I think you have to go either one way or the other. Either accept there will always be haves and have nots and that some clubs are richer than others. Or set it up so all clubs have to operate on exactly the same expenditure in every area and create a genuine even playing field. At the moment we pretend to be B) when in reality we are A) and that is what annoys people. Dont say you are what you arent!
Penalising and artificially limiting success doesn't sit well with a lot of people, but this is just a conceptual/ideological view.
The practicality of it is what's concerning.
Can you imagine a competition where every team is Broncos/Tigers/Panthers quality and no one is able to string 2-3 wins together? Unpredictable and even, yes. But utter dross. (actually, see 2018 for this comp. Not a banner year for good football).
The other extreme is a competition where the rich teams never fall below 4th. The quality of football among those teams is good, but 1 sided against the rest of the ladder with regular floggings. (England's Super League is often closer to this than the NRL is)
There has to be a balance. High quality teams are marketable, as is a close competition.
Be honest, no one would complain if the Eels or Panthers had won 3 Grand Finals in a decade. They are extremely wealthy clubs. Panthers group has an annual revenue close to $150M. Roosters and Storm aren't on top because of money, they're on top because of good management with the money to support it. Broncos Bulldogs Raiders Rabbitohs, all very wealthy with very mixed results over the last 10 years. Poorer clubs like Manly and Cronulla continue to perform on the field after some bad years.