The Buck Stops Here

[kalpitv]

CHELSEA TV EXCLUSIVE: BUCK ON TRANSFERS AND NAMING RIGHTS

Posted on: Fri 15 Jan 2010

Topics ranged from transfers and naming rights to Joe Cole's current contract talks, here is a selection of what was said during the hour-long phone-in show.

Deco is back in training, it's good to see.

The only real injury we have at the moment is [Jose] Bosingwa and his recovery is going really well, so it's a great start to 2010.

How did the tribunal hearing regarding Daniel Sturridge go?

It was kind of interesting. Daniel was one of the witnesses; he was very good, very mature and very thoughtful. I think in the one-on-one with Daniel and the lawyer from Manchester City, Daniel won.

We were required to pay an initial payment of £3.5 million, we had offered £3 million, Man City had asked for £8 million, so we are happy with that. Then there are some add-ons which relate to performance for Daniel. So at the end of the day if we have to pay those add-ons, we have paid them because Daniel is a good player.

Why did we get the transfer ban lifted if we're not looking to buy any players?

Getting the transfer embargo lifted was a right we asked for and it was lifted for us. We really didn't know what was going to happen in January and to be honest the window isn't closed yet so we don't know what Chelsea might do in this window.

How's Joe Cole's contract negotiations going, can you give us any reassurances he will not be leaving the club?

I can give you those reassurances, I am personally a big fan of Joe Cole, we are in discussions with his agent and hopefully that will be sorted out soon.

There are so many young players in the squad, is the Academy producing results now?

We have really been working hard to bring in young players over the last five years. You can see Carlo has been giving them opportunities this year and we have six to eight young players who have real potential and that's great for Chelsea Football Club.

Sometimes you have managers who are not interested in developing young players, they are only interested in the success of the year or two years they are manager of the club, they don't see the young guys.

Don't you think we have a strong case with regards to Gael Kakuta and getting the ban lifted in the summer?

With respect to the Kakuta case, that is now at a tribunal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Swtizerland and I don't want to comment specifically on the legal aspects but I think the Chelsea position is that we have a very good position in this case.

This case has been going on for some time, because it was previously at Fifa. We are not totally stupid; we would not have taken the risk of a transfer ban if we thought there was a reasonable chance that it would happen. And we were totally flabbergasted when the ban happened at Fifa. We still think we have a good case and we are looking forward to it being resolved in our favour.

With regards to January, we asked for the transfer ban to be suspended as an option because several months ago we didn't know if we were going to have any injuries or great opportunities for us to buy a player.

Now we are directed towards making a purchase in the January transfer window just to see Carlo run around the stadium naked!

But seriously, we have only used the January transfer window a couple of times. You don't buy players just to buy players; you buy them to fill the need or because they are a better player than the one we have in a particular situation.

A player really has to suit us for us to buy him, and then, even if a player is available, he has to be available at the right price.

Is John Terry absolutely absent of guilt regarding the recent newspaper reports and if he is why is the British press saying that?

First of all we are comfortable that John did not take any money for touring someone around Cobham. What we are worried about is that a reporter with a camera can get into the training ground and we have staff working very hard to increase security, but when it comes to John I have no worries about him receiving any money.

When the chairman and directors start going down to Cobham, are you doing that to get more involved with the side?

We are not down there to get involved in the playing side, we are down there to show that it is a miserable day but we are down here supporting you when it's raining.

Or if you go to Blackburn on whatever month, we always go down to the changing rooms after a match, no matter what the result, and show that we're supporting the team.

The show heard from Ryan Bertrand, fresh from an FA Cup victory over Liverpool with his on-loan side Reading midweek, which brought Buck onto the topic of the Chelsea Academy.

Once a month there is a football club board meeting and Frank Arnesen has a pretty extensive report on all the players out on loan. We have a superb programme in following these players while they are out on loan. Medical support, nutritional support, the staff touch base with the players regularly, we send coaches to any matches they play, so we have a really good programme.

Before Frank puts a player out on loan, he has a very candid conversation with the manager of the loaning club, such as playing style for this player, when they will play etc. and if we don't get the criteria we need for the player then we don't do it.

We need another 20,000 spectators in the stadium, if it's necessary to leave Stamford Bridge to do this then so be it, we need to do it for the growth of the football club. How is the stadium situation coming along?

