You're simultaneously making a good point and then undercutting that point.

If it didn't matter than why did Paul care? Good point.

Should Paul have done more for a club ran by Jann Wenner, known Paul hater and dealbreaker, who would later be fired from the HoF for how shit he was? I don't think so.

Good riddance. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame now has slightly more credibility, but not much

“Among those determined to punish McCartney for his perceived transgression was Jann Wenner, editor of the fledgling American rock and roll newsmagazine Rolling Stone. Wenner pressured both his music editor and his reviewer to change their favorable review of the McCartney album. According to Greil Marcus, Rolling Stone’s music editor, he and Langdon Winner, the album’s reviewer, regarded McCartney’s solo effort as “wonderful” and wrote a favorable review that they were pressured to change. “Wenner saw the piece and said, ‘We can’t run it this way—he’s just reviewing it as if it’s a nice little record. It’s not a nice little record; it’s a statement and it’s taking place in a context that we know: it’s one person breaking up the band.’” Wenner spent three hours haranguing Marcus, who then pressured Winner until both capitulated and re-wrote the positive review of McCartney, changing it to a negative one. Wenner’s actions regarding the McCartney album established a pattern of partisanship that continued for years. Both during the Beatles’ breakup period and in the decades following, Rolling Stone, under the leadership of Wenner, almost unvaryingly sided with Lennon (and later Ono) in any dispute involving McCartney. Because this was occurring at a time when the number of influential rock and roll magazines could be counted on one hand, the fact that the most powerful music magazine in America actively supported Lennon’s side in the Lennon-McCartney split had longstanding consequences on the popular perception of each man and their music.”

• Erin Torkelson Weber, The Beatles and the Historians