The bit I found interesting was Stanley's assertion that none of their fees would come out of "Wigan Athletic" as such (yes, I know, semantics), but would come out of the property company and any money not going to them would be going to Hong Kong anyway.
We debated this on here recently and when I suggested this might be the case it was (rightly) pointed out to me that in reality Au Yeung would get nothing as other creditors still had to be paid and if ther ews money lefty over the creditors would just egt a great %.
I accepted this as making perfect sense.
Now, I'm wondering whether the "property" company (one of the 5 companies in the convoluted company structure) has no actual creditors in it's own right and so any money left over from the property sales will go to HK, but the other company which is essentially Wigan Atheltic - which has many creditors, has no assets other than what someone will pay.
Can't remember whether it was MB or TB who set me straight last time, I'd be interested to hear your opinion given Stanley's comments.