One would imagine this "subsidiary" pays the rent.
This is very different to the Southampton situation actually as the clubs parent company in this instance is clearly not insolvent.
A company that has no employees, & no assets sounds very dodgy to me...if it is a company that pays the rent (that's a new concept!)...someone has to be employed in some capacity in order to set the rent payment in motion. Or to operate as a company something must be produced or a service offered. If there are no assets or employees it sounds like money laundering is its trade.