I think you've quoted this before, and it's not true to be fair.
Bradford emerged as a giant after SL was created - ok they became dominant, but it was unlike anything they had done previously, Warrington now are right up there, and our three Cup wins recently are unprecedented in our history.
Catalan are up there, Hull have appeared in a GF and won a Challenge Cup, Hudds have made two Cup Finals. It's taking time, but there is a decent spread of teams certainly competing if not quite getting their hands on the cups just yet.
If you choose winning a major trophy there's seven who have done that and if you choose getting to a major final there's ten that have done that, but Superleague is not competitive across ten clubs. Arguably at any one time it's been competitive across four clubs, maybe five when Hull were on the rise.
We aren't getting there if Sheffield who won the cup and Bradford who were the first superclub go belly up. We aren't getting there when the strong Hull club weakened heavily post 2006.
Of course clubs have their ups and downs and not all of them can be up so i do take your point up to a point.
There are however clubs who don't have the resources to ever get there and bumble along, being kept weak by top clubs taking the players they want from them.
Is this just how it will always be?? Does it matter to the overall health of the game that we won't get an even comp unless the salary cap was reduced, would that act be good or disasterous for the game? Would one club in Hull or one club In Calder provide a stronger competition, or would that be bad for the game?.
Edited by The Parksider, 14 January 2013 - 02:45 PM.