Then the rules have changed, and they certainly didnt allow such things in 2007 in the NL s / Championships,

its all because bradford can not afford to live

Bin the cap BUT:-
(1) No club should be allowed to borrow any money at all. Directors loans included. Any cash input from directors ect must be gifts & not a liability to future investors or owners.
(2) only 25 registered players on the books.
(3) No accadamy or reserve teams? that would be the job of the locall amature sides for juniors or by recruiting from the lower leagues thus ensuring the money passes down through proper transfer payments.(I would still alow schoplarship schemes where local youngsters are brought into the club from amature clubs for training & mentoring but they would be required to stay with thier club as ther has been a drain on locall sides with the pro clubs stripping the heart out of amature sides) This would also force clubs to invest in the training of youth coaches in the local areas wich is the most important area of the game.
(4) any club going into debt, breaking spending rules should have its franchise removed for ever. any player coach or official knowingly assisting a breach of the rules should also be banned sine die.

That would be the end of investment in stadium upgrades/new stadiums then.

Wigan have one of the worst Balance Sheets in the league. It would just be Leeds. Beverley red has obviously never run a business - debt isn't a bad thing, it is vital for investment. It's only bad if you can't service it.

So which clubs have borrowed to build a stadium? Only Saints as far as I can see

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!