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.

There is only one issue: was the referee biased? If he wasn't, because he behaves professionally and impartially, there is no need to say anything or do anything. McManus has shown himself up.

For instance, I could comment that, by all accounts, Scott Mikalauskas is a devoted Wigan fan, who had friends and family on the terraces yesterday, and whose mistake put Wakey's survival at risk and ensured his beloved Wigan went second, and I *perhaps* mentioned it whilst ranting around the house last night. But I wouldn't expect Michael Carter to devote his programme notes to it at the next home game.

As a Wire fan pre Final my thought was "oh great, a ref that one of our fans issued a death threat to, he is bound to be biased in our favour...or not".
If McManus feared prejudice (or the appearance of bias) he should have put in a formal complaint before the match.
The "well done Wire" comments are the same as someone you are debating with saying "with respect" everyone knows they mean the opposite.

Surely if he (McAnus) had big concerns about the Ref appointment prior to the fixture...he could have voiced those concerns using something called 'Social media'....its all the rage. A simple little tweet like "Can't believe the RFL have appointed Hick to ref the final"...something like that. Strange how his concerns surface after Saints bottle job....very strange. Anyway, the cup is now in the cabinet. Carry on Eamonn....dragging your club into disrepute...losing respect...all the good stuff.

Surely a man of his stature at a club of that ilk would have been advised against writing that you would think, it comes across as nothing more than sour grapes and akin to what a fan would write on a facebook 'banter' page. shocking behaviour from a chairman of one of the sports flagship clubs, god knows what he was thinking but it certainly has done him or his club no favours whatsoever.
Any saints (or any supporter) defending or agreeing with him has certainly not got the interest of the sport at heart.
Blatantly calling a Referee a cheat and that he purposefully did it should see the removal of people with those sentiments removed entirely from the game !!

Lots of people jumping up and down and being all dramatic about this. But this would have happened whoever the team was that copped that decision in those circumstances. Had it been a controversial one against Warrington, it would have been the same, but the other way, saying he did it as revenge for the death threats. Lets not forget Wigan weren't exactly pleased with the ref after their 2014 Grand Final defeat to Saints, or Wire when they lost to Wigan last year.

A lot of sanctimonious people on here who would royally kick off if their team had the same happen to them.

Also amazing that the RL press have pathetically (And they are all a snivelling bunch of pathetic losers) focused on this on Twitter and in the press rather than any positive news stories or the real important issues. This incident has commanded all the Twitter traffic and a lot of the internet news and published press inches, but the biggest issue in RL this week? Bradford under the guidance of the RFL losing their historic home ground. That is such an enormous blow to the sport, yet they're just spewing anti-McManus stuff out instead. Also interesting to see a picture of Myler on the front of League Express this week and not Saints getting the LLS or Odsal's wake? Petty much?

Isn't it therefore a shame that the esteemed Mr McManus didn't think of that before publishing not one, but two incendiary pieces, effectively saying that Mr Hicks is corrupt? A man of his intelligence and standing would, surely, have known that it would be sufficiently controversial to attract a lot of attention?

Utter .

Bit rich to accuse the RFL of being snail-paced, it's taken McManus neck end of a fortnight to make his concerns known.

Yeah, I've said as much earlier. He should have done it privately. I'm sure his aim in going public is to ensure Hicks isn't given the semi final(s) or possible final involving Saints and I'm sure he will succeed in that.

The sport as a whole needs a long review of the officiating. They aren't paid well enough, the current pool or referees is too small and they are not held to account for their errors in any way. Hicks, fresh from an absolute horror show in the final (Whether you agree with what McManus has said, he had a really poor game) and is given a relegation battle in London v Leeds, arguably one of the biggest games of the season? Again in that game he seems to have struggled, go figure, who saw that coming after the weekend he had last week?

Why should he though? Why should the chairmen of a team give a statement with that aim? Its embarassing really. You cant dictate your referees for your games. I'd give saints Hicks every week from now on just for a laugh if thats his aim. I dont think Hicks had too bad of a game at wembley either. I've certainly seen worse.

Come on
It's one thing for the fans to have a whinge and moan and complain of bias from the ref etc but, for a club chairman, not just to comment on decisions by an official or, to say that they made a mistake (which EVERY official and player does) but, to question their integrity is clearly bringing the game into disrepute.
Coaches are fined for questioning a ref's decision (whether they are right or wrong)
Under what circumstances can it be right for someone in McMannus' position to effectively call the ref a cheat.

Sorry but you are badly wrong in backing your chairman.

Even if that decision had cost you the cup, which it certainly didn't - your coaches selection of Coote seemed to take care of Saints chances of winning - a club CHARIMAN should not EVER question the integrity of the officials.

