Success must absolutely be punished. Let's just start from right there.
It's a great strength of rugby league in Australia that the vast majority of fans see the sport through the prism of their clubs. The game has been so dominant in NSW and Queensland, almost since its beginnings, that there has been no need to have a broader perspective.
A few people – even the most populist commentators – are starting to look at the sport as a whole now, however. Other games are encroaching on rugby league's turf, horizons are belatedly broadening.
But cheering for the salary cap is like cheering for the highway patrol. There's no mileage in doing it.
So when we get commentary about the salary cap, we hear thoughts along the lines of "we need to have more one-club players" and "we need to have more concessions for long-term stars" and "if you have sponsors willing to give players money, or guarantee Third Party Agreements, let them".
And then there's the old favourite, "you shouldn't be punished for success" . And everyone cheers – "right on!"
The NRL can't come out and say these things – particularly the new NRL, who are seen as "Johnny come-latelys" (apparently 'Johnny' has been used as a substitute for 'fellow' or 'chap' since the 17th century. There was no unpunctual Johnny) – so I will.
If you win a premiership, you shouldn't start complaining about losing your players and being systematically dismantled for another 15 years! That's when it's your turn again - and everything else is just emotion, hyperbole and a response to cyclical, predictable pressure.
If you've won a competition, like St George Illawarra did just five years ago, you've got two and a half more years of a scenic walk down the summit before you start the ascent again. That's as it should be.
The NRL is in the business of serving up a spectacle for television and spectators each week, the result of which is uncertain. It is in their interests – and in the interests of the sport and of me as someone who doesn't support any particular club – for your team to be torn apart when you win a competition.
People will lose their jobs - many people. Players will come and go. Sponsors and fans will be lost, won, lost again…. That's as it should be.
What has happened in recent years is that the cap has gone up very suddenly, and very steeply, and teams have held onto players they would otherwise have been forced to release. What you get as a result of that (and other factors, admittedly) are disparate line-ups like the Sydney Roosters and Canberra on Sunday, results which nudge in the direction of forgone conclusions and contests which do nothing to enhance the competition.
What you get with more and more salary cap concessions is big city clubs with a coterie of rich sponsors being able to hold on to players that others have to release.
As for being a one-club player – if you are an outstanding player like Darren Lockyer or Nathan Hindmarsh, you are retained if you are earning your keep.
But if you're in decline, the club will take advantage of concessions to hold on to you outside the cap and use the money they were spending on you to put in the pockets of teammates who would otherwise have left to strengthen a weaker club.
More inequality.
The same goes for the "marquee player" idea – it's how you use the money you WOULD HAVE spent on the megastar that means it's just another way of circumventing the cap, holding onto players you would otherwise have lost and giving us a lopsided competition.
I'm against it. Inwardly socialist, outwardly capitalist – that's the way to success for professional sports in a limited market like ours, where suburbs are supposed to compete with cities, states and a country.
If you can brave all the forces trying to tear your team apart (and which do, hello Sam Burgess) and maintain the same level of competitiveness or get even better – that's where true greatness lies.
To the comments
We've got quite a few comments to catch up with. Let's go back to last week's Discord, which was about why the NRL should buy Super League.
Chris said the Challenge Cup could be opened to teams in both hemispheres. I like it! Perhaps played on the same weekend as Origins! Problem solved.
Aaron says the World Club Series is enough but the gulf in salary caps is going to make it less and less competitive. This year the top three teams in Super League were beaten by the NRL premiers and two teams from much further down the table. Super League will increasingly be a feeder comp for the NRL unless something is done. Aaron also wanted to replace internationals with club competitions. Internationals are what gets a sport taken seriously – in rugby league's case, everywhere but Australia. What happens to the countries who don't have teams in the NRL or Super League?
Warren you are right the Australia clubs would not cop a decrease in funding. So perhaps it would need to be done gradually – two or three Super League clubs play in the NRL for a year or two until the total funding is such that everyone stays the same or goes up. As for players leaving Australia and going to Super League, that is just nationalism. If we're all the same comp, why does it matter? It's just like an AFL player going from the East Coast of Australia and going to the west.
Gan makes a very salient point – if you take over Super League, does the RFL still run every other level of the game in the UK?
Friendly Raptor, the RLIF would not be redundant. The NRL aren't taking over the Czech Republic or America – just a few professional teams in the north of England and the south of France.
Clink, the War Of The Roses between Yorkshire and Lancashire has been tried a few times before and failed to catch on.
SB, I'm sure it wouldn't be SOLD as a takeover – they'd tell us it was a 'merger' or an 'investment'. Don, you are right about tradition, pride and money to an extent – the last of those usually takes precedence. As explained in the column, tradition can be preserved by careful planning. Pride might have to be sacrificed.
 
