It's pretty annoying. I think it's pretty indicative of the salary cap not working as intended. It's the same as the GST, it's just a blanket rule that applies to everyone but in this case not every side is located in the Sydney Eastern Suburbs or systematically cheating the salary cap just like not everyone has the same income but the GST still affects everyone the same. You'd think Gold Coast and Cronulla could get around it due to the lifestyle there (and tbh have, they have no trouble buying stars on the cheap apparently) and NZ due to the fact that it's an entire country but Canberra, Penrith and North Queensland aren't playing in an even competition here. They should get salary cap increases due to their players having to move to the middle of nowhere to play for them so they need to supply higher levels of monetary incentive.
The 3 clubs mentioned in the OP are also amongst the biggest spenders on infrastructure and support. They all have a bus load of staff and the best equipment and training facilities available. Apart from the salary cap, the players they end up with are given the best opportunity to play to their potential. I don't believe that is available at all clubs.
Melbourne and Manly, for the better part, have had coaching stability for the last half dozen years or more, too. Even when Hasler left, manly just bumped up the assistant who was part of the furniture anyway.
You can be coached by Elliott with a noose around his neck and a part time physio, or coached by Bellamy with a group of 24/7 medical staff and talented assistant coaches. The difference that brings in performance should not be understated.
Also got to factor in the idea that good players want to play at good clubs and will take 5-10% less to stay at a strong place or leave with the carrot of a premiership.
On the part in bold print - should Sydney teams get a salary cap allowance because it costs so much to buy a house there? Hard to attract a guy from Newcastle when a terrace in Tempe costs the same as a mansion in Merewether.
