks he is a over the club. A big fine is nothing. They should ban him for more games And keeping him as captain. ! What a waste of time they are gutless
Chelsea have sent him to his room with no tea still clutching the verdict delivered by a proper court, exactly as they should have done. Strange, how those who wanted to move on (they said) after the court case, have been unable to do just that and move on, even after the FA delivered their "Independent 3 man findings" verdict and sanction, peeps still do not want to move on. Very telling that they still want more than their pound :)
Peter, I make you wrong. Indulge me, and I will explain. He lost related bonuses to his captaincy role both from within the game and outside the game, he won`t be appearing on the FIFA 2013 cover anytime soon, will he? He has paid out record fines, never seen against any player before and unlikely to be seen again, the passage of time will show if this is true or not. He was backed into a corner and had to consign his England career to history, for whom he kept turning out and putting the performances in despite being relieved of the captaincy twice when others have walked away for being played out of position, the media nodding in agreement and not questioning their reasoning too closely. People are upset, that the FA's verdict didn`t end his International future, he didn`t give them that satisfaction ahead of a pre-judged hearing, booo. Having spent hugely on his defence (the media tells us) at Westminster, he then had to pay counsel to arrive for said show trial. Appealing the FA verdict and moving it through to CAS or high court to challenge the FA's due process, would have meant more cash being deflected away from his family, whilst everyone was by now calling for a line to be drawn under it, but no one wanted a line drawn under it as early as Magistrate Riddle delivered his findings. Still, everyone seems to have moved on by Terry not appealing, haven`t they? So, our great game can trundle forward and all that malarkey. A little known fact is that Rio was charged the same as Terry with two different outcomes, both in the reasonings given and the responses since, but the same GUILTY verdict was reached by the FA with much much less fanfare, fancy that? Oh yes, there has been much booing and vitriol come his way at every time that Chelsea or England shirt went over his head and he took to his day job and his workplace environs. Still, we won`t worry about his employment rights,mental well-being or human rights or anything like that as it is not worth consideration, is it, more important we focus on stoning him a bit further. We will however consider all the other parties involved and their rights and expectations. Now, what would you impose on top of all that, fella, and give yer reasonings?
I have not read of any sponsors pulling the plug on his endorsements, please let me know who you are talking about. Record fines but relatively it's the equivalent of a weeks wages, so about £350 to the average working man. He was relieved of the captaincy through his own indiscretions, rightly or wrongly, that's open to opinion and I respect yours but does not make it right. An appeal to the FA would be low cost compared to what has Been spent already in clearing his name, and if it was that important to him them surely he would have pursued it? More like the criteria for guilt means he knew he would lose. Overall you seem to be looking at a lot of other scenarios but in the most simplistic terms he racially abused a black player, got caught on camera, and has to pay the price. Chelsea's stance on racism has been clearly stated and flies in the face of their actions. He does get abused, as do many other players, on the pitch, and every set of fans indulge in this, right or wrong, not sure really, seems to be part of the game, the Lines are fluid depending on your beliefs, same as why can players lamp each other with no action taken yet a fan shoves a player and gets banged up for 4 months, logical, no, right, yes.
Sorry, in answer to your question I would have sacked him, in line with the employers stated policy. What would you have done?
Orange is behaving oddly when I attempt to post, so may break it down above.
Peter.. Of course, you have not read any details of sponsors pulling the plug, because that is exactly that, you want to hear of sponsors pulling the plug, as do others, so you are not alone there. So, we will run with your thinking on this. You would be happy to lose two weeks wages following an incident that saw your employer dismiss you, and subsequently led to you up in a criminal court as a consequence of the actions which led to your dismissal? Then, having been found Not Guilty, you would walk away and not seek redress from your employer/job back, claim for unfair dismissal etc?
2..Then, having been found not guilty, you would walk away and not seek redress from your employer/job back, pursue a claim for unfair dismissal etc? You would leave it there, as the guilt assumed by your employer was enough to see you walk away? And you would, quite rightly, be able to point at the findings in the senior court as having vindicated you. As would your employer (to thwart any such claim), if it went the other way, that is how it works.
3:In my experience, where two parties are involved in an tear up in the workplace, both are summarily suspended/dismissed pending enquiries being made, an evening up, if you like so as not to be seen to be biased on one side or other and pre-judge the situation. It would certainly take a stretch here, to see that this has not been the example set following the court case, as Anton should have been on the same charge as Terry of foul and abusive language (two game ban), with Terry incurring a further addition to the charge in mentioning race (aggravating factor :incurring a doubling of the tariff for the 1st charge) The FA applied that penalty,in their own way, they certainly could not add any more on in games, but could go to town on the fine, under their own remit, simple, without further breaking of their own rules/due process.
Watch them rewrite it in the fall-out, I guarantee it. Therefore, using your "simplistic" argument, then even here justice has been done accordingly, he abused, got caught and the punishment meted out, simplisticly all done and dusted then, but wait a moment, we are not done yet with the flogging. Chelsea are correct to state that they have dealt with the matter in-house, when most accept that they probably did nothing of the sort, because it is not in the public domain, boooo!! Hence your OP yonks ago. boooo, Chelsea won`t play ball.
::Going back to the employee/employer situation that you are happy to do as your reference point in arriving at your punishment, then it follows Chelsea merely have to point to the senior court's ruling, as you or I would have done when making the case. I fear you would sack him because of the personalities involved, nothing more. So, with that in mind, I pray I never come up before you on any panel where you might be asked to arbitrate fairly :) Me, I would simply bow to media/public opinion and get the gallows out for Teflon Terry!! Cheers Orange, that was fun.
The criteria which both courts had to establish innocence or guilt was different. How many times do guilty parties get off on technicalities in the law courts? I have nothing against Chelsea or JT, I am a Londoner and would much prefer to see a London side win anything than a Northern side, but you continually bring factors in that just try and detract from what factually happened here, a case of blatant racism by an individual and hypocrisy by an employer, and whether it was Chelsea and JT, or any other club and any other player, it's wrong. Have you seen the uncensored footage of the incident? Hard to argue with that.