Why Sheffield United case could be a test for the new football regulator

Sheffield United were bought by COH Sports Bidco Limited in December 2024 [Getty Images] Just a few short months ago, Sheffield Wednesday looked like being the first club to come under the microscope of the new Independent Football Regulator. But now it is neighbours Sheffield United who are attracting the attention of the regulator. The IFR had Wednesday in its sights when Dejphon Chansiri stopped funding the club, until administration ended his reign before the new regulator's powers kicked in. The Owls now have new owners, albeit with relegation to League One. But for their arch rivals across the city at Bramall Lane, the IFR says it will assess the "honesty, integrity and financial soundness" of current owners and co-chairmen, Steven Rosen and Helmy Eltoukhy. That has been triggered by events at the High Court last week. COH Sports Bidco Limited (CSBL) - the company Rosen and Eltoukhy used to buy the Blades two years ago - was wound up with an outstanding debt of £35m to the former owners, United World. Two months ago, ownership of the club was transferred from CSBL to a new parent company, 1919 Partners LLC. It meant CSBL, and the £35m debt, no longer had a direct link to Sheffield United. This has left many questions and, so far, no real answers. It is possible that the English Football League (EFL) may impose a points penalty, while the IFR - for the first time - could take action against Rosen and Eltoukhy. How Sheffield United ended up in this situation The Championship club have attempted to distance themselves from the saga. It is "a matter between the current owners and former owner", according to a statement issued by the Blades after CBSL was wound up. The club did not respond to requests for comment. In 2009, Southampton's parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings, went into administration. The south-coast club tried to argue it was a separate entity. An EFL investigation disagreed, with Saints docked the mandatory 10 points. Sheffield United's situation is not quite the same, but the parallels are there. The EFL says it will "consider the implications" of last week's developments and weigh up "whether any further action is required". For Sheffield United fan James Kemp, better known as Blade on a Bike for this charity fundraising, it "just beggars belief". "Do they think they can just change company names to avoid paying what they owe the previous owner?" Kemp told BBC Sport. "It's just not the way to go about business. So in my view, I think there will be sanctions." Regulation 12.3 allows the EFL to consider an insolvency event which happens to any company linked to the football club, like with Southampton. If the EFL board considers CSBL to be financially connected to the Blades, the club may face the prospect of a 12-point penalty this season. Then appendix 3, clause 10 demands advanced notice of at least 10 days for any planned transfer of ownership. And here is where it gets more serious for the Championship club. BBC Sport understands that neither the IFR nor the EFL were informed by Sheffield United that they were changing their ownership structure, nor that Timothy Ryan had been added to the board. The Football Governance Act, which created the IFR, prohibits anyone from becoming an owner or director unless an application has been made and the IFR has determined they are suitable. So this is not just about the unpaid debt, but also the transfer of assets and approval from the IFR and the EFL. Chris Wilder was sacked by Sheffield United's current owners last summer, only to be reinstated a few months later [Getty Images] With Sheffield United not engaging it is hard to know exactly what the situation is. So far, the narrative has been led by former owners United World, headed by Prince Abdullah, who is refusing to walk away without his money. Rosen and Eltoukhy have not denied the unpaid £35m debt existed, and the hearing at the High Court lasted just 10 seconds before CSBL was wound up. The Blades Fan Advisory Board, which is supposed to have regular communication with the current owners, is understandably concerned. It has asked for information about the "transfer of ownership to 1919 Partners, the financial obligations they hold, EFL involvement in these issues and a request for wider communication with supporters". With parachute payments having run out at the end of last season, there has been a tightening of their belts in transfers too. The club have sold arguably their two most important players - Andre Brooks and Gustavo Hamer. Manager Chris Wilder will have to do business in the loan and free agent market as the 1 September transfer deadline approaches. A key moment for the IFR So far, only Morecambe have come under scrutiny from the IFR. The National League North club were issued a warning notice for failing to respond to queries about the running of the club. But this is a different level and involves serious questions about the way a Championship club have operated. How will the IFR view the transfer from CSBL to 1919 partners? What was the process? What was the motive? And what were the financial terms to facilitate it? And perhaps most importantly, why did the £35m debt not stay with the football club? And will this debt be paid to United World? The IFR can impose upon a person or a club a censure statement, a fine, or place a "skilled person" in the owners' place to run the business. Soon, the IFR will have the ability to revoke or suspend a licence to operate as a club owner - but the licensing process does not kick in until 2027-28. Many EFL clubs have struggled financially amid a series of ownership issues across the divisions - and this led to the creation of the IFR. Now the eyes of English football will be on how the regulator responds. Sheff Utd could face points deduction after court ruling Morecambe first club to face action from regulator Heggebo ban opens can of worms for FA - Morrison Latest Sheffield United news, analysis and fan views Get Sheffield United news sent straight to your phone