“It was May when the government was saying we need the Premier League to step up to the plate. What’s wrong with us talking about a plan that is demonstrably in the best interest of the pyramid and our clubs?

“We genuinely think that this is in the best interests of the game as a whole.”

Parry accepts the proposals may take some time to gain general approval.

Who is against it?

Crucially, the Premier League.

In a response, it said “individual proposals” in the plan “could have a damaging impact on the whole game”, and that it would continue its own work on a “resolution to the requirement for Covid-19 rescue funding” for the EFL.

“Both the Premier League and the FA support a wide-ranging discussion on the future of the game, including its competition structures, calendar and overall financing particularly in light of the effects of Covid-19.

“Football has many stakeholders, therefore this work should be carried out through the proper channels enabling all clubs and stakeholders the opportunity to contribute.”

In a statement on Sunday, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it was “surprised and disappointed” by “backroom deals being cooked up”.

Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden told BBC Breakfast on Monday: “Now is not the right time. The challenge facing football is ensuring particularly the EFL has the resources to enable its clubs to survive. This deal does not command support throughout the Premier League at all.

“There are the resources there. I have to say that if they can’t get together and work together to sort this out, we will have to return to what we promised in our manifesto, which is a fan-led review of football governance because I think many fans will be concerned about what they are reading today.”

Parry responded by saying: “What they are saying doesn’t make it a non-starter. The merit in this plan still shines through. It is about saving the pyramid. It is difficult to reconcile our thoughts with the government’s but this won’t deter us.”

What happens next?

Apart from the Premier League executive’s opposition, the other obvious problem faced by those behind the plan is that they need 14 of the 20 current top-flight clubs to vote in favour.

Given the idea could see up to five clubs relegated in one season to reduce the size of the league to 18, it is easy to see half of the league being against the plan.

However, after speaking to some of the senior EFL clubs – many of whom have been in the Premier League – after news of the proposals first emerged, Parry feels there is a wider view that needs to be taken into account.

Parry says, in 2018-19, Championship clubs received £146m in EFL distributions and Premier League solidarity payments, compared with £1.56bn received by the bottom 14 Premier League clubs.

He added parachute payments made to eight recently relegated clubs totalled £246m and represented one-third of the total Championship turnover – calling it a “major distortion”.

“I have been talking about need for a reset for considerable time,” said Parry.

“I have highlighted various iniquities, including the problem of parachute payments, the massive disparity between what Premier League and EFL clubs receive in TV revenue and, right across leagues, the requirement for owner funding excess of £400m a year even without Covid.

“This plan is about removing the cliff edge and narrowing the gap in funding that has caused irrational behaviour.

“Aside from the six clubs who have been there all the time, 43 teams have played in the Premier League. By definition, 29 of them are with us in the EFL. This is not about us and them – or the 14 who are there at the moment.

“There may be some in the Championship who don’t fancy the idea of an 18-team Premier League. But they are saying it is time to look at the greater good.

“We have not been used or coerced. Our clubs are hard-bitten. They are looking for hope and a brighter future for the game. This is about a structure that works for 25 years.

Analysis – ‘hugely divisive and potentially seismic’

BBC sports editor Dan Roan

This is a hugely divisive and potentially seismic proposal, threatening the biggest shake-up of the English game in a generation.

Angered by the way the story broke without their blessing, the Premier League has already given it short shrift, viewing this as a regrettable power-grab. In fact one well-placed Premier League source has described it as a “takeover attempt, rather than a rescue package”.

Many will see this as an anti-competitive plot to concentrate power in the hands of the biggest clubs, opening the door to them controlling broadcast contracts, financial rules and even takeovers bids in a way top-flight bosses have always been desperate to avoid – a step towards a European Super League, and a means of freeing up space in the calendar to play more lucrative pre-season friendlies.

For years the bigger clubs have wanted more money and more sway. This is the most dramatic manifestation of that to date. But will it get off the ground? There will be huge doubts given 14 clubs would need to approve a plan that would mean fewer Premier League places. But the involvement of the two biggest clubs in the country means this surprising development has to be taken seriously.

At a time when the EFL is facing an unprecedented financial crisis however, it is easy to see why they would support a plan that would hand them the £250m they need to cover the loss of match-day revenue this season. And many in football will welcome the idea of a more redistributive financial model, with 25% of Premier League income shared at a time when the gulf between the divisions has been identified as a major problem.

Indeed, if the threat of this plan helps break the impasse between the Premier League and the government over a rescue package for the EFL, and a more redistributive financial ‘reset’, perhaps it can emerge as a positive development.