Modernising MAT Finance: From Legacy Headaches to Cloud Efficiency

If you're a MAT finance director working with Sage 50, Sage 200, or another on-premise system, you may be facing familiar challenges. Month-end can take weeks. Consolidating data from multiple schools often means downloading spreadsheets and manually combining them. Your auditors may need access to separate databases. The DfE has tight deadlines for its returns.

When your trust wants to add another school, the finance team understands this means adding complexity to already stretched processes and additional professional services costs. With modern cloud systems, trusts can add new entities themselves in minutes at no extra cost.

For many MAT finance teams, the finance system has become a limiting factor, not through any fault of the team, but because the software wasn't designed for how multi-academy trusts operate today.

This article explores why legacy systems can struggle with modern trust structures and what Sage Intacct offers as an alternative.

Common Challenges Legacy Systems Create for MATs

1. Every School is a Separate Database

Your on-premise system treats each academy as a completely separate business. Your trust board needs a consolidated view of finances across all schools.

What this looks like in practice:

Each school has its own database or company file in the system. To see trust-wide expenditure, you need to download data from each school, then manually piece it together in Excel. For larger trusts, this takes weeks.

Trusts with multiple entities often have to download data from each separately because coding structures don't match. Finance directors managing multiple schools often find their consolidated financial picture only emerges well after period-end. By the time leadership receives the numbers, they may already be outdated.

2. Month-End Becomes Month-And-A-Half

Close your books in 3-4 days? Not with a legacy system.

Most MAT finance teams spend 2-3 weeks on month-end processes. The system requires everything to be done manually:

• Export trial balances from each school
• Check for coding inconsistencies
• Manually combine the data
• Run consolidation adjustments
• Hope nothing was missed

Some systems don't allow journal amendments. Finance teams have to reverse the entire entry and re-enter it every time. Year-end processes can mean tasks that used to keep the team busy well into summer.

This creates a cycle where finance teams spend more time on data processing than on strategic financial management.

3. Limited Real-Time Visibility

Budget holders often can't see their current position. Headteachers may find it difficult to check spending easily. Your CFO might not be able to pull up trust-wide figures on demand.

Legacy systems weren't designed for self-service reporting or remote access. Finance prepares spreadsheet reports. Budget holders wait. Questions come back. Finance prepares another report.

Finance directors describe situations where the financial outlook had to wait until the month-end. Between reporting cycles, decision-makers may have limited visibility. Issues sometimes only surface at period-end when options for correction are more constrained.

4. Significant Manual Work Requirements

Your finance team often acts as the connection point between systems that don't communicate with each other:

• Pupil numbers from your MIS may need manually entering into finance
• HR payroll journals often need re-keying
• Purchase orders may go through email approval chains
• Bank reconciliations can mean downloading CSV files and matching manually

Some trusts manage multiple separate VAT returns because the system treats each entity as completely independent. With a unified system that consolidates into one VAT return with automatic processing.

5. Compliance Challenges

The Department for Education requires the Academies Accounts Return. Your auditors need full transaction trails. The trust board needs a Statement of Financial Activities that properly shows restricted versus unrestricted funds.

Legacy systems typically respond with a trial balance export, leaving the rest to finance teams.

What compliance typically looks like on older systems:

• Limited built-in fund accounting (restricted funds often tracked in spreadsheets)
• Producing a SOFA usually means exporting data and manually reformatting to charity SORP classifications
• The AAR often requires re-entering trial balance data into DfE Excel templates
• Audit trails may be incomplete
• Approval workflows sometimes live in emails and paper sign-offs

Manual chart of accounts conversion to meet DfE requirements often needs repeating with each reporting cycle. When compliance processes happen outside your finance system, finance teams can find themselves in reactive mode rather than being able to work strategically.

How Sage Intacct Addresses These Challenges

Sage Intacct was purpose-built for multi-entity organisations that need comprehensive financial management capabilities.

TSG has implemented it for over 50 MATs across the UK (over 800 schools) as Sage's longest-established education partner. Here's how it differs from legacy systems in addressing these specific challenges.

