While I can follow the thinking behind the decision to not offer him a new contract (which, even if was not officially the case, seems pretty clear was the reality), I don't really agree with it. I just think that a footy club needs to do things that might be seen to be not in their short term interest (as the hierarchy would define it), but in their longer term interest in terms of their culture and, to use a Wallsy, what they 'stand for'. I think that Barlow is too cluey a footballer not to be running around in the ones, in which case he should be running around with us. I like to think of Freo as a club which has been ahead of the curve in some ways (Neesham; reverse away strips), and as one of the 1st clubs to break the mould in regards to mature age rookies, Barlow symbolises something about how we would like to see ourselves. In those circumstances, I think that someone like Micky should have been a one club player, as he represents something we here would like to think it quintissentially Fremantle. And I certainly think that, if RoLy is going back to the 'old' plan in some form next year, then Micky would certainly have had a place in that plan. I'll be another one who, if he gets a gig elsewhere, will applaud him when he returns to Freo. We will be a bit poorer for his absence I think.
