It's a long and complex story but as AMs on the public accounts committee have been looking into the Regeneration Investment Fund for Wales (RIFW) there have been a number of significant developments.
Some of the main points are outlined here.
One area I'd like to focus on now is the potential return to the taxpayer and it needs a bit of explaining.
Fifteen publicly-owned sites were sold for £21m. The most controversial was the sale of 120 acres (50 hectares) of farmland on the edge of Cardiff near the upmarket village of Lisvane.
It was sold for £15,000 an acre, or agricultural value, a matter of months before it was included in Cardiff council's blueprint for housing, which meant that potentially large chunks of it could be worth up to £2m an acre.
Defence
The defence from those involved in the deal has always been what's called claw back - this is the mechanism which allows for the taxpayer to share in some of the profits.
So in other words, if the company which bought the land, Guernsey-based South Wales Land Developments, then sells it profitably to a housebuilder, a share will be paid back to RIFW, which in this case I've taken to be, in effect, the public purse.
But we've never known what the terms and conditions of the clawback were other than it only applies to two of the most valuable sites that were sold, Monmouth and Lisvane.
I understand that the clawback for Monmouth is 50% of any profits made to be returned to the taxpayer, and 30% for Lisvane.
But the main concern is the time frame on Lisvane was for five years when the deal was finalised, which means it expires in March 2017.
Public purse
In other words, if the land isn't sold to a housebuilder over the next 18 months, the public purse won't share in any profits that are made.
A proposed development called Churchlands on the land is currently at the centre of a planning inquiry.
One AM described it to me as "bonkers". I'm told it's one of the aspects of the deal which is causing most concern among members of the public accounts committee.
One other striking feature of the hearings this week was how disillusioned some former board members had become.
When they signed up for the unpaid posts, they were told by the Welsh government it would entail four meetings a year focusing on regeneration schemes and the creation of jobs.
Deprived communities
As it turned out, it became 20 meetings a year at its peak, dominated not by regenerating deprived communities but the disposal of £20m worth of public land.
No wonder the former leader of Swansea council and local authority representative on the board, Chris Holley, said if he knew what was involved he'd never have signed up in the first place and described it as a "torrid" experience.
When the committee chairman Darren Millar asked another board member Richard Anning whether he was sold a pup at the beginning, he responded by saying "Your words sir", which was hardly a denial.
So not only was the board involved in something it wasn't expecting, it was given the wrong price to sell the land in the first place which it described as "disappointing". It also wasn't told about some expressions of interest in some of the sites by its main property advisor Lambert Smith Hampton, which it described as "surprising".
Both of these were central points in the report by the Wales Audit Office into the land sale in the summer which included the conclusion of the District Valuer who found that the land could have generated at least £15m more for the taxpayer if it had been sold in a different way.
Potential
The board was told the market value had been established by the property consultants King Sturge at £20m, but in fact this was for its existing use, in this case largely agricultural, and failed to take into account the potential for housing.
What no-one told the board was that King Sturge had established another value that took into account its potential and came up with a figure of £26m, which was considered its true market value.
So when a sale of £21m was secured, the former board members were under the impression it was higher than the market value, whereas in fact it was £5m below.
Lambert Smith Hampton, in its written submission to the committee, said: "We are clear in our opinion that we achieved a good price for the sale of the portfolio of assets and acted in the best interests of RIFW at all times."
The board members' main defence, as has been the case with many of the parties involved in this deal, is that you have to look at it in the context of very difficult economic circumstances three years ago.
Mr Anning said: "The District Valuer's figure needs to be looked at in the context of subsequent events.
"We do have the benefit of looking at this with hindsight.
"We do have the benefit of an improved economy. We do have the benefit of residential land sales coming forward."
And this has been the main thrust of the defence which is, at least partially, accepted by most.
The defence is that all of the criticisms have been made with the benefit of hindsight and as we all know, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
