On your first point, I think it is widely accepted Sunderland have been mismanaged, which is why they are where they are.
The vast majority of clubs of similar size are in the top two divisions and would be unaffected by the proposal. The real impact of the change would not be to impede massive clubs like Sunderland, who are in a tiny minority in the bottom two divisions, but to restrain clubs like Salford, Mansfield and Forest Green, whose spending is entirely supported by debt or the wealth of one individual (or both).
You don't have to be a Marxist to believe that some levelling of opportunity between large and small clubs is a good thing after witnessing the gross inequalities that have developed in football since the creation of the Premier League. That levelling effect would only be within a division and would enhance opportunity, not deny it. The opportunity for progress would be open to pretty much any club based on the quality of management, not simply on wealth. Once at a higher level, they would then of course be in a position to spend more and attract higher quality players.
I am not sure I share your concern for the income levels of lower division footballers. They are still well paid by average standards and those of genuine ability will still get moves to clubs in the top two divisions and increased salaries. To flip your comment around, do you not think it is slightly absurd that Norwood was paid 8k per week to play Third Division football ? I don't begrudge him it, but it is indicative of how ridiculous wage levels have become in football. If he merited a place in a Championship team, he would be paid Championship wages.
Without wage restraint, clubs like ourselves will struggle to behave responsibly and compete. That is the bottom line that Palios clearly appreciates.