In addition to this, the fact that the government were unwilling to provide financial support to Hull Trains, yet immediately use their own operator (LNER) to provide a stand in service is, in my opinion, disgraceful.
The Secretary of State has an obligation to support franchised railway services under the law. He could have chosen to allow them to all fail and then bring them each in-house in order to preserve them. Sensibly, a much less disruptive offer was made and has been quickly accepted in those cases where there's an incumbent operator.
The Secretary of State doesn't have an obligation to ensure that the services currently operated by GC and HT continue. As it's thought that some of GC's market is still significantly loss-making, and is being funded by the profits of other parts of the business as a capitalist venture, it would be pretty appalling if the taxpayer stepped in to support their investment turned bad.
Vast amounts of general money from taxpayers has been offered to these businesses through other means already.
If GC really believed that continuing to run a reduced service for a week would convince the government to give them specifically a bailout, they have even worse businesses sense than I thought.