PROJECT Big Picture plans are “a sugar-coated cyanide pill”, according to a leading fans’ group.

The PBP plans emerged on Sunday and if adopted would represent the most significant changes to the structure of the English game in a generation.

They include an immediate £250m bailout for EFL clubs starved of matchday income by the coronavirus pandemic, and a further £100m to the Football Association.

The EFL would also receive 25 per cent of future Premier League media revenues under the proposals, something its chairman Rick Parry says would help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the competition.

He has publicly supported the proposals, which are also backed by Liverpool and Manchester United.

However, critics of the plans say they put too much power in the hands of the top-flight’s big six clubs because of proposed changes to the voting structure, and that it would remove the competitiveness of the league which for years has made it so attractive.

The Football Supporters’ Association has now condemned them in the strongest possible terms.

“We are not defending the status quo but ‘Project Big Picture’ is not the answer,” an FSA statement read.

“Within the proposals there are individual ideas which many fans would back – but in this form it is impossible to disentangle them from outcomes which would be a disaster for the game.

“The Premier League and Government have to step up and deliver an alternative financial package urgently for the EFL and National League. It should cover lost gate receipts and matchday income. And urgently means details in hours, not days or weeks. Days or weeks means clubs going bust.

“Days or weeks means EFL clubs being tempted by the sugar-coated cyanide pill offered up by billionaire owners who do not understand or care about our football culture.”

Parry held divisional EFL meetings with the 72 clubs yesterday to talk about the plan, and Premier League clubs will discuss the PBP plans at a shareholders’ meeting later today.

A source close to the PBP plans accepts the proposals are radical, but insists radical solutions are needed.