For years we've heard how the salary cap is doing good things for the competition, bringing it closer and giving every team a chance.
It doesn't take a genius to know that those sentiments are a crock of you know what, because realistically, the current top 4 are by far and away the only ones at having a serious shot in 2013.
That may be the case this year. But the top couple of teams change every year, which is a good thing. If there was no salary cap, it would be the SAME top 3 or 4 EVERY YEAR, with maybe only two that could possibly win it.
under a transfer fee, the coaching of players would be more positive, not just looking to maintain player performance but better it for the sake of the current team and that of the investment looking into the future should they wish to sell the player..
Debatable.
Teams at the moment benefit greatly from making the average players good. Each team must have a number of average players now. These players can be easily exploited (particularly in defence) if they are below par. What would happen if the highly resourced teams could just buy the good players? How much effort would they put into developing the OK ones? Lower placed teams might be able to get some money out of them from transfers, but at what costs to crowds etc? How many people would keep turning up to games when their team is constantly getting beaten by 50 and there is no realistic hope of improving let alone winning the comp?
Also, the lower teams would only be entitled to a transfer fee if the player was under contract. The player can just wait until his contract expires and he can go on the open market and get more money for himself. The club would end up with nothing anyway.
I don't see how the quality of the competition would be improved without out it. If there was no salary cap the top teams would probably have better talent on the bench and in second grade than the mid-table teams could field in their first team.