I've read it again and don't understand the proposal.
Ok, I'll try to explain it.
There are clubs in SL who are spending nowhere near the current cap as they can't afford to. I suspect some of them aren't even spending 3/4s of the current cap. The 'rich' clubs, by pushing for a big increase in the cap, are effectively saying that £1.6m should be a minimum spend and if you can't afford it then you shouldn't be in SL. If Club A currently spends £1.6m and Club B spends £1.1m then raising the cap to £2.1m does absolutely nothing for Club B whatsoever. But it helps Club A on two fronts - firstly they can sign up Club B's better players and secondly they can increase the gap between them and Club B. It means that Club B would have to spend a minimum of the current cap to keep the gap where it is now. Basically it exposes the Club B's as those who can't afford to spend the minimum required to compete and builds a case for a smaller SL made up of clubs who can. The argument being that the only way to raise standards is to have clubs who can spend a certain amount (the minimum). A raised cap does nothing to the competitiveness of the top/rich clubs as the increase will be utilised by most of them and they'll cancel each other out, but it will be a nail in the coffin of the financially struggling clubs. Salford, Wigan, Leeds et al will happily increase their expenditure to the new limit because they can - but the Wakefield, Castleford and Hull KR's will still be down at their current level because a cap raise means nothing if you haven't got the money to spend in the first place.