I think this is more than just someone buying the team, if by way of administration they are seeking to get rid of debt then the other teams are understandably going to resist. The team may be viewed as insolvent which will cause loss of their F1 licence and loss of rights to prize money - £150mil in FIF1's case.
Incidentally being considered insolvent should also prevent them from taking part in races as well under the terms of Team agreements, FOM will not want that to happen as the grid is pretty small already at 20.
With less debt any new owner is going to be able to put more money into development, the other teams may see this as a big disadvantage to themselves.
When BMW left F1 they paid up all their responsibilities, in the same way Honda handed over to Brawn debt free. Both manufacturers wanted to cut forward financial commitments but took care of their obligations. The naming was the least of the priorities.
Perhaps it can also be be argued, by opponents, under FIA rules a company in administration may have lost it's legal identity, this could then lead to loss of rights to the F1 entry.
You can't sell F1 team licences but you can sell an F1 team that holds a licence. I don't know if F1 licences are granted only to a single legal identity - ie a properly constituted registered business, or a single person/partnership - rather than a team trade name. The difference may seem academic but may make a heck of a difference in fact.