The 21-year-old spent last season on loan at Everton and has continually looked as though he will not be a part of Jose Mourinho's first-team plans.
Therein, though, lies the main problem for Lukaku at Stamford Bridge, as he clearly has the ability to play a role in the Blues' campaign.
Last term, the Belgium international scored more goals and registered more assists than any Chelsea striker, begging the question 'what would have happened if Lukaku had stayed in west London?'
Looking instead to the future, the above figures suggest that Mourinho would be wise to do a U-turn and include the young striker in his plans this time around. Even if new signing Diego Costa is to be the Blues' main man, Lukaku would still be a more clinical option as backup than Demba Ba or Fernando Torres.
The 21-year-old himself has recently stated that 'there are choices to make' but that he wants to compete for trophies. It would appear, then, that it is Mourinho's unwillingness to use him as part of his squad that is the main hurdle in Lukaku's way at Stamford Bridge.
But, say the Belgian isn't the world-class striker the Chelsea boss requires, or that he will never be a top forward in the mould of a Didier Drogba or Diego Milito. So what?
In order to cross the line in the Premier League title race - or in Europe - Mourinho knows all too well that fine margins need to be exploited. While Costa leads the Blues' line, then, why can't Lukaku be used as a plan B?
Last season serves as evidence that neither Ba nor Torres can really match Lukaku for goals, so a reluctant compromise from Mourinho, even if was just for one season, could be the difference between ultimate Chelsea success or another trophyless campaign.
Should Mourinho keep Lukaku at Stamford Bridge?