I agree that the first option will happen but City would be a mile ahead of everyone while Sydney and Victory will be ahead of the rest and battling for second and Newy and WSW a bit further behind playing for fourth.

Just like the only team that ever wins the premier league is from London.

Just like the only team that ever wins the bundesliga is from Berlin.

Just like the only team that ever wins the Serie A is from Rome.

You're full of it.

It would look nothing like what you predict. Even if City were to win it for the first few years what you would have is an ultra competitive league. That is because all the owners have the capacity to spend money to make a tilt at the title. There would definitely be an improvement in the quality of the league and in particular the foreign players that would come to our shores. I wouldn't imagine City would be spending premier league money in the A-league, just like they don't in the J-league with Yokohama. Even if they did, you all make it sound like it would be a bad thing. The players that would be attracting would be so much better, which is what you want. 

I think people here overestimate how much the Sheik's care about this league (hint: it's not very much)

What we need is relegation to a league thats less financially restrictive. I dont believe in parachute payments though.

League would fold. Aussies have no interest in mid to bottom table teams.
Everyone on here would be screaming blue murder about how boring it is with same 2-3 teams winning all the time.( like it is in most leagues ).

You guys have forgot where Melb City are on the CFG pecking order...... dead last. Hence why on the two main positions that the cap doesn't count, marquee and coach, we got given two spuds.

CFG wont care about this league until its profitable to advertise their brand, which right now is near impossible due to FFA image restrictions and general public interest.

If the salary cap was binned, I wouldnt expect City to spend much more then they do now, the only difference would be that all 5 Visas would be Man City U23 academy loanees.

Wrong. They will have the 'liberty' to spend. The 'capacity' to spend will not change from now. The quality of players will not rise, rather the income of the same players will increase proportionally. The league will not show much improvement in quality, but the clubs will struggle more. You guys seem to have unlimited, almost religious, faith in the 'big' clubs having unlimited spending power. The evidence points to a much different situation. The clubs are losing money, the last salary cap raise went straight to the same old players, where the cubs have freedom on marquees they spend mediocre amounts on players slightly above or on par with the A-League level. If the big clubs are so awash with spending capacity why are they not splashing out on higher-shelf marquees?

Because football is a team game. Why would you spent your football budget or more on 1-2 players. There is no flexibility in a salary cap as the improvements can only be made in 1-2 players. Its literally money down the drain, hence why few clubs are reluctant to spend it. 

Its interesting you say that the players salaries would increase. Does that mean you believe that our A-league players are currently under valued. 

The clubs will spend money if there is an incentive or an environment to spend money ie if it means more fans coming through, if it means helping you win a title, if it means more members, if it means you can transfer players and make a profit, if it means you can market the players through your club with merchandise and other intellectual property rights. It wont happen in the A-league. 

We have a pretty soft cap as it is now. I don't think there would be much of a difference actually, perhaps a few more foreigners who are higher in quality and less Aussies leaving for Asia (note that none are in China this year)...

If you don't want to spend $200 on a piece of steak can I assume you are a vegetarian?

As for quality not increasing, once again you are missing the picture. The problem with the quality of the league is not how much the players get paid but how they are distributed amongst the clubs

To paint a loose picture - as it stands each team has 5 of the top 50 available players

If the salary cap went then MV and SFC will have 10 where as CCM and WP will have 0. How can you then argue that the quality of the top teams have not improved?

And given that the salary cap is not mandatory, why would CCM and WP spend the full salary cap on lower quality players when as you said they are losing money? We have seen in struggling times clubs cut back on spending. Removing the cap means the bigger clubs will buy better players and the quality will undeniably improve. And the clubs at the bottom will cut back on spending because the value of the players are driven by the global market

CCM have apparently been amongst the most profitable clubs. I have been trying to hunt down more accurate figures. What is known for sure is that they made a profit a couple of seasons ago. The clubs losing money are the "big" teams. Proponents of removing the salary cap are relying on these club owners being prepared to lose even more than they currently do to spend more on the same set of players.

The one thing that will make a difference to quality is return for investment and that is a league governance issue and the subsequent access to more funds, not a cap issue. The clubs will spend more only when there is more money. And even if the league is run by the clubs there will be a salary cap as it will be a majority vote situation, not a two club decision. This is evidenced by the salary cap imposed and extended in the EPL where financial governance is weighted higher than improving team quality. 

"The clubs will spend more only when there is more money."

And where is this extra money going to come from, given falling attendances and ratings? If clubs don't invest in the game i'e through higher salaries and improved development, then the game doesn't grow.

The salary cap just holds growth back, we may as well just go back to the NSL model that at least developed decent players.

A few points backing up what you said in your first paragraph:-

I came across an article the other day about Mariners making a $300k profit in Season 3 on turnover of $7m including $3m in sponsorship.  Admittedly average attendance for the club that season was 12k ish.

The Smith Report stated that of the Season 5 $20m aggregate loss by the clubs 50% of it was discretionary spending.  $6m of the loss the season where clubs lost $26m was by Sydney FC.

Again with the "same set of players" line. Ignoring the possibility of a redistribution of players in the favour of the big clubs

Also writing off owner investment as a "loss". Ignoring the fact that owners have another business and the running of a football club falls comfortably within their profit margins. Do you think owners have decided to take on the running of a football club for a decent ROI? If owner loss is a real issue then why hasn't player expenditure halved? Why are teams spending more as the salary cap increases?

