When whomever (probably Sainta) top the league are they not SL winners?
When whomever wins the Grand Final (knock out rugby so can't really call it) are they not Grannd Final Winners.

Are they not different things?

To win the SL you have to win the GF.

If you finish top of the league, you get the League Leaders Shield. Which no-one cares about.

Trust me, I'm a Warrington fan.

I disagree, but that is what discussiom/opinions are about.

To be honest wining the league is the hardest thing winning the grand final does not take has many games has the league

agreed, like the CC in some respects too.

Opionions have nothing to do with it, grand final winners are super league champions, league leaders are not, end off.
If you don't agree with it then it's just tough, maybe start watching soccer instead. Old Trafford would not be pretty much a sell out every year if if was just like the old premiership trophy.

so, I have an opinion that differs, but you feel it a basis for an attempted insult, Football is a wonderful sport as are Rugby Leage and Union, all sport played at the highest level is to be admired.

It's not an insult, sorry if you have taken it that way, but it's got nothing to do with your opinion differs from mine, the fact is the super league title is decided by a grand final and has been for over 20 years and for only 25 years of RL history has the title been decided by the league leaders.
This debate has been done to death. Grand final is here to stay and the game is better for it.

This is not a case of opinion. The GF winners are declared champions. Champions are decided by the governing body's system of winning it.

You may think that the league leaders SHOULD be the champions, but we cannot argue who ARE the champions as that is decided by the GF. It is a matter of fact and thinking anything else is like arguing that apples are oranges.

You could probably think about it in another way:

Stage 1 is the regular season most of it played on an home and away basis, obviously the top team becomes the League Leaders for that stage and are rewarded for it.

Stage 2 becomes the best of the best on a knock out basis and only the top 5 best teams are allowed to compete for the Grand Final appearance, winners are Superleague Champions.

In my opinion the League Leaders should have more value because its played over 29 games, the Superleague Champions only need to win at the most 3 knockout games. But SKY seem to overvalue the 3 knockout games against the 29 regular games because they control the competition format through the RFL.

Mate it’s the 21st year of the Super League grand final concept, surely you’ve figured it out by now.

To be fair they don’t just have to win 3 games though because they need to win enough to be in the top 5 to begin with. Theirs even a potential situation where the top two could finish level on points and only separated by points difference, if 2nd place then wins the GF then they would’ve won more games over the season.

Don’t see the problem anyway as a lot of sports do it nowadays even though people carry on like it’s just us. The current Cricket World Cup they all play each once so shouldn’t just first place win outright instead of top 4 then going into SF’s? Rod Studd whines about playoffs and says it should be first past the post in SL yet bigs up the Premier League of Darts where the top 4 go in SF’s instead of just 1st place winning.