In those 3 paragraphs...



Right there. McManus says Hicks, in reality not just perception, gave a decision against Saints because he wasn’t impartial.

Not to mention it wasn’t a clear try in real time. Only someone impartial would say it was.

You miss all the bits about him saying Warrington were deserved winners. That he does not blame hicks. And that his issue is with the rfl.

But people do only take snap shots of the parts that support their views.

As Chairman of a club, he should not be fueling the fire, he should be dampening it.
Maybe focusing on the great effort of his players, winning the LLS, with ease and focusing on the GF.

As for this being put out to "a few hundred fans", absolute nonsense, the modern world doesn't work like that.
There are cameras everywhere and if you are any kind of high profile figure, anything in actions or words can and will be seized upon.
Whatever else we may think of the Saints Chairman, he isn't daft and whilst he could pretend that his was aimed at "the faithful", the reality is somewhat different.
A hefty fine is in order

Why not a points deduction.

36 points applied immediately ought to do it. Two for each Wire player disrespected, plus two for Hicks.

Yes he did say warrington were deserved winners. So why the rant about the ref? I can kind of understand Holbrook whingeing straight after the game when he has a microphone immediately shoved in his face, but this article was ridiculous. Did price or Moran complain when thaler missed the biggest forward pass of the summer era to get saints a victory against wire? Nope, it wasn't mentioned. Funnily enough, nobody at saints thought there was a problem with the officiating that night.

The comment from Dave Woods sums it up perfectly:

"Dave Woods
@DaveWoodsSport
·
15h
There’s never, ever been a golden age of refereeing. Though I think we’re in a golden era of bitter, wearisome, boring carping about referees"

Yep words on a page worth 36 points.

Violence in the crowd worth no action.

Death threat to a referee, set up a meeting.

Shows were our values are.

That Warrington were deserved winners isn’t in doubt and doesn’t contradict his piece about Hicks not being impartial. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Snap shots that support their views? Do you disagree that McManus has questioned whether Hicks was impartial in that statement?

McManus clearly states that Hicks wasn’t impartial due to him preferring Warrington.

The fact Saints fans are defending this or trying to p words in a clear statement is just as daft as the statement itself.

I think you'll find we all agreed it was a bad call. Its hard to moan when you agree it was a terrible call.

Words on a page - from the club chairman is the key point. Saints or any other club aren’t getting fined or punished because of words their fans use.

Stop desperately defending the indefensible.

He does not say hicks was not impartial. At any point.
He write about the perception of impartiality.

For me it was the wrong time to write it, he should have saved it for a few weeks. But I also don't disagree about refs not being on twitter. Twitter is a hole for trolls to spout vile abuse. Why would refs go on twitter.

They have to be impartial, so going on twitter is going to make that far more difficult.

I'm not defending it, I'm saying it was the wrong time to publish it.

Please pick out the words that you disagree with in the statement and I'll say whether I think they are worth defending or not.

Those bits are then followed by the word ‘however’.

He doesn't mention the penalty count which was 4-2 in saints favour. Hicks made a couple of bad calls, as will ALL refs in ALL games. If saints had actually played better than wire and won, would McManus have written this article?
NO!!!!!!