After I've rading many times your post,my question to you is:what's your point here?
Excluding your speech on midlevel leagues,that you really can't know because of the low number of teams in your country(These
(32476605) (32476606) are my relegation games in III division,a midlevel division in a large country),I think all come down to the argument you mentioned in the post
The prices of players on the TL is directly a product of cost effectiveness of the skills in relation to the salary. Thats what people look at- how effective is that player for how much I have to pay them each week. the more effective the more they pump into that initial buy price.
It all boils down to the GE and salary by skill. Tweaks in salary-skill and GE skill effectiveness/usefullness will/can open up more strategies. More strategies will open up a variety of types of effective players (not just ONE type of good player for each position which we have now) this will lead to variety of training regimens (in terms of effective profitable ones) and variety in the types of teams poeple build. So instead of eveyrone after teh same palyers/types of players at the top level you will find different teams with different approaches. I think variety in how peopels teams are built will make the game much much more interesting, and will make eveyr aspect of the game more interesting.
The point here is that the situation is at opposite side.At the top level you can find teams with different approaches,because they reach a level where the difference are lower among the players and details became essentials,here you have to refine your teams and open up to new strategies.Where you are at lower level,the gap among the teams is really larger and if you are in disadvantage and want to survive,you need to go with more tested tactics,and salary-wise outside tactics with actual GE are less difficult to understand,handle and you know better how to train players