Gabriele MarcottiCloseGabriele MarcottiSenior Writer, ESPN FCGabriele Marcotti is a senior soccer writer for ESPN.com. Read his archive here and follow him on Twitter: @Marcotti. and

Chelsea are coming off a turbulent season that included three different coaches and a 10th-place finish in the table. It's the second time in the past four seasons that they've finished 10th or lower; in the 25 years before current ownership BlueCo took over, it had happened only once.

They're also coming off the heaviest financial losses in English football history (more than $350 million) and having missed out on Europe, they will probably have to trim their squad. But with new manager Xabi Alonso in the fold, there is hope for a turnaround in 2026-27.

Mark Ogden and Gab Marcotti role-play as Chelsea bigwigs and try to answer some of the biggest questions the club is facing.

This is the fourth in this year's Keep or Dump series, which examines the most pressing questions facing the Premier League and Europe's biggest clubs in the summer transfer window. Previous teams: Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal.

- Why Chelsea hired Xabi Alonso now, and what went wrong at Real Madrid - Alonso's first big Chelsea test? Facing a team that hasn't lost in five years - How Kroenkes ended Arsenal 'banter era' to win Premier League title

First, let's remind ourselves -- broadly -- of what that model is.

Since January 2023, Chelsea have pretty much signed only young prospects. They've paid considerable transfer fees, but that was offset by their contract strategy. They signed them to very long, bonus-heavy deals in exchange for them accepting relatively modest salaries (which they were OK with because of the length of the contracts). The idea was that the club would develop these players, and some would ultimately be worth several times what Chelsea paid to sign them. The players who didn't make the cut would be easy to transfer out because of their relatively low base salaries.

In addition to their mediocre results, Chelsea have received two major strands of criticism. The first is that the side lacks veteran leadership and suffers as a result. The other is that the model, with its emphasis on development, ends up undermining the coach and making his job more difficult as well.

Mark feels the model needs a change of emphasis. The manager has to have at least equal status to the model and the five sporting directors. The appointment of Liam Rosenior as coach in January diminished the role to just a cog in the wheel, and that can't happen again.

Gab thinks that to some degree this change will come organically because on paper, Alonso carries more authority than his predecessors. His previous job was at Real Madrid, while Rosenior came from Strasbourg and Enzo Maresca had previously coached Leicester City. He will be well aware of what went wrong before.

Abandoning the model entirely could be difficult and cause more short-term pain, as Gab points out. First, if Chelsea bring in established stars on big salaries, they'd create serious imbalance in the wage bill. Second, many of the guys who were signed since the model was established still have fairly highly residual values on the books, so moving them on means taking significant financial hits. It might make more sense to stay the course for a year or two and try to continue developing talent while getting results on the pitch -- hopefully Alonso will be a significant upgrade there.

Chelsea have already been fined €31 million by UEFA and made to sign a "settlement agreement" for breaching financial stability rules. The agreement gives them pretty strict financial targets over the next three seasons and if they don't hit those targets, they can be fined up to an additional €60 million, face squad restrictions, receive transfer bans and be banned from Europe altogether. But they failed to qualify for Europe, and therefore they will not be assessed until the next time they do.

Once it became clear Chelsea weren't making the Champions League, missing out on Europe entirely was probably the next best thing. Qualifying would probably have forced them to either move out a bunch of players to raise revenue or receive a one-year ban from Europe, while having to sign a new settlement agreement that might end up being even more restrictive -- in addition to more fines.

Now they'll effectively have an extra year to comply with their targets. That means that if they have to trim the squad -- and they should, since they'll have fewer fixtures and therefore fewer opportunities for development -- they can do so in a more orderly fashion. A less congested fixture list also means more time for Alonso to do his work on the training pitch.

Chelsea certainly have a lot of cooks in the kitchen: Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart are co-sporting directors, Joe Shields is sporting director for scouting and talent, Dave Fallows is sporting director for football development and Sam Jewell is director of global recruiting.

Gab feels it's not necessarily too many if there is a hierarchy and accountability, but it's not clear if there's much of either at Chelsea. The risk in doing things "by committee" -- and, let's face it, there is so much overlap in their titles that they're evidently doing things by committee -- is that decisions are ultimately settled by compromise and groupthink. Stronger views are jettisoned and in the end, everyone agrees on the "safe" option, perhaps knowing that it's the best way to keep their jobs. Or, worse, you develop little fiefdoms.

Mark says it's not too many, since each of them built a strong reputation in the game before arriving at Chelsea. But the job titles don't help, and it's another example of Chelsea creating their own problems. Just leave each person to get on with their job, without the fancy title, and it will remove a problem that shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Mark feels Cucurella has become a key player and a senior voice, and that he deserves a new contract. Gab says the fullback has certainly been an important contributor, but not necessarily somebody you need to commit to straight away, especially since a new deal would take him into his 30s. Give it six months and see how Xabi Alonso feels about him.

