So what if Roman Abramovich sells? It doesn't matter who owns Chelsea. Not any more. Not these days. Abramovich's work is pretty much done. He has elevated his football club until it stands among the biggest in the world.

Chelsea's market worth is over £2billion, even without a new stadium.

Meaning, from here, the club will always be owned by an extraordinarily wealthy individual or group, one that measures its fortune in more than mere millions.

If Roman Abramovich ever sold Chelsea - he would leave the club in a brilliant fashion

So Chelsea are made. Chelsea are golden, and that's down to him. Whether Abramovich is present to witness it, when the redeveloped Stamford Bridge goes up - as one day it will - it should be named in his honour. The Roman Colosseum. He will have built it, even if his money no longer pays the bills.

That is not to say Chelsea will ever find an owner like Abramovich; one willing to regularly sign off eight figures for compensated managers and world record goalkeepers, to hire and fire and deal and deal again in the restless pursuit of glory.

Whatever his flaws as the most impatient employer, Abramovich is a football fan's dream.

At the first perceived lowering of standards, he writes a cheque, makes a change. They would love him at Newcastle, at Manchester United, at Arsenal. He thinks like them, closer in spirit to a supporter than to Stan Kroenke. And when he makes a hasty decision - turning against Carlo Ancelotti, buying Andriy Shevchenko - he shrugs and goes again. He's a brilliant owner but replaceable, now.

The club that Abramovich bought in 2003 wasn't quite stable. It had enormous potential, the foundations to build were in place and between 1996-97 and 1999-2000 Chelsea won five trophies - two FA Cups, the League Cup, the European Cup-Winners Cup and the UEFA Super Cup - but resources were stretched and darker days were not such a distant memory.

From 1975-76 to 1988-89, Chelsea spent eight of 14 seasons in the second tier of English football. Abramovich did not rescue them, but there was no certainty they would become a permanent fixture among the elite. Chelsea's first four Premier League finishes had been 11th, 14th, 11th and 11th.

Chelsea, it was felt, could go either way, as some of their contemporaries did. When Abramovich bought Chelsea, Newcastle had finished higher the previous season. So nothing could be presumed. The last suitor before Abramovich had been Matthew Harding, a very rich man but not in the same financial league. It did not necessarily follow that a Russian billionaire many times over was Chelsea's match.

Now, it is illogical anyone lacking Abramovich's financial profile could own his club. If he sells one day he will be replaced by a mini-me, except perhaps a different nationality. Chelsea's new owner will be Russian, or American, or Chinese or from the Middle East and if it is an Englishman he will not be in the hundred wealthiest, as Harding was, but the top five. That is why identity is no longer relevant. Those who think Russia's deteriorating relationship with the West - in which Abramovich's visa is the collateral damage - means Chelsea will soon be on the skids haven't been paying attention.

Chelsea have put plans on hold to expand Stamford Bridge to a 60,000-seater capacity

They are no more at risk than Manchester United or Liverpool. Abramovich has built Chelsea into a commodity that will only attract the most serious financial players. If Qatar wanted to break into the Premier League market, they would buy Chelsea.

For a start, it's a branding dream. It's called Chelsea. 'Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning,' sings Joni Mitchell. She means Chelsea, Manhattan, of course, but that doesn't matter. Chelsea, New York; Chelsea, London; it says cool, it says luxury, it says high-end.

Manchester United is an iconic name, too, but the club has made it so. The style conjured by the mention of Chelsea is innate, and comes from being the club nearest the heart of the capital, the true London club. They're not in some suburb or gentrified urban outpost, they're in the King's Road.

And Chelsea's potential is still not fully realised. Yes, they are the most successful club of the Abramovich era, the first from London to claim the Champions League, among a select band to win every domestic and European trophy. But when the new White Hart Lane opens they will be playing at the fourth biggest club stadium in London and are currently only the seventh biggest in the Premier League.

There are bigger grounds in the Championship (Aston Villa) and even League One (Sunderland). So there is room to grow. As television revenue increases so the footfall at games is perceived to be of less importance, but there is a reason, despite this, that every elite club looks to expand.

