On Sunday morning, the Daily Telegraph published the groundbreaking details of "Project Big Picture"; an 18-page document that underlined a potential £250m bailout fund for EFL clubs to cover lost match-day income from the economic implications of COVID-19.

But this giveaway is not just a gesture of goodwill; the Premier League would be trimmed 18 teams and the EFL Cup (Carabao Cup) and Community Shield scrapped to suit the top-sixes European devotions. 

It is understood that the Fenway Sports Group- owners of current champions Liverpool- and Manchester United co-chairman Joel Glazer have been in talks with EFL chairman Rick Parry over the prospective changes for over three years and fully support the scheme. 

Though refusing to comment on proceedings, it is believed that Chelsea is backing the plans - along with rivals Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City- despite some "reservation" over the current arrangements. 

Blues chairman Bruce Buck is supposed to be "heavily involved" in the ongoing discussions and has done "for some time", according to the Athletic. 

What's in it for Chelsea? 

League structure

Ever since the Premier League was established in 1992, there has always been a desire to create more space for the divisions top-teams to play in European competition and time to play lucrative pre-season friendlies in growing international markets such as Asia, India and North America.

By reducing the top-flight from 20 to 18, the new proposals would see each Premier League club play four fewer league matches- providing a later start in August while retaining a winter break- which would hypothetically retain player fitness, reduce injury frequency and improve on-field performance.

From Chelsea's point of view, this is a major benefit. More opportunities to play abroad will mean more revenue and more chances to build their fan-base.

Plus the prospect of lessening the risk of long-term injuries will be music to Frank Lampard and supporters ears, as the London club has had a fair share of bad luck over the past seasons- Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Callum Hudson-Odoi, Billy Gilmour, N'golo Kante and Eden Hazard all spring to mind. 

For the rest of the EFL however, revising the Premier League structure will be at the detriment of the clubs struggling to stay in the top flight and those pushing to get into it- with only two clubs coming up from the Championship automatically while 16th in the Premier League battle it out with the other playoff teams in a 'Bundesliga style' promotion/relegation system.

Furthermore, the reduction in league games will also hurt the finances of clubs not competing in Europe, as they will have two fewer home games to sell and four fewer appearances on television for their sponsors. 

While the real losers are those at the opposite end Football League, with two dropping down to the National League if 92 becomes 90. 

The Community Sheild and League Cup

Much like cutting the number of clubs in Premier League, axing the Community Sheild and League Cup will clear time and space for the likes of Chelsea to play in more appealing, competitive fixtures against better sides. 

That, in turn, means more room for 'grand' European nights, which will attract a much larger audience than that of a Third Round Carabao Cup tie against Barnsley, for example.

Once more, this would be another possible hit for anyone not taking part in European competition as it means fewer fixtures (less matchday income) and more infrequent games against bigger clubs.

Much like the FA Cup, the league cup provides EFL clubs to play one of the  Premier League big boys. 

Scrapping this 80-year old domestic tournament will lessen aforesaid opportunities, resulting in less prize money for lower league clubs and unforgettable days-out for their supporters.

As will be clear, these proposals will often favour the rich in order to make them richer. 

So, in short: more eyes equals more money. 

Loaning players

Renowned for its loan policy since Roman Abramovich brought the club in 2003, changes to how many players going out of loan (15 in total and 4 to any single club) will only profit Chelsea even further. 

The alterations will allow the Blues to more stockpile talented youngsters (not like they do already), knowing they can ship them out on 1 to 2-year loan deals, increasing their market value as sellable assets or becoming viable first-team players- Romulu Lukaku, Kevin De Bruyne, Mohammad Salah, Nathan Ake, Domonic Solanke, Bertrand Traore, Ola Aina, Micheal Hector, Tomas Kalas, Kenneth Omeruo and Mario Pašalić to name a few.

This is also good news for EFL sides as they can benefit from taking more from tops sides and will subsequently provide young players with a better chance to develop playing men's football at a high level.

Though concerns of the Premier League's plot to gain control over youth development and its attempt to mirror a feeder-club system seen in other European leagues have been raised, with fears lower teams will become dependent and indebted to those above.

Voting

Seemingly the most controversial aspect of the entire proposal amongst fans and smaller clubs is the rewriting of the Premier League's current voting system.

Most decisions on new rules and regulations will continue to be made on a one-club, one-vote basis, with approval requiring a majority of more than two thirds (14).

However, decisions correlating to the election or removal Premier League board members, the sale of media rights, financial rules and even the endorsement of takeovers at a rival team, will be given to nine specific clubs- based on their longevity in the league- who will obtain "special voting rights". 

Of course, this will appeal to Chelsea, who would not turn down the prospect for more say over significant decisions. 

Yet, the arrangements laughs in the face of democracy; suggesting this a "power grab" attempt in the midst of a global pandemic to disproportionately benefit the top six. 

Not a good look.

What happens next?

This is undoubtedly the most dramatic manifestation of clubs unblushingly wanting more authority to date. 

Uncertainties do remain, however, given 14 out of the 20 teams. would need to approve the plan for less Premier League places.

But with the involvement of three of the biggest clubs in the country- with the potential of three more to voice their allegiance- means this project must be taken earnestly in the many meetings that will follow. 

By all means, this is not the final draft of "Project Big Picture"- though the implementing of aforementioned plans is unquestionably a matter of when, not if.

The positives outweigh the negatives for Chelsea, that's for sure.