who said anything about perfect?

Is that chip on your shoulder getting so big that it's affecting your ability to read? Nobody said it was perfect. Get a hold of yourself.

So changing rules to protect certain clubs to the detriment of others is good ' governance ' ?

Simple question , simple answer only please

such would not necessarily be a governance matter. indeed, if the collective membership felt that changing opeartional rules etc. was in the interests of the majority or to deliver the objectives of the body then it is right and proper and actually, a pretty common occurance in any organisation.

your issue isnt with governance, but is with how your club has been treated operationally. if your club believes it was treated unfairly it should raise it within the channels available to it and seek the support of its peers who, are collectively represented in the various governance structures of the game. the fact that you club is the outlier time and time again suggests not a failure of governance but a failure of your club to work with the negotiated wishes of its peers...

If you read what he said in regards to "good governance", you wouldn't need to ask the question.

He was referring to the fact that only a tiny minority think they lie and don't take them seriously is a sign of good governance. Obviously, the poster feels that in other sports (or other governing bodies), this proportion would be far greater.

So your original question has little to do with what he was saying. But, for the sake of answering it, I will answer with "it totally depends on the reasons WHY the rules were changed to protect the clubs".

Which is the same principal that governs that turkeys will not vote for Christmas!!! Talking of votes don't the 14 SL votes equal of better the other 21 clubs in the RFL, the governing body of all clubs???

Yes, plus not forgetting that the RFL Board have power of veto over any decision and can, if they wish, implement anything they see fit even if member clubs have voted against it.

Meanwhile, on the subject of money filtering down to the game below SL level www.pitchero.com/clubs/croydonhu ... 26785.html This is the ground used by the RLFans-sponsored South London Storm.

Meanwhile, on the subject of money filtering down to the game below SL level www.pitchero.com/clubs/croydonhu ... 26785.html This is the ground used by the RLFans-sponsored South London Storm.

The RFL Board is made up of 2 Exec Directors and 3 Non-Exec Directors. The non-Exec's are elected by the Council and do have the power to remove the Executive Directors I think.

At all meetings of the Council, the collective of SLE Club votes are equal to that of the Championship Clubs. If 22 Championship Clubs are there, then each SLE Club's vote (assuming 14 attending) is equal to 1.57. BARLA also have 3 votes while English Schools and Combined Services are memebrs of the company too (I assume they are not affiliated to BARLA and that is why they are seperately respresented).

And remember with all of this - clubs (e.g. Sporting Club Leigh Ltd.) were probably (unless they've gone bust in recent years) members at the point of time the company was incorporated. None of the structures were a surprise

Do you have an example where this has happened?

It depends on what they are voting on.

Correctly clubs which arent in Super League have a very limited say on what happens in Super League, Similarly the amateur game isnt well represented in the decision making which affects the championships, and the championships have very little say on what happens in the amateur game.

It is only on measures which affect the whole of the game where SL clubs have a higher value vote, which is unsurprising considering that the vast majority of money and visibility comes from SL and is simply what stops SL leaving the RFL structure again and having a relationship similar to the football league and premier league, which would in practice, give lower league clubs much less funding and much less of a voice.