Best answer in the whole thread IMO

My point is that most clubs can't service debt the only real cash in the game comes through SKY & gate reciepts & most clubs are struggling if they dont have directors putting in cash. I have no wish to stop that but any cash they put in should not be secured as a loan on the club's assets. The only thing they should have is shares in the club that they can sell if they wish, if they manage the club well the shares will be worth money to buyers if they dont manage well the shares will be worthless but at least the club wont go under if they pullout.

The fact we still have 3 or 4 clubs only dominating shows to me that there is no way the salary cap is being stuck to. Compare the spread of talent in SL and top player movement compared to the nrl.

I don't think it proves that. Partly some clubs just can't afford to pay full cap. Meanwhile the existing top clubs get better value for money - they benefit from being able to pay the best players rather less than aspirational clubs - players are fairly mercenary but they also want success and to play for the top teams. They also have the best academies so can get young players from that pool relatively cheaply, and can also pay them less as they progress through the ranks.

You are comparing very different business models between SL and NRL. I am not aware of anybody in the NRL, not spending the full cap amount. SL is probably fifty percent of the clubs maxing out on the cap.

Cronulla and Penrith were not spending full cap until recently. My understanding is that around 75% of SL clubs are spending full cap (or more!). Reality is if it was legit you would see the talented up and coming players being offered more by the lower performing teams and see a lot more movement of talent around the League. I agree to some degree that players want to win trophies but they would rather get 25k a year more I am sure!