Our desire would be to try and increase capacity at Stamford Bridge by 8,000 or 10,000 and I think that would be satisfactory. It is very difficult to do but we are continually looking at it. Whether we will be able to do it or not, we don't know. With regards to moving stadiums it's really something we wouldn't want to do.

If we had a 60,000 capacity stadium today we would have trouble filling it except for the really big matches.

Unlike many stadiums we only have one exit onto the Fulham Road, so people down at the Matthew Harding Stand have a long way to go to exit. So when we look at it, we look at the Matthew Harding Stand as the most likely place we would expand.

Uefa are going to implement a rule that clubs can't continue running debts up, so with our stadium capacity so low, how can Chelsea compete with the top clubs, without buying players?

I agree there are a lot of big clubs that have bigger matchday revenues than we have but the total revenue of our club and other clubs is a lot more than matchday revenue. There is sponsorship, which is why we are looking at the possibility of naming rights for the stadium, there are also TV rights. So although these other clubs we are competing against may have higher matchday revenue, we are okay in other areas.

Naming rights is something we are considering which Barcelona and Man United are not considering. So this will give this club an income which they won't have.

There has been the possibility we might get a marquee signing, but if we don't win the Champions League with this team, do you think we'll be known as a nearly team?

I don't have any predictions as to when we are going to win the Champions League but it's certainly a target, something we are working towards and hoping to win sooner rather than later. But it is one of the most difficult competitions to win, we are not kidding ourselves with this, but we are going to keep trying.

Are we expecting any players to leave this January?

We won't see any players leaving the club this month, no.

Please can we keep the away fans out of the Shed End, they have some of the best seats in the stadium?

Well to be honest I think the fans were the ones responsible for moving them to that end. A lot of the fans were saying they had the best seats in the house in the West Stand Lower.

The comment you make is not news to us though, we have heard it from a lot of fans. We are looking at it, there are a lot of issues with safety and what have you, but we are considering what to do about it. You have to make sure the fans are segregated coming in and coming out.

[kalpitv]

Honestly, I am still not clear about our transfer policy. What do you all infer from this interview?

[Ruh Buh Juh]

Why did we get the transfer ban lifted if we're not looking to buy any players?

Getting the transfer embargo lifted was a right we asked for and it was lifted for us. We really didn't know what was going to happen in January and to be honest the window isn't closed yet so we don't know what Chelsea might do in this window.

That's the only thing that could suggest we may be looking, but then later he says about not buying players for the sake of buying players, so I highly doubt it, unfortunately.

[bluevale2]

I dont think that there's anything hidden to decipher, I can't see us signing anyone.

[Barry Bridges]

Man, i'd move to London if I could find a job that would cover my living expenses and season tickets! Expand!!!!!!!!!!

[The Brit]

sounds to me that if someone that they wanted (eg Aguero) was available at the right price then we'd buy them...as we haven't found that it's not going to happen this month...only might change if we have major injury to key player

[clubhappy]

Im happy to read moving away from the Bridge is a last option rather than a necessity .

[evissy]

Buck says we have a really strong case regarding the transfer ban. That probably is one big reason we are not buying anyone at the moment. However if we get the ban starting from next summer I really think might be facing tough two seasons after this one. Would be great though if players like Sturridge, Kakuta and Borini get more chances..

[Ruh Buh Juh]

Unlike many stadiums we only have one exit onto the Fulham Road, so people down at the Matthew Harding Stand have a long way to go to exit. So when we look at it, we look at the Matthew Harding Stand as the most likely place we would expand.

(Talking about expanding the Bridge)

That confused me. Surely expanding MH would mean that it'd be more difficult to get everyone from that end out? Unless he thinks about opening a new entrance at that end...

[BlueNose]

of course we could fill the stadium for the lesser games...i really dont see how that would be a problem

[Scott]

If we had a 60,000 capacity stadium today we would have trouble filling it except for the really big matches.

A pretty honest statement if you ask me, makes me tend to believe Bruce on other things he says.

[BlueBeard]

There is sponsorship, which is why we are looking at the possibility of naming rights for the stadium

Don't like the sound of this at all, Stamford Bridge should never be renamed. We could end up with something like "The Durex Condom Stadium", "The Tampax Bowl" or "The Anusol Arena", though I'd be surprised if the Gooners don't snap up the latter.

[BlueBeard]

Can I please urge the owners of Chelsea never to rename the stadium? Apart from the history of Stamford Bridge, or the sponsors names for grounds sounding cheap and tacky, I've just realised that there could be embarrasing problems for match commentators at future games, epsecially if the sponsors turn out to be the ones I mentioned in my previous post.