This is not just about season tickets, but match-day revenue. Merchandise, the spend once inside or in the vicinity. In the 10 years after leaving Highbury, Arsenal's earnings at home games rose from £43.84million to £100m each season, according to Forbes.

One of the factors that counted against Arsene Wenger in his final days is that attendances were dropping off, including those tickets not sold as part of a season package. These are hugely valuable to clubs.

A fan with a season ticket is unlikely to drop money in the club shop each time he visits. But a fan making a one-off pilgrimage, maybe from abroad? That customer will consume. Shirts, souvenirs, expensive items to take home.

And the larger your ground the more space to accommodate these big spenders. Remember, too, that Chelsea own a lot of hotels in the area, a significant property portfolio. The club haven't even begun to efficiently exploit that market yet, the value a 60,000 capacity can bring, and will not until they increase Stamford Bridge by a further 50 per cent.

So while the new build is expensive, any buyer will be eyeing it as a way of extracting more value from the Chelsea brand.

The Russian's ownership has yielded five Premier Leagues and a Champions League title

The official line from the club is that Abramovich isn't selling. He recently turned down a £2bn offer from James Ratcliffe, named Britain's wealthiest man in the 2018 Sunday Times Rich List, and Chelsea claim the £500m redevelopment has been placed in abeyance, not abandoned.

Abramovich, like many owners, is looking for investment, not a sale. Even Sheik Mansour at Manchester City felt the need to sell a 13 per cent stake to a Chinese consortium, CMC. Abramovich is merely exploring possibilities.

And perhaps that is true. However angry Chelsea's owner may be at being dragged into a proxy war between East and West, it would be foolish to surrender Chelsea for anything less than the best price. The figure he has in mind is 20 per cent more than Ratcliffe was prepared to pay: around £2.5bn.

And what do Chelsea get for that money? More of the same. Another billionaire. Most likely another foreign owner. Another Abramovich? Not exactly, because he has been a unique steward, but the business he bought has now changed beyond recognition.

Whether buy, buy, buy or sell, sell, sell, in some way, Chelsea is forever Roman's club now.

Mignolet missed his chance

Simon Mignolet is upset that he is stranded as Liverpool's reserve goalkeeper.

With Loris Karius departing on loan to Besiktas, Mignolet has been promoted, but feels he should have got the opportunity to leave instead. 'This does not change anything for me,' he said. 'I have always been clear: I want to play.'

Well, not always so clear, actually. Mignolet had the opportunity to join Fulham this summer but was uninterested. He probably thought he could do better. And that's his call - but if he wanted to play, he should have gone. He won't get the opportunity at another elite Premier League club, and he's certainly not too good for Fulham.

Simon Mignolet is set to remain at Liverpool after Loris Karius' loan move to Besiktas

Who's laughing now? Mick's gone and Ipswich are bottom

Mick McCarthy spent the last season at Ipswich being pilloried: negative football, players out of position, the criticism became a maddening drone.

Having said he would stand down at the end of the season, he quit with four games to go, following a 1-0 win over Barnsley. A substitution after 56 minutes got the bird.

'I won't have to listen to that again - I'm out of here,' said McCarthy, and quit. Ipswich were 12th at the time, top of a rump of teams that were not in the mix of the play-offs, yet in no danger of going down. Considering the club were 19th in the Championship for wages, and transfer funds were close to non-existent, McCarthy was doing a highly creditable job. Still, freed from his negative football and baffling decisions, Ipswich are now able to realise their full potential. They're bottom.

Mick McCarthy may be able to raise a smile at his critics during his time in charge of Ipswich

Ref was wrong on Capoue so why not act now?

By Sunday evening, referee Anthony Taylor must have known he made a mistake and that Etienne Capoue's brutal tackle on Wilfried Zaha was far worse than he judged it in real time. So why can't he say that? Admit he got it wrong and should have issued a red card. Better still, why can't the Football Association proactively invite Taylor to review his decision?

