Thread by @DaleJohnsonESPN

After Rick Parry said the EFL expects "three Championship clubs to be promoted" to the Premier League and "three clubs to be relegated", a thread on why this may not actually happen.

Key differences to Ligue 1 in France, with the Premier League's voting model crucial.

The tripartite agreement between the Premier League, the EFL and the FA says there should be three up and three down between the divisions.

If the Premier League completes its season, that will almost certainly still be the case - even if games are played behind closed doors.

But if we get to a point whereby the Premier League cannot continue, and is ended with 92 fixtures to be played, clubs will have to vote on how the season ends.

That includes how a final table is generated (PPG vs. as it stands for instance), and if relegation is applied.

If the Premier League season is not 38 games long, it is against one of the fundamentals of the competition.

Despite the tripartite agreement, the Premier League remains a private members' club which looks after the interests of its members and must vote on any major change.

In England you have the Premier League and the EFL, two separate bodies looking after their own clubs' interests.

In France, Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 are run by Ligue de Football Professionnel (LFP), so one body is in control of promotion and relegation between the top two tiers.

In a situation like the coronavirus pandemic, everything is uncertain about how promotion and relegation will work ONLY IF seasons cannot be completed.

In this situation, as Premier League is a private members' club, it is likely 14 of 20 clubs will vote to scrap relegation.

Why would teams outside the bottom three vote to scrap relegation? Partly due to the fear of the same thing happening to them in 12 months' time, and fairness.

Remember, Aston Villa would be relegated on PPG because they have a game in hand due to being in a cup final.

So let's same relegation is scrapped, that brings us onto the secondary argument - promotion to the Premier League and expanding to 22 or 23 teams.

This, too, would need the agreement of 14 out of 20 Premier League clubs, as league rules state there must be 20 teams.

One of the main issues is the football calendar. Obviously, there are many unknowns right now about when the new season would start and what it will look like.

But the basic fact is the football calendar - as it looked last season - did not have ONE spare midweek after August.

By expanding the Premier League you need to find space for an additional four rounds of games - six if you promote three.

Every midweek last season was taken up by a rolling menu of Carabao Cup, European football, internationals and Premier League games.

If the season does not start on the weekend of August 8, then the Premier League is already two weekends down.

Obviously we may see the winter break binned, but that still leaves few spaces for moved games, or adding them. Remember, the season has to end on time for Euro 2020.

One of the instant suggestions has been to "cancel the EFL Cup" for a season.

So, that is basically the Premier League telling the EFL it has to cancel its flagship competition and major revenue driver if it wants to promote its clubs. Does that seem a deal it wants to take?

This is aside from the fact there are long-term sponsorship and broadcast deals which the EFL has with Sky Sports and Carabao, among others. These commercial deals would still need to be compensated.

It would, though, free up 5 midweeks through the first half of the season.

Rick Parry has also said it is uncertain when the 2020-21 season can even begin in the EFL, which may present a different challenge for the EFL Cup.

The financial position for L1 and L2 clubs and the viability to play behind closed doors is an issue.

But there are other considerations for Premier League clubs when they come to vote on an expanded division. Of course, they are all essentially financial.

Let's start with prize money. This is going to be reduced because the pot needs to be split 22/23 ways rather than 20.

Secondly, TV share. Again, the equal share will have to be diluted to factor in additional clubs.

The "pot" was worth £48.150m to each club in 2018-19.

With 22 teams each club would lose £4.375m.

With 23 teams each club would lose £6.275m.

Add to that, Leeds United will be a draw similar to Newcastle, who were on TV 19 times last season - only the top six were on TV more.

Each TV appearance was worth around £1.2m.

Granted, Sky and BT would likely be given additional games to make up for a shortfall this season.

The final financial concern is relegation next season, when there would likely need to be 5 or 6 clubs relegated to bring the division back down to 20.

Simple fact is that increased relegation places means an increased relegation threat for half the Premier League's status quo.

Would clubs in the bottom half of the Premier League want to vote for more relegation?

Would the threat of that, and reduced £ of an expanded season, be more financially damaging than "lawyers getting wealthy" if promotion doesn't happen?

That is what the clubs would weigh up.

Just to round off, in relation to a question I received. The Football Association does hold a regulatory Special Share in the Premier League, which means it must approve:

- a change to promotion/relegation
- and/or a change to the number of teams in the league