If removing the salary cap has no impact then why is your biggest fear the same players getting more money? Where does this "more money" come from? You have spent so much time trying to put together reasons why this wont work I doubt you have even given it a shred of thought as to how it might. You have clearly started with the answer

Why do so many people  think that if the cap was dropped cfg would suddenly spend 3-4 times more than every one else. If they were inclined to do so why do they not have a pair of $10M each marquee players right now? Why do they not have a high profile expensive coach? Cfg are not interested in spending big here. There is no benefit to do so. 

The cap does not achieve what it is meant to right now. The clubs that spend more finish top of the table and the clubs that don't spend finish at the bottom. That gap is growing as the years roll on. The negatives of a cap far out weigh the positives. People seem to be so narrow minded and forget that this is the world game. As long as we have the cap we will struggle to compete with international clubs for players as well as comps like the ACL.

If the cap was dropped, it is vital to introduce a proper transfer/loans system. This gives the lower clubs a much needed revenue stream, which is something they are in desperate need of. It is also important to put in regulations to prevent overspending like they have in Germany (eg you can only spend what the club can sustainably afford without falling into severe debt as a result of player salaries). 

The same set of players is what you argued, your redistribution theory that the bigger clubs would concentrate the better players in the league into one or two clubs.
Owners spending more and making losses because that's what they own clubs for boarders on religious faith. These are business men who have a passion for the game and can afford to take a hit while they wait for the league to grow enough to at least break even. Sure, Sage seems willing to operate on that basis, and MV is a not for profit arrangement (Doesn't mean the consortium is willing to splash out heaps of funds though) but the rest are consortiums looking at least break-even models. 
Teams are spending more as the salary cap increases as they received proportionally increased revenue through the increased media deal. 
The salary cap also functions as a bargaining tool for the clubs in wage negotiations, allowing clubs to limit wage demands.
The "more money" comes from increased club expenditure without improved income thus leaving clubs, particularly the more ambitious clubs, with greater risk exposure.
I spend time looking at real world issues where you seem to put forward a utopian ideal without clearly thinking through the ramifications of implementing that idea in the real world and largely relying on the largess of individual club owners to provide a sort of dues ex machina answer to any real world problems.
My thoughts are that the salary cap sux, but is the best system we have to ensure league survival at this point in time. As I have said before, I don't give a rats whether we get two teams dominating or whatever, rather I care about having a league that can survive and grow. For me, to lift the salary cap in any way is reliant on increasing financial viability. More money in allows more money out. The money coming in at present roughly allows for about the expenditure that is being made at the moment. Some of that is going towards players and some is being targeted at training facilities and other longer term investments. An independent A-League that has a far greater share of the Media revenue is the quickest and best step towards greater financial viability and would have an immediate impact. Then expansion and a second tier with pro/rel in that order. These are the steps that have a far greater chance of achieving improved quality rather than removing the cap and hoping some rich guy is willing to throw cash away. 

What would the ALeague look like without a salary cap ?

Answer, not too far removed from where it is now - richest clubs winning the league, same clubs fighting out the last four each year without any fear of relegation,  clubs going to the wall, and the FFA still making all the money. 

So how many owners have been around for 10 years? Or even 5 years?

Business men do not buy football clubs to break even. The club itself needs a smart business model as a fall back point in case said wealthy owner walks away. A salary ceiling doesn't do anything to stop that

When you talk about "real world issues" you are painting 10 very different clubs with the same brush and throwing a non scientific figure at them and calling it viability. Sorry but that's the furthest thing from living in the real world. That's throwing all everything you have behind the emperor's new clothes

The salary cap does nothing to limit wage demands because as I said, its a global market and that drives the worth of a player. Secondly how does the total salary for a team plus three exempt spots result n an individual walking away with a fair wage? Again, a case of painting every player with the same brush. If the salary cap was designed to stop individuals getting paid to much then it would be for the individual, not a 23 player collective (ie- no player can get paid more than $1m)

The salary cap is not "the best system we have" by any stretch of the imagination. Real sports are flexible and adaptable. The model and method they choose fits their circumstances. The salary cap is an off the shelf answer blindly applied. There would be hundreds of different systems that could achieve the same - whatever the hell its supposed to be doing - some better, some worse

A salary cap will never lead to P/R because it means teams not in charge of their fate will end up losing everything. And they can't be handled in the same season because it takes 3 years to build a squad. Count 3 years after the removal of the salary cap and that's the earliest we can have P/R

You have taken the "shit has hit the fan so lets put on the brakes" approach. This contradicts you wanting to see the A League grow

imo transfer fees are more important than cutting the salary cup rn.

clubs like ccm, newcastle, even brisbane would be rewarded for developing the players they have that have been pinched by the sydney and melbourne teams after they have done the hard work.

Even that I don't get. There would be increased interest and exposure in the league compared to current levels

It would be interesting to see a graph that correlates losses with ratings and attendances. I wouldn't be surprised if the most successful seasons were also the seasons when clubs lost or spent the most and in many ways the TV revenue we have now is because of those "losses" but there is no guarantee we will get more or even the same amount next time despite the losses now being less.

In many ways, the problem now is that clubs aren't prepared to make losses because they feel that the revenues that come from their investments are being lost to them or aren't in their control.

A league without a salary cap is the opposite to what the Crawford report called for yet many here pick and choose when to reference this report to suit their agenda. Mind boggling.

Why is the way forward in 2003 the same as the way forward in 2018?

The Crawford report was not a 100 year plan. It was a series of guidelines to get the game out of a hole. Implementing the salary cap and nothing else was not a stroke of genius

How come this only comes out when it suits you?