One System, Multiple Entities, Instant Consolidation

All academies operate within one unified system with a shared chart of accounts. Trust-wide reports are generated on demand. Consolidation happens automatically. Inter-academy transactions post without manual journals. New schools can be added in minutes by the trust's own team, with no professional services costs required.

Trusts get a consolidated view of all schools' finances in real time. Finance directors can drill into any school, any department, or any budget line instantly.

Built-In Fund Accounting

Restricted funds, unrestricted funds, designated funds: the system tracks them natively. You can tag income and expenses to specific funds (Pupil Premium, capital grants, and others). The system automatically maintains balances and carries forward unspent amounts.

For a Statement of Financial Activities, the system generates it with one click. It includes charity SORP classifications built into the platform.

Academies Accounts Return Automation

TSG's implementation includes pre-mapped AAR reporting and automation. Your chart of accounts is mapped to DfE requirements during setup. The system can then generate the AAR as needed, with data flowing directly into the DfE portal. You don't need your auditor to complete it for you, which saves significant professional fees.

Automation

With Sage Intacct, you can transform your financial management.  Bank feeds import daily and auto-match transactions. Recurring journals run on schedule. Inter-company eliminations happen automatically. Approval workflows route in-system with full audit trails.

Budget checks happen in real time. When someone attempts to raise a purchase order that exceeds the budget, the system can flag it immediately.

Remote Access

The system is true cloud-based, accessible via any web browser. Finance staff work from home. School business managers, budget holders, headteachers, and teachers can access their relevant dashboards. Auditors log in directly (read-only access) instead of requesting exports. Trust board members see current dashboards instead of waiting for monthly packs.

What Changes After Migration

Spiral Partnership Trust manages nine entities: six schools, a central team, SEN provision, and after-school clubs. Their finance team dealt with the manual consolidation, compliance, and audit challenges described above.

Their experience with Sage 200:

• Downloading data from nine separate entities because coding structures didn't match
• Reversing and re-entering every journal amendment (the system wouldn't allow direct edits)
• Filing nine separate VAT returns
• Giving auditors access to nine different databases
• Manually converting the chart of accounts codes for DfE requirements
• Year-end work that stretched well into summer

After moving to Sage Intacct:

• Consolidated and per-school reports are generated instantly
• Journal amendments happen directly in the system
• One VAT return for the entire trust
• Auditors log in once and access everything they need
• DfE reporting is automated through the system
• Year-end work completes before the summer holidays

The migration required planning. Data needs to be cleaned before transfer. Staff needed training. But the finance team now operates strategically rather than spending weeks on manual data processing.

Understanding the Investment

Moving to a cloud-based finance system requires investment in both software and implementation.

What trusts should consider:

• Finance staff overtime during the month-end and year-end
• Delayed decision-making due to limited data visibility
• Errors from manual consolidation
• Risk of non-compliance with DfE requirements
• Inability to grow without adding finance headcount

Most trusts see positive ROI within 6 to 12 months through faster processes, reduced errors, and finance teams that can focus on strategic work instead of manual data processing.

Making the Decision

Your legacy system may have worked well when your trust had three schools. As trusts grow, the limitations become more apparent.

You have three paths forward:

1. Continue with your current system. Month-end processes remain lengthy. Consolidation stays manual. Audits remain time-intensive. Growth is constrained by the finance team's capacity.

2. Add headcount to manage the workload. This addresses capacity in the short term but doesn't resolve the underlying system limitations.

3. Update your finance platform. Implement software designed for multi-academy trusts. Requires upfront effort but addresses the root challenges.

Is Your Trust Ready for This Change?

Most MAT finance directors recognise the same patterns before deciding to evaluate new systems. If several of these apply to your trust, you're likely at the point where exploring alternatives makes practical sense.

Manual consolidation has become a bottleneck. When your system treats each academy as a separate database, the time required and operational challenges can become significant. Errors may increase. Delays can compound. The consolidated view your trust board needs may arrive too late to inform decisions.

