I've been following European football for 50 years. I grew up with it, played it, and went to more live games there than NRL games here.Tbf i do agree with you as well that being the richest and best run club in the comp does see us hamstrung in some ways with a salary cap. Dont thin as Cult said it changes the expectations we have though.
You would be pretty naive to think we dont use our financial clout to give us an advantage when it comes to player recruitment in ways that arent on the books, and you only have to look at our facilities to see we are streets ahead of every other Rugby league team in the world let alone Australia. As a Broncos fan, i expect us to challenge every single year. I dont think its unreasonable to think thats whats expected from board level as well. We arent in the game to be also rans, otherwise we wouldn't invest so much into the club. My original point though was never really about financial clout as such anyway, it was about whats expected of a leading club, and Brisbane are without question one of the leading clubs in the NRL. ITs kind of got off track with the premier league talk! Which brings me to my next points!
In regards to Chelsea, they spent so much more than Newcastle because the owner of Newcastle, Mike Ashley, doesnt want the club anymore, wont invest any more money into it than the bare minimum and is looking to sell. I'd guess Newcastle would be in the bottom 3 spenders in the premier league right now.
Not sure if you watch a great deal of premier league football ( for the record, i do, its my main sport to watch ) but i think you are way off with what you think some of these clubs are spending. From the top of my head, Fulham, one place from the bottom of the league, have spent more than Man City, Arsenal and Spurs, as have Wolves, Bournemouth, Everton, Leicester and probably a lot of others ( i could research it, but im not sure i can be bothered! ). Liverpool have also easily been able to keep up with the spending of the big clubs. I'd guess apart from Chelsea nobody has spent more than them in the last few years than Liverpool. In financial terms, the premier league isnt a closed shop in terms of clubs spending power anymore, and that includes wages. Look at Wolves for example, they are owned by the Fosun group, probably the second richest owners in the premier league behind Sheik Mansour at City and i'd say they are primed to break into the top six if they recruit well if not higher. The big thing that holds back teams in the Premier league from recruiting the best players isnt money, its league position. Generally, if your club plays in the champions league, they have an edge in terms of recruitment.
The other leagues are a bit more difficult to crack for teams due to a lot of reasons i could go into but i dont think i will, not on this thread anyway, but the main one is probably a lot of politics.
The EPL is a bit of different beast from all other leagues due to the obscene amount of money it generates, but the principle is the same, and I am not in the habit of making claims I can't back up. These are the EPL salary figures for 2017 (2018 are not officially out yet):
1- Man City: £265m
2- Man Utd: £264m
3- Chelsea: £221m
4- Liverpool: £208m
5- Arsenal: £199m
Then there is a significant drop to the next rung in terms of salaries, and already at half the amount of the top:
6- Tottenham: £128m
7- Leicester: £113m
8- Southampton: £112m
9- Everton: £105m
10- Swansea: £99m
17- Bournemouth: £72m
18- Middlesbrough: £65m
19 & 20- Hull and Burnley: £61m
Wanna know what the final ladder that year looked like?
1- Chelsea (Champions with 93 pts)
2- Tottenham Hotspur (86 pts) (well done to them, really!)
3- Manchester City (78 pts)
4- Liverpool (76 pts)
5- Arsenal (75 pts)
6- Manchester United (69 pts)
7- Everton (61 pts)
8- Southampton (46 pts)
9- Bournemouth (46 pts)
10- West Bromwich Albion (45 pts)
11- West Ham United (45 pts)
12- Leicester City (44 pts)
13- Stoke City (44 pts)
14- Crystal Palace (41 pts)
15- Swansea City (41 pts)
16- Burnley (40 pts)
17- Watford (40 pts)
18- Hull City (Relegated on 34 pts)
19- Middlesbrough (Relegated on 28 pts)
20- Sunderland (Relegated on 24 pts)
That's more than correlation right there, because not only do you have top spenders finish at the top of the ladder, you have bottom spenders finishing at the bottom of the ladder. And this picture repeats itself over the years, it's not just one statistical abnormality. In most other countries, the differences are much bigger even, because they don't benefit from a massive broacast deal.
Of course, it's true that a player will chose Man Utd over Fullham, but only if the pay is similar or slightly less. No way a player takes half the salary on offer at West Ham so he can play at Chelsea. However, it's more likely he will get at least the same amount of money, probably more.
And that would be the case with the Broncos over the Cowboys, Titans or Raiders, to name a few, if they were able to table competitive offers for any player they want, instead of being limited to do that very selectively by a salary cap meant to equalise the value of each NRL team's roster, which is how Souffs, Cows and the drug cheats were able to win a premiership in the last 5 years.