I agree.

It was all about creating a huge distraction from the Saints performance after all the build up.

It was designed purely to suck Saints fans into a different debate. McManus mentions how the meeting a month before could create a perception of impartiality. We know it didn’t though, because no Saints fans questioned it before, during or after the game UNTIL McManus brought it up in a match programme.

He’s done a decent job of it to be fair. Suddenly all the Saints fans are taking about one decision in a game where there were lots of iffy decisions that went both ways. They’ve already forgotten that the tactics on the day were wrong.

I’m sure all this will blow over when they win the GF anyway.

The knock on effect of this is potentially impacting a professional sportsman. Should Saints make the Grand Final, will Hicks be selected to officiate? He has been one of, if not the, best referees this season, now there is a cloud over him.

If he did get selected, and for instance, Saints get a dodgy try allowed (easy done, happens every week across the sport), I do hope McManus instructs the players to walk off and force a replay, or do a ‘Leeds United’ and allow the opposition to walk in a try to level it up.

It’s only fair, after all

Not sure that they will be lifting that trophy either but, who will he blame then ?

Most probably because he didn't have a crystal ball that week or so beforehand on Hicks being the ref for the final. The RFL announced it late on the 20th August and the final was on the 24th, McManus would probably have had only 48 hours to raise questions but he was already out of office in London with the team. The RFL react at snail pace and would have needed a lot more time to consider any eventuality like that.

We don't really know if MCManus honestly did have concerns at the time of the appointment, I don't think we will ever know. So the Spat sticks with him I'm afraid, I hope he keeps his mouth shut from now on.

When Hicks made that error, in the heat of the moment, a decision that looked reasonable in live play, there were 76 minutes left and it was 0-0. Everything that followed was down to the ineptness of Saints on the day and the Warrington effort.

What McManus wrote in his programme was a disgrace. Considered, reflected on, edited, and sent to the printers. Shameful. Saints are better than that.

Or, weirdly, not in the big games. Maybe it is quite apt that in a big week for Saints, their chairman had a howler. It's the club culture.

Yep a letter in a programme (or should I say 2 out of 6 paragraphs; which seem to be the only bit people are talking about) should be dealt with more severely (strongly) than a full blown riot.

If he thinks referees shouldnt be on twitter I assume he will be taking all his players off Twitter?

The warrington/catalan crowd trouble/full blown riot* is still being investigated. Not sure why people think its over and done with.

*not actually a riot

The ramblings of a bloke who reminds me of that pished-up, incomprehensible Irish uncle at a wedding!

What a sour, bitter little bell-end Mr McManus is; he's done a cracking job of bringing his club into disrepute this week, and if there is any bottle at all at the RFL, he'll be dealt with in the most robust manner at their disposal.

At a time when respect for referees is at an all time low - and off the back of a really serious incident of targeted harassment towards one of our senior officials - he decides that the right thing to do is pour petrol on the fire by inciting supporters of his own club to believe that said official has *deliberately* caused their team to lose the CC Final. Furthermore, his logic for the motivation of that is entirely backward - why would Mr Hicks feel so well disposed towards the Warrington club, a fan of whom threatened to kill him, that he would influence a match in their favour? As conspiracy theories go, it's right up there with some of the most demented.

I've always liked and respected Saints - they play the game broadly speaking in the right way, and have been a good example of a well run club; that respect is gone - and I suspect many people feel the same way, including many of his own employees.

Throw the book at him - and I hope Mr Hicks brings a private libel case at the same time.

Yeah but a few Warrington fans behaved like idiots in Catalans so, weirdly, this makes McManus' embarrassing comments null and void.

ALL he had to say was - 'Well done Warrington, however I have concerns over the standard of refereeing in SL currently and we as a sport need to look at how to address this......etc'. I would imagine he'd have had virtually 100% support from all supporters.

What's quite telling, is that no at Saints had the ability to say, "I'm not sure this is a good idea Mr McM…" In the time it took to be written, edited, proofed and sent to the printers, no one could persuade him it wasn't a good idea?

It's almost Trumpian, without the excuse of it being bashed out quickly on Twitter whilst taking a dump.

He owns the club, so basically he can say what he wants.
Personally I would not have players on twitter as it is a sewar, but they don't have to be even handed a player can be as biased as they wish.

I've said all along the timing was wrong and the points could have been made a few weeks after to disassociate the points made about referees and the perception of impartiality from the result of the game.

No saints fan thinks the result of the game was down to the errors made by the officials. That was completely down to saints errors and unfit players and a lack of finals game management.

If he has let a couple of weeks pass and then wrote on reflect that Saints would like the operational rules updated to removed referees from social media and to prevent referees being involved with clubs in the week prior to a match to prevent any perceptions being formed by fans. It would have been far more effective.

No it wouldn't - it would still have been sour grapes, angry old man shouting at the sky, nonsense; he has no right to dictate the social media policy of the RFL, and he certainly has no right to "say what he wants," - without facing censure if what he wants to say violates the operational rules of the contest he chooses to participate in, or libels another individual.

No amount of spin about timing, perception or context can annul this; your Chairman has gone from respected elder statesman of the game, to Marwan Koukash levels of mental, overnight.

No they cant, the RFL has a social media policy that all clubs and players have to adhere to.

Also, McManus can't say what he wants either, as he and the club are signed up to various RFL rules and guidelines too.

To say that you can say what you want be cause you own a club is a bit weird. It's a bit like saying you can say what you want as a business owner or CEO. I've got money so I'll say/do what i want. There's always going to be rules and guidelines around what you can/cant say, be they legal or just social.

I guess technically he can say whatever he wants, in the same way that i can say what i want at work, but i'd expect to be in trouble for it I just said whatever i felt like. As should McManus

If by 'more effective' you mean slightly less mental and dictatorial yet still completely wrong then yes.