Most people would say something along the lines of I dont think "X" had his best game but to infer some form of deliberate bias or cheating is just wrong.

Simple question for you.
Do you think that Hicks made those calls because he dislikes Saints or just made a couple of incorrect calls ??
In real time, it didn't look like try so, as a neutral, I can understand why he said no try.
However, I also believe that he should have used the VR, just to be absolutely certain.

No, fans who wanted Saints to lose will have naturally found it hilarious and seen no fault in his performance. These things will naturally only occur to the team that loses, but it would be the same whoever it happened to. Imagine that Wakefield game yesterday was the Cup Final. Do you not think Wakefield would query the referee's family being on the terraces supporting Wigan after that error helped Wigan score the try from the 20 metre restart from the wrong place? (Of course someone should have tackled him and it's Wakey's fault they lost the game and are where they are, but none of that means the ref doesn't need to do their job properly).

Fully agree.In the sewer of professional football I cannot think of any owner,American,Russia,Chinese or British who resorts to such conduct.In cricket,a sport where Australian players,and others,cheat,and where there exists an anti-corruption unit I cannot think of any outspoken remarks against umpires.Nor from the sport of rugby union.

I would think any opportunity for blue chip sponsors has now permanently been lost,all because of some Totally Wicked,libellous conduct from the guy from the Totally Wicked stadium.

Beyond despair with this sport,now.

The inference that he is accusing Hicks of bias is your own. McManus worded his statement deliberately to put the blame squarely on the RFL and Hicks' appointment. He talks about the subconscious pressure he was placed under by the death threats from the Warrington fan and how that would have meant he wasn't put into that situation in the first place. There is no talk about Hicks being deliberately biased, just condemnation at his appointment in the first place given the pressure he'd be under. McManus is also right in that Hicks was in an impossible position, were Warrington to lose with a controversial decision going against them, he would have been hammered for that as well. Again, as McManus said, it's the perception of impartiality not existing that is the issue, a position Hicks would always struggle to avoid having been put in that position.

The only criticism he does place on Hicks (Again inferred) is agreeing to do the publicity stunt with Warrington and ITV. He should not have agreed to do that when he did, he should not have been allowed by the RFL to do that. The request from ITV should have been turned down or managed better. Whilst that piece was a very important one and a discussion point the game very much needs to air, doing so in the build up to the second biggest game of the season, featuring the team involved was just utter stupidity and incompetence from all concerned. It put Hicks in an impossible and unfair position.

I'm not blindly supporting McManus either. I've said a few times we shouldn't have aired this in public. The statement should have read, "Congrulations to Warrington, RFL we'll see you next Tuesday" and he should have been at the RFL's door first thing Tuesday morning (Because it was a bank holiday on Monday, don't go inferring controversial stuff to make a story out of this

).

Come on, that is blinkered nonsense and you know it. It's a simple issue: was Hicks biased or not? If he's saying Hicks had a subconscious bias, then he was biased. If he's saying he had a conscious bias, he is saying he was biased. He is using the word "perception" as a cloak in order to use the words "Hicks was biased" and whinge about losing the final, for a decision made when there were 76 minutes still to play and the scores were nil-nil.

One thing will flow from this, if McManus gets his way. If a ref wants to referee a major final, he can forget about complaining about death threats or having any constructive dialogue with any potential finalist. Instead, he just has to suck it up. That is no position to be in.

It is also a much different position than a ref being allowed to referee a game involving a club that he is a fan of, the rule that was amended, if I recall correctly, because Ganson bleated about missing out on the big games when Saints were in most of them. Fans might complain, but you won't see Michael Carter whinging about it in his next programme notes.

Whilst McManus might have tried somewhat to hide behind the cloak of ‘perceptions’, he did outright say that the perceptions of bias ”turned into reality”. At this point, he’s accusing Hicks of deliberately making decisions in Warrington’s favour, and followigs it by saying Hicks made ”highly questionable decisions” also in Warrington’s favour. He’s not inferring Hicks was biased, he’s making an outright accusation that he was biased “in reality” (again, McManus’ own words).
In terms of officiating, I think he could have said the decisions were incorrect - some would have agreed and some wouldn’t. What he cannot do, in his position, is accuse a referee of deliberate cheating and making decisions based on favouring a particular team.

Again, Saints glossing over the fact that had Saints won We wouldn’t have heard a peep from McManus regarding the officials.

And here’s something for biased, the head of referees or whatever his title is is a Saints fan.

If nothing else, it has given me someone to root for in the play-offs: Anyone But Saints.

Yes, so , as he DID NOT do that, stop defending him. The fact that so many neutral fans on here, for whom Warrington are hardly a 'favourite club', are seeing it as a no-no should alert you to your own bias in defending the indefensible.