The Championship side has tried to distance itself from the controversy.
After CBSL was wound up, the Blades said in a statement it was “a matter between the current owners and former owner.”
The club offered no response to requests for comment.
Back in 2009, Southampton’s parent company, Southampton Leisure Holdings, entered administration. The club argued it was a separate entity, but an EFL investigation disagreed and the Saints received the mandatory 10-point deduction.
Sheffield United’s case isn’t identical, but there are clear similarities.
The EFL says it will “consider the implications” of last week’s events and assess “whether any further action is required.”
For Sheffield United fan James Kemp, known as Blade on a Bike for his charity fundraising, it “just beggars belief.”
“Do they think they can just change company names to avoid paying what they owe the previous owner?” he 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 treat an insolvency event affecting any company linked to a club as relevant to that club, as happened with Southampton.
If the EFL board deems CSBL financially connected to the Blades, the club could face a 12-point deduction this season.
Appendix 3, clause 10 also requires at least 10 days’ advance notice for any planned change of ownership.
This is where matters become more serious for the Championship club.
BBC Sport understands Sheffield United did not inform either the IFR or the EFL that they were altering their ownership structure, nor that Timothy Ryan had joined the board.
The Football Governance Act, which established the IFR, forbids anyone from becoming an owner or director unless an application has been submitted and the IFR has approved their suitability.
So the issue is not only about unpaid debts, but also about asset transfers and securing the necessary approvals from the IFR and the EFL.