He’s saying he thinks some of the decisions were wrong or highly questionable. He is correct that there were wrong or highly questionable decisions, some of them big.

He is not saying that Hicks showed bias. His whole point is that the situation opened up the opportunity for mistakes to be questioned in another way. That is the perception point.

EM is saying it was predictable and avoidable. Whether you like how he has said it (I certainly don’t) - he is correct. It was predictable and avoidable that some fans of either team on the wrong end of controversial decisions (particularly if big ones) would question why he was allowed to referee the game in light of the circumstances.

He is not saying Hicks is bias (the journalist’s incorrect take), he is saying that a competent governing body could and should have actively managed and avoided the situation.

Nice to see a Chairman who stands up for his club against the pathetic clowns running the RFL. Compliance Report? The RFL are inept and are damaging Rugby League reputation with their petty snide machinations. Hicks shouldn't have been allowed to ref the CC match as he was compromised.

He referred to public death threats as a publicity stunt. That in itself is a disgrace. He called into question his ability to remain impartial, thereby questioning his integrity. You can’t polish a turd but you’re certainly trying to dip it in glitter!

In which case you should be equally capable of seeing the nuance of direct criticism v perceived criticism. No one is doubting that he was deflecting his implied criticism of the ref behind direct criticism of the RFL (and not in a particularly effective way, as others have pointed out above) but it doesn't hide what his message is.

If I said about you "I blame the mods for allowing you post on this forum as it's clear that under the circumstances you're not capable of impartiality"*
the direct criticism would be of the mods for allowing you to post. However the clear, if implied, criticism is against yourself and your competence in retaining the ability to remain impartial. That is what EM has done in his outburst.

As I said previously, no one disagrees that he had obvious and justified grievences. All would agree that he had the right to take this up with the authorities. Few outside of St. Helens, however, would defend the way he chose to go about it.

*I'm not saying this by the way. I'm just using it as an example.

A good summing up imo Phuzzy.

Thank you JJ. Your £5 is in the post.

I respect you as a poster, on this one though myself and most of the RL world hold a contrary opinion.

If this went to court I’ve no doubt EM would win for the reasons you are arguing however in my mind, and the minds of most we know what he meant and implied.

I’m sorry, his program notes were nothing more than a childish dummy spit (well worded & likely with the help of a lawyer) because a couple of decisions went against his team.

Did EM air his concerns about the appointment of Hicks for the final before the game?

What McManus doesn't seem to know is that after Hicks reported the tweet to the police, the police interviewed him and became aware he had some learning difficulties..so it was the police who went back to Hicks and explained the situation and they were sure he was of no threat...but they will prosecute him if Hicks wanted so....Hicks on learning of his learning issues told the police he didn't want to prosecute but did want to meet the lad to put to him what he thought.
The police were satisfied with this and Karl F was asked to set up the meeting by Hicks.
That is how the events panned out...
The outcome was the lad had his lifetime ban suspended for 12 months...however the lad was so beside himself and in grief with guilt, he hasn't been to another game, even though he can.

McManus is completely wrong and out of order.
If he'd have just took 5 mind to ask KF this...he'd have been much wiser with his'sewer'post.