Here are their answers . . .
1. What details can you give us of the various groups still interested in buying the club and what stage are their respective bids at?
We have not revealed any bidders' identities publicly throughout the sale process. The bidders themselves decided to provide the media with details of their involvement. Two of the parties that remain involved have asked for complete anonymity and we will respect their request.
There are three parties which have expressed serious interest, plus one other who has been in contact with the administration team. The interest is from parties both UK-based and abroad. Two of the prospective bids are at a more advanced stage than the others.
2. Is liquidation inevitable now bearing in mind the ticking clock?
No it is not inevitable. It is quite possible to complete a purchase of the club over the next few days.
3. At what point does the business become unsustainable and the only option is liquidation?
The latter does not automatically follow the former. Funding is in place until the end of May and the reality of the situation is that there are appropriately funded parties ready to take over the football club.
4. What is to prevent any new preferred bidder walking away citing the issues Bill Miller claims to have encountered?
All parties are aware that time is of the essence and that it is very much in the interests of the club to conclude the sale and purchase as soon as possible.
5. Why did Duff & Phelps not cut player and staff costs within 48 hours of coming in rather than cut salaries and renegotiate contracts so that high-value players can leave on reduced fees?
The choice made meant that the club could continue to function, jobs were saved and value was preserved in the playing squad. The sacrifice made by players in terms of wage cuts achieved the objective of reducing costs. We needed to conduct an analysis of the financial position prior to establishing the extent of any cost cutting and that process took a few days. We then produced various scenarios based on differing levels of pay cuts. One such scenario was that if no salary sacrifices were agreed we would have needed to release 21 of the first-team squad. This would have included some of the higher-paid players and so value to the club would have been lost with the players being able to move for free.
6. With hindsight, was it a mistake to renegotiate player contracts and potentially allow the high value players to leave for reduced fees?
Quite the reverse. Players are still contracted, they still have a value to the club and a new owner. It would have been a mistake to make players redundant which would have ensured they had no value at all. Furthermore, the team would also have been less competitive potentially leading to a lower league placing and so decreased prize money as well as lower crowd attendances. It must not be forgotten as administrators we were not able to enforce salary cuts on the players.
7. What is your response to Bill Miller's claim that preliminary information was "more optimistic than reality"?
The financial information made available to all parties is entirely factual and was there for all to see from the outset of their interest. Mr Miller's 'reality' is his subjective assessment.
8. Will Bill Miller's comments about preliminary information mean you have or will alter your approach when dealing with other bidders?
No. The information has been factual and the process entirely transparent from the start. Financial projections are always based on the assumptions that underlie them. It is for each bidder to flex our information based on their own views as to income based on season ticket sales, attendances and other items. They will also have their own views on the amounts to be spent on player costs and other expenditure.
9. Why did Duff & Phelps not insist on a £500,000 exclusivity fee from Bill Miller?
Alternative arrangements were made which satisfied our need to see demonstration of serious financial commitment.
10. What were the contracts similar to the Ticketus deal which were, as Bill Miller's people put it, "robbing the future" and leaving "very little cash to operate with"?
Clearly, the Ticketus contract, should it remain, has an impact on future revenue but we are not aware of any other contract that could be described in the terms above.
11. What impact does Ticketus' imminent legal action have on Craig Whyte's decision to transfer his shares to a new owner for the sum of £1? Is he likely still to proceed with this pledge in light of this action?
We have seen written evidence of Mr Whyte's intention to transfer his shareholding. We cannot speak for the position taken by Ticketus.
12. Was Bill Miller ever really a credible bidder or essentially a timewaster?
He was a serious contender who spent a substantial sum of money in preparing his bid and demonstrated proof of funding at a very early stage.
13. Have the Blue Knights been dismissed as an option?
No, the door has always been open. It is, and has always been, up to them to submit a bid that is capable of acceptance by the administrators.
14. You have described a 'cash burn' in June that would have to be funded while a CVA is in process. Could players be sold to fund this, rather than potential new owners funding it when they have no guarantee of ownership?
Given the uncertainty of the SFA penalty of the transfer embargo, a sale of players would be one of a number of options available if funds are needed in June. However, we expect the sale process to be resolved by then and new owners to be in place.
15. If so, are Duff and Phelps willing to renegotiate some of the clauses with key players and ask them to remove the very low get-out fees in return for being reimbursed sacrificed wages, thus giving the club more of a true transfer value for the players concerned? Allan McGregor at £4m or £5m would fund the gap in a CVA, but not when he has a reputed get out clause of around £2m.
There is no possibility of 'renegotiating' players' contracts at this juncture as this would increase the operating costs of the club and the issue of ownership is expected to be resolved as soon as possible. Moreover, it is highly speculative to suggest what players would be transferred for in such circumstances.