As a yellow card was issued, the incident is considered seen and dealt with and to revisit it is re-refereeing the game. But that is nonsense.

Taylor is not infallible; no referee is. Watford's Capoue deserves a three-match ban, and any impartial observer knows it. He could have put Crystal Palace's best player, and one of the most exciting individuals in the Premier League, out for the season.

Zaha could be the difference between safety and many months fighting relegation at Palace. It seems ridiculous that we do not protect clubs, and players, with the threat of retrospective action.

There is no shame in Taylor admitting he should have been stronger; the shame is in allowing extremes of violence to go unpunished.

Etienne Capoue was given a yelllow for his tackle on Wilfried Zaha but it should have been red

Rule is needed to halt spectre of feeder clubs

Bradford City have been going since 1903; Edin Rahic, the chairman, has been with them since 2016. So that's 115 years plays two: even so, Rahic has big plans for his club. He wants to turn them into a rich man's reserve team.

'I believe feeder clubs should be allowed,' he says, 'so a Premier League club can have a formal relationship with teams lower down the league, and use them to develop younger players.'

So that's Bradford done, then. The club had a couple of seasons in the Premier League between 1999 and 2001, but feeder clubs could not compete in the same competition as their masters. Bradford's progress would have a ceiling; their fans could abandon the dream of reaching the top, on their terms, again.

And what of the youth of Bradford, once the club starts importing large groups of teenagers from outside the city? Isn't developing young players exactly what Bradford should do - specifically, young Bradfordians?

Rahic is passing through yet if his plans were ever realised he would torch Bradford and its history for the chance of recruitment on the cheap.

Indeed, if he talks like this in public, you can bet he says it at Football League meetings, too. One day, he might find enough fellow travellers dabbling in club ownership, to get his plans to the vote. Rahic is German, part of an investment group with his partner Stefan Rupp.

Not everything they do is bad, but it shouldn't be that English football is left vulnerable to owners who would strip proud, long-established football clubs of their independence. More respect has to be shown for the traditions of lower-league football in this country.

When Bradford were in the Premier League their derby games with Leeds were fearsome occasions. Might they be denied that in future, to better serve a former rival? These are more than just casual opinions. If heeded, they have the power to change the game here, to damage irreparably. Feeder clubs are the death of competition and a rule should be passed to take them off the table, permanently.

Bradford chairman Edin Rahic wants Premier League teams to have feeder clubs lower down

Rafa is playing politics at Toon

Rafa Benitez is an excellent tactician but also a consummate politician.

He has zoned in on the antipathy around Mike Ashley's stewardship of Newcastle and utilised it, so that everything is now the owner's fault - even the football Benitez chooses to play.

'You have to drive the car you have,' he said after enjoying 19 per cent of the ball, at home to Chelsea, pointing the finger at his lack of resources again.

Yet as many Newcastle players would get in Brighton's team as Brighton players would make Newcastle's side; and Brighton did not play negatively against Manchester United last week.

Yes, Ashley should see the potential in Newcastle and give Benitez more support, but the choices are not a transfer market plunge or utter negativity. There is middle ground. Newcastle could play better football than this - they certainly did against Tottenham on the first weekend of the season - and Benitez is getting away with one.

Rafa Benitez still has the support of the fans despite the club's slow start to the season

The idea that video assisted referees would have disallowed Wolves' goal against Manchester City is puzzling. Yes, it seems wrong that a goal can be scored off a players' hand, but what if the role was reversed?

What if Willy Boly was a City player attempting to defend a corner? He didn't mean to head the ball to hand; and it wasn't as if his arm was in an unnatural position and he could get it out of the way. Had a penalty been given against a defender in such circumstances, it would have been considered very harsh, even if a clear advantage had been gained.

So what's the difference? Boly didn't mean to handle the ball, he didn't try to divert it into the net this way. And yet without his hand, a goal wouldn't have been scored. It doesn't seem fair; but it's certainly not consistent, either.