'Project Big Picture' is nothing more than a cynical power grab disguised as a generous handout: Matt Scrafton's take on controversial plans to shake-up English football

I will, however, immediately contradict myself and admit I found myself nodding in agreement with a lot of what is being suggested when I first read the plans on Sunday morning, as outlined in the Daily Telegraph before most club owners had even been made aware.

The Community Shield to be scrapped? No problem. The League Cup can often be a vital source of income for clubs in the lower leagues, but would I really miss a competition that is often treated as an irrelevance with sides - from all divisions - fielding weakened teams? No, probably not, so that can go as well.

Why stop there? You might as well get rid of the dreaded EFL Trophy while you’re at it. The English game has a congested enough calendar as it is, anything that reduces the number of games has to be a good thing, especially in this current climate.

Furthermore, any bailout for financially-crippled EFL clubs was always going to come with caveats. Premier League clubs aren’t charities, they were never going to give hundreds of millions of pounds away and expect nothing in return.

I could just about stomach an 18-team top division as well, despite my reservations about the play-off that would pit the side that finished 16th in the Premier League against the team bidding to become the third club to be promoted from the Championship. It already happens in Germany, after all.

It’s abundantly clear Premier League sides want a closed shop, but this at least stops that...for now. But that’s where the positives end.

For a start, who do Manchester United and Liverpool think they are? Are they not satisfied with being two of the richest, most glamorous and most successful clubs in world football, never mind just England? They now want to be judge and jury, deciding the fate of the English game.

I would say their hubris is astounding, but I’d be lying.

EFL chair Rick Parry, a Liverpool fan, former Liverpool CEO and former Premier League CEO, no less, hasn’t exactly covered himself in glory, either, acting in such a suspiciously clandestine manner.

It wasn’t long ago the EFL delighted in telling us - especially Blackpool fans - they were nothing more than a competition organiser. Their hands were tied, they told us, because they were duty-bound to carry out whatever its 72 members voted for.

Yet look at them now, going behind clubs’ backs and negotiating cloak-and-dagger deals that could potentially cause long-term, irreversible strife.

The £250m handout would clearly come in handy and would, one would hope, stop any clubs from going to the wall in the short-term. That, of course, is welcomed.

But at what cost? A lot of EFL clubs will no doubt be blinded by the offer of an immediate cash lifeline, conveniently ignoring all the other conditions that come with it.

It might extend the lives of a few clubs in the coming months, but will it really make the game more sustainable, as has been argued? I don’t see how it changes anything. What’s the point in bailing out clubs if they merely continue to behave in the same manner?

Imagine if Bury were still around and still owned by Steve Dale. Would bailing them out make a difference?

Thankfully this isn’t the case, but imagine a world where Owen Oyston had kept hold of Blackpool. Bailing him out would have only prolonged the fans’ agony.

What is required is more stringent financial controls and a proper Owners’ and Directors’ test that stops rogue owners getting their grubby hands on our historical football clubs in the first place.

As is always the case with these all-encompassing, all-conquering grand plans, the devil is in the detail.

For their generosity, nine Premier League clubs would gain more power. The old one club, one vote system would be a thing of the past. Said clubs would inevitably govern with their own self-interest.

According to one national newspaper, a Premier League chief executive was quoted as asking: “why should Huddersfield Town have as much sway as Manchester United?” Well, why the hell shouldn’t they?!

Once you give power to a small, all-controlling elite then what’s to stop them from doing whatever the hell they like? B teams, which would be the death-knell of the lower leagues, would be introduced in a heartbeat.

The Premier League’s so-called ‘top six’ would also be able to veto takeovers. Why exactly, I’ve no idea.

Let’s assume the Saudis behind the proposed acquisition of Newcastle United had been given the green-light by the Premier League, what would stop the top clubs from vetoing it? After all, it’s not in their interest to have any more competition, is it?

If Man Utd were to finally get rid of the Glazers and bring in a knight on a shiny white horse that promises to take the club back to their former glories, are we saying their biggest rivals Man City and Liverpool could technically opt to reject it? Where exactly is all this heading?

Burnley are another club that have recently been linked with a takeover. Why would Everton, for example, vote in favour of that, given it would make life harder for themselves.

One question I’d like to ask is: where’s the FA in all of this? I know they’ve spoken out against the proposals and suggested they would block it, but why aren’t they taking charge of the situation? Isn’t it their job to oversee the running of the game in this country, rather than Man Utd and Liverpool? All the FA seem to do nowadays is dish out fines and suspensions.

Clearly something drastic needs to happen in the coming weeks and months, otherwise we could face a catastrophe. That doesn’t mean we should welcome the first proposals with welcome arms though.

This is an opportunistic attempt by the selfish Premier League giants to take advantage of the current financial crisis, a landscape intensified by the global pandemic. Any pretence of altruism should simply be scoffed at.

A lot of EFL clubs will no doubt be tempted by the sweeteners on offer. For the good of the game, they must resist.