I honestly think it being shared around the same player pool is, with maybe 2 or 3 exceptions, what would happen with the marquee player rule. And that isn't such a bad thing. Bryn Hargreaves going off to lay paving or players being better off playing part-time and having a 'real' job, is as much a concern (well, nearly) as SL not being able to attract the best antipodeans (unless they've done something really grim).
Maybe the Willie Mason debacle puts me off - but even if he'd been good for us, one lesson definitely learned was that his name didn't add much to the gate.

I don't think we need to attract top NRL players, which is good because I don't we can at the moment, however the cap is set. A good game, isn't all about the quality of the play - that isn't even the most important factor imo. Fair enough, if players can't catch or run, it wouldn't be much of a spectacle - but a close, tense encounter between two indifferent teams, is more attractive to me than watching a great team blow away a merely good one.

The crucial thing is that whatever arrangements are made in the future it mustn't undermine the sustainability of the clubs. Sports clubs are quite different from other businesses in that owners often ignore the critical business metrics like return on capital employed and instead bid up players saleries to try to win at all costs.

One plus of having AP in charge is that I'm sure he won't put the clubs future in peril by letting things get out of hand. Even if we were to be relegated he would make sure the business survived by slashing costs on big salary players and blooding the next generation in the first team. Who knows, it may be the medicine the club needs to go down, have a clear out of the old guard and start blooding the crop of U19s we have as a unit in the championship.

Not saying I agree with this, but everything else seems to have failed.