Chalobah started more league games, by far, than any other Chelsea central defender this season (31; Wesley Fofana was next highest with 19). But Chelsea have to face reality, starting with the fact that they have a glut of center backs: Chalobah, Fofana, Tosin Adarabioyo, Mamadou Sarr, Jorrel Hato, Benoît Badiashile, Joey Acheampong, Axel Disasi and Levi Colwell (now back from injury). There are definitely teams out there who would be interested in Chalobah, unlike those other players. And because he's homegrown, any transfer fee received is pure profit.

Mark would bring him back from Bayern Munich, where he was on loan last season and where, despite not being a regular, his scoring rate was impressive (0.75 goals per 90 minutes). He could do the same job at Chelsea behind João Pedro and be a much better option than Liam Delap or Marc Guiu.

Gab would have kept him around this past season, but reckons it's worth seeing what interest there is for him. His residual amortization is only around £15 million and he's 24. Unless Xabi Alonso strongly disagrees, the Blues can probably shift him for around £40 million or £50 million, which would mean a tidy profit.

A lot will depend on whether Xabi Alonso sees João Pedro as a center forward or as a No. 10, perhaps alongside Cole Palmer. But we both feel that if Delap isn't going to get meaningful minutes this season -- which will be tough, given he'll likely face competition from Emmanuel Emegha coming over from Strasbourg -- it's best to loan him out. Delap needs to develop at this level.

Mark is pretty categorical on this: He'd be a good No. 2, but he's not even in the top 10 in the Premier League. Had Chelsea signed Mike Maignan from Milan last summer, they'd probably be in the Champions League right now. Gab agrees that the botched Maignan move was a major blunder and that while Sánchez showed some progress this past season, he's not at the level he needs to be.

The question is whether to spend on a top keeper -- there are some out there -- or try and find a solution in-house. In addition to Sánchez (28 years old), Chelsea have Filip Jorgensen (24), Mike Penders (20) and Gabriel Slonina (22) on their books. Gab thinks that if they sign a top-tier keeper, they basically close the pathway for players in whom they've invested. And with no Champions League football, it's not clear whom they'd attract without breaking the bank.

Gab would let Xabi Alonso choose his goalkeepers in preseason and send the others on loan (or, in Penders' case, leave him at Strasbourg). They spent more than £70 million for these players, and it's unlikely Chelsea would get much back if they were moved on. Mark, however, is adamant that pathways for a bunch of goalkeepers isn't the priority. The priority is signing a top-class No. 1 and then leaving the rest to fight it out. The prospects of the fourth, fifth and sixth keepers on their books shouldn't matter.

Estêvão is off the table because he has only been with the club one year, and he's been in and out of the side. At 19, he has a considerable upside.

Caicedo's residual amortization is only around £40 million, but he's such an important player -- and so difficult to replace -- that we would say no even to a nine-figure offer (which is what the club paid to get him).

Chelsea have amortized a lot of Palmer's fee, and a serious offer might be worth considering because it would be a very profitable transfer. However, he has had a difficult season -- culminating in being left off England's World Cup squad -- and it's unlikely they'll get a massive offer. He has a long-term deal, so it would be better to build around him and let him regain his form.

That leaves Fernández. Mark rates him highly, but he is clearly happy to have speculation about his future roll through the media and it's a circus that won't go away, especially with no Champions League football next season. Gab says that at 25, Fernández is in the prime of his career and he's not living up to the price tag. A lot will depend Alonso's system, but Fernández is most effective in a three-man midfield and it's not clear whether Chelsea will play that. They wouldn't get back anywhere near the £105 million they paid for him, but with amortization, there's only about £35 million of that left, so we can live with that.

It's pretty much a blank slate for Alonso. As long as he and the club are on the same page regarding the big questions that vexed Maresca's time at the helm -- results vs. development, medical/fitness staff input, profile of signings -- he'll be an upgrade. To what degree he is on board with the model and to what degree the model has been tweaked to suit him will determine how long he sticks around.

The financial shackles are very real, and while Chelsea's model ensures there is a steady supply of quality young players that can be moved on to benefit the books, they might have to (or, possibly, want to) shift one of their stars, such as Fernández. Without European competition, they likely won't be bringing in established superstars, but rather look to develop and grow what's already there.

The good news is that Xabi Alonso has a track record in doing so. Confidence in the club is low right now, but it's worth remembering that Chelsea were fifth and on track for the Champions League before the Calum McFarlane/Liam Rosenior managerial debacle. There's no reason they can't be there again in 2026-27.

Source: https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/48901787/chelsea-keep-dump-xabi-alonso-enzo-fernandez-cole-palmer-gab-marcotti-mark-ogden