I take you point thanks MO, but the whole of what JT said on the EP issue is:
"Fielding up to 15 West Coast players every week has diminished the immediate need for East Perth to develop their own talent but the Royals are highly conscious that the WAFL landscape could change dramatically in the next year or so.
They will be still be aligned with East Perth next season in the final installment of the initial five-year deal but don’t be surprised if it continues beyond that.
Director Tom Percy has flagged his intention to run for president on an anti-alignment ticket should the club look to roll the deal beyond 2018.
Given that they bank $300,000 a year from the alignment, are usually competitive on the field and don’t need to find as much talent as other clubs, East Perth can make a strong case for maintaining the status quo."
I've highlighted some of it. If JT is arguing that there is a strong case to maintain the alignment which has diminished the need to develop their own talent - what is the incentive? and isn't that questioning EP's desire? JT does not say, oh but EP is still working on talent development. But I agree he is really talking about what the percentage of out of zone player in the league team looks like.
I'd be interested to know how much WAFL clubs spend on development but you will have to view the numbers with care because you will need to understand what is included. I think general game development (ie growing participation) should be included
