Also included in the award was recognition for our successful partnerships with Rochdale and Whitehaven, so we must have been doing something extra in that area. My guess is that coaching Rochdale to their first trophy since 1922 and to promotion probably helped, and also the fact that we don't use either Whitehaven or Rochdale as feeder teams as both Warrington and Wigan have done with their partner clubs. Those players on dual registrations have been fairly settled at the clubs, first team squad injuries permitting.

But I think the real point of the award is that it recognises how the club has turned itself around and done so in a financially responsible manner (during a financially challenging period) given the massive outlay that has taken place over the last three or so years. In 2010 we were playing out of a ramshackle ground with very little going on off field. Now we are playing out of a superb facility with one heck of a lot going on off field. It is that turnaround which has been recognised, just as Paul Anderson's turnaround of Hudds from nearly men into actual silverware winners (in one year) has been recognised. The turnaround is the key here, not whether Saints are a better club than Wigan or Leeds or Warrington or whoever.

I'd also add there is a cap on how far some clubs can progress. Saints will not really be able to add much more value in terms of stadium development as say the likes of Wakey, Cas and Bradford in the coming years, so if one of these clubs moves forwards off the field, expect to see them getting club of the year.

It's about progression rather than a measure of who is the best in terms of a total value figure.