Wigan Athletic appeal report: The key points

An independent, arbitration panel - made up of three senior barristers - heard the club's appeal against the 12-point deduction. It has today outlined its decision in a 40-page document published on the EFL's website.

And while it is not an inquiry into Latics' crisis, it delves into the events which led to the club being placed into administration on July 1. Here are some of the key points:

1. Wigan Athletic's former owner inquired about putting the club into administration before he had even taken charge.

The report suggests Au Yeung Wai Kay made contact with Begbies Traynor - the current administrators in charge - on June 23, the day before informing the EFL he had bought out a 51 per cent stake in the club from Dr Chiu Fai Stanley Choi, the previous owner, for £20m.

The report says it "seems extraordinary" he had already made contact about putting the club into administration.

Gerald Krasner, of Begbies Traynor, is one of the co-administrators in charge of Wigan Athletic. He met Au Yeung's legal representatives and explained the club needed £6m to survive until the following season.

The report says that though Au Yeung had the cash, his other interests were his priority. "Mr Kay (Au Yeung) later made it clear in his interview with Mr Krasner that, although he had money available, his other business took priority and so it was not available to Wigan (he had previously made it clear through his solicitors that he was not going to put in 'another penny').

"Mr Krasner told us that Mr Kay showed no interest in pursuing what he called the 'solvent option'."

With that in mind, administration was the only realistic option.

2. While the panel were sympathetic to the club's plight, they dismissed Latics' appeal.

The legal team acting for Latics' administrators, who are in control of the club, had argued that their insolvency was a ‘Force Majeure’ event – something which arose as a result of an unforeseen set of circumstances.

But the report states: “The club cannot rely on force majeure because, far from acting with due diligence to avoid the happening of that event, at least one of the officials of the club – that is, Mr Kay – actively brought it about.”

3. The UK-based directors were not to blame for the club's administration.

While the EFL had suggested executive chairman Darren Royle, his dad Joe (a club director) and chief executive Jonathan Jackson could have done more to prevent the process of administrations.

But after hearing evidence, the independent panel exonerated the trio and noted that Royle Jr was even suspended because of his objection to the owners' move.

The report says the owners "actively concealed" their shortage of money from the UK directors, who refused to even vote on the club's administration process.

“In the case of Messrs Jackson and Royle, we consider they acted with a commendable sense of responsibility towards the club and we reject the suggestion by the EFL that they could and should have done more to prevent the club being put into administration," it states.

On two occasions, Au Yeung Wai Kay gave assurances as to future funding.

These assurances, on June 26 and 29, were "either false or at least knowingly misleading".

Mr Kay did not provide oral evidence to the arbitrary panel.

"Had he done so, (he) would at the very least have had much to explain," said the report, who thought all witnesses were "entirely truthful" and did their best to help the panel.

Previously, the EFL had been assured Wigan Athletic would receive 'continued financial support' from the owners.

Since the club has been in administration, Royle and Jackson have been helping the administrators without being paid.

4. Barnsley would have been relegated in Latics' place, if the appeal had been successful.

The Yorkshire club put two written submissions before the panel, as well as a witness statement of the club CEO Dane Murphy.

Barnsley were allowed to attend the hearing (which it did, via legal representative Simon Pritchard).

And though Pritchard didn't ask to make any further submissions, he did ask for the club's costs for attending to be paid for by Latics.

The panel threw out the request, saying Barnsley were there as an observer, and it didn't think it fair to add to the financial burden as Wigan Athletic go through administration.

A request by Latics for the appeal to be held in public, or with public access, was turned down by the panel.

5. The suggestion Latics were put into administration because the owner had a bet on their relegation was "not impossible".

But the panel discounted the suggestion due to a lack of evidence.

"Our attention was drawn to a suggestion that the whole process of putting the club into administration might have been in relation to the gambling interests of (owner) Au Yeung Wai Kay and/or (previous owner) Dr Choi," the report reads.

"Given the way in which international betting markets operate, we recognise that this is not impossible, but it is wholly unsubstantiated as an explanation for what happened here.

"Accordingly we discount the suggestion on the evidence we have."

They say EFL chairman Rick Parry acted "perhaps unwisely" in discussing the rumour with a Latics fans, a conversation which was secretly recorded and released on social media.