Can you imagine poor old John Motson on MOTD?

"Here we are at the Tampax, soaking up the atmosphere"

"No matter how badly Chelsea's front four play, they always manage to fill the Durex"

"They're piling them in at the Anusol"

"Wonderful play by Chelsea, their football is really flowing at the Tampax tonight"

"There's been some excellent shooting in the Durex this afternoon"

"Money-wise, since Chelsea increased the capacity at the Anusol, they've been making piles"

"This really is a spunky display by the Blues at the Durex, they're stroking it around wonderfully"

"With all these injuries, it's been a bloody afternoon at the Tampax"

and so on...

[Barry Bridges]

Can I please urge the owners of Chelsea never to rename the stadium? Apart from the history of Stamford Bridge, or the sponsors names for grounds sounding cheap and tacky, I've just realised that there could be embarrasing problems for match commentators at future games, epsecially if the sponsors turn out to be the ones I mentioned in my previous post.

Can you imagine poor old John Motson on MOTD?

"Here we are at the Tampax, soaking up the atmosphere"

"No matter how badly Chelsea's front four play, they always manage to fill the Durex"

"They're piling them in at the Anusol"

"Wonderful play by Chelsea, their football is really flowing at the Tampax tonight"

"There's been some excellent shooting in the Durex this afternoon"

"Money-wise, since Chelsea increased the capacity at the Anusol, they've been making piles"

"This really is a spunky display by the Blues at the Durex, they're stroking it around wonderfully"

"With all these injuries, it's been a bloody afternoon at the Tampax"

and so on...

You seem almost excited by the idea :P lol

[BlueBeard]

You seem almost excited by the idea :P lol

Just trying to make light of a serious situation. Surely no Chelsea fan would be happy with the renaming of our stadium?

[Ruh Buh Juh]

The naming rights thing might not be a huge issue - what if it's just something like "The Sony Stamford Bridge"? That wouldn't be SO bad.

[Barry Bridges]

Ideally it will stay just "Stamford Bridge" forever (MY last name is Stanford so I love the similarity lol)

However, if the difference between being eligible for the CL is between "Stamford Bridge" or "Sony's Stamford Bridge" for example, then its a necessary evil.

In North America ALL sports stadium have a sponsors name in it, so I almost expect it. Probably why you went get a big rection out of most of the North American fans (that and we dont get to see the grounds very often, so out attachment to the stadium specifics wont be on the same level)

[BlueBeard]

I've been going to Stamford Bridge since 1967. If Chelsea ever decide to sell out and rename the stadium, then I for one will never go there to support them. It's just another step down the "f*ck the fans" route.

[Tea Bar Boy]

Not very happy with the expanding the MH comment . It would probably mean putting an extra tier on top which would mean closing the stand for 6 months . Where will they put all the MH season ticket holders for that period ?

Or will we play home games at le Arse for period until all the work is finished ?

[Zola's Love Child]

For me, renaming the stadium isn't the worst thing they could rename.

If they ever touch the names 'Shed End' or 'Matthew Harding Stand', then all respect is lost.

[Gem]

GO COMPARE! Stadium.

Love it.

Compare the Meerkat.com, Simples! Arena.

Ahh, we'll teach those Americans who can sell out better..!

[geezer]

My understanding is even if they did allow naming rights, STamford Bridge would still remain in the title. Bottom line is to us true fans it will always be the Bridge so personally I couldn't give a f**k what they called it.

[Ruh Buh Juh]

Compare the Meerkat.com, Simples! Arena.

That would definitely be the greatest stadium name ever.

[dkw]

My understanding is even if they did allow naming rights, STamford Bridge would still remain in the title. Bottom line is to us true fans it will always be the Bridge so personally I couldn't give a f**k what they called it.

my feelings too. THEY can call it what ever the hell they like, WE will always call it Stamford Bridge.

[rahul]

If Stamford Bridge is retained in the name, something like Samsung Stamford Bridge, AND we get such a massive pay off for it that we get level with the revenues made by Old Pissford and Emirates or even usurp them, I am all for it. Of course I have never been to the stadium so you could argue that I might not have the same sentiments attached to it as some of the folks here but then I'm just being practical. I'd still prefer it to be called Stamford Bridge by all means.

Edited January 23, 2010 by rahuldotchelsea