You're planning to add schools. Whether through academy conversions or trust mergers, growth plans can highlight your current system's limitations. Your finance team may recognise that adding more academies means adding complexity they can't easily manage without additional headcount. The question becomes: do you invest in more people to maintain existing processes, or address the underlying system?

Auditors are flagging system weaknesses. External auditors may have raised concerns about controls, approval processes, fund accounting, or transparency. Management letters might highlight the same system limitations year after year.

Month-end takes too long. If your month-end processes extend beyond two weeks, and you have limited real-time visibility into financial performance, the system may be working against you.

Governance seeks better reporting. Your CFO, Finance Director, or Trust Board may be actively seeking improved controls, efficiency, and compliance. Governance structures that require consolidated, real-time reporting and direct auditor access to financial data typically need systems designed for that purpose.

There's frustration paired with vision. Key finance staff aren't just identifying issues with the system - they may have clear ideas about what improvement would look like. They're willing to engage in change management and understand the value in temporary disruption for long-term benefit.

What Makes Implementation Successful

System migrations take several months and involve distinct phases: discovery, configuration, data migration, user training, testing, and go-live support.

What determines success isn't just the software choice. It's avoiding the common mistakes that derail MAT finance system projects.

Treating it as a technology swap, not a transformation. Successful migrations happen when finance teams use the opportunity to address inefficiencies rather than replicate legacy workflows. Modern platforms like Intacct offer automation and best practices that should be utilised.

Underestimating change management. The technical migration is often more straightforward than getting people to adopt new processes. It's important to budget time and resources for helping your team transition, not just configuring the software.

Skipping data preparation. Successful trusts invest significant time cleaning, standardising, and mapping data before migration. This upfront work prevents ongoing reporting issues and ensures accuracy from the start.

Not engaging stakeholders early enough. Projects can stall when finance, IT, and governance leaders aren't involved from the beginning. Your CFO, Finance Director, IT team, and Trust Board need to align on requirements and priorities. Late engagement can create scope changes and delays.

Insufficient training investment. Comprehensive onboarding for all users, ongoing support after go-live, and regular review meetings ensure the system gets used effectively.

Ignoring integration opportunities. Planning for integration from the start maximises efficiency and data visibility.

The discovery phase assesses your trust's specific requirements and creates a tailored project plan. This upfront work identifies potential issues and ensures the right stakeholders are involved from the beginning.

If You're Ready to Explore Options

Before engaging with implementation partners, gathering specific information makes initial conversations far more productive. This preparation helps you get tailored advice rather than generic pitches.

Document your current environment:

• Name and version of your existing finance system(s)
• Number of academies/entities and how each currently manages finance
• Specific consolidation or reporting challenges you face
• Examples of management and statutory reports you need to produce

Map your organisational structure:

• List all academies/entities within the trust
• Key stakeholders: CFO, Finance Director, IT lead, and others who'll be involved
• Decision-making process and any critical dates

Clarify your requirements:

• Desired improvements in reporting, automation, or compliance
• Known data quality issues or migration concerns
• Other systems that need integration (HR, payroll, and budgeting software)
• IT infrastructure and current support arrangements

Define your context:

• Growth plans: new schools joining, planned conversions, potential mergers
• Upcoming audits or regulatory changes
• Recent or forthcoming changes in governance or budget holder structures
• Key drivers for change (efficiency, compliance, scalability)
• Specific pain points causing the most frustration

Having this information prepared allows initial discussions to focus on your trust's specific needs rather than spending time gathering basic context. It also helps you evaluate whether potential partners understand education finance or are just pitching generic business software.

Next Steps

If this reflects your current situation, your finance team is likely already raising concerns about the sustainability of current processes.

Start with an honest internal conversation: What's working? What's breaking? What gets worse if you add three more schools?

Then look at systems specifically designed for multi-academy trusts rather than generic finance software retrofitted for education.

Explore TSG's education solutions.