Date: 11th June 2013 at 5:04pm
Written by:

Barnsley didn`t offer goal keeper Luke Steele a longer contract due to the keepers age.

Barnsley Manager David Flitcroft said “if Luke was 22 then we`d offer him a two year or three year deal but age is a critical thing and we don`t know what our budget will be after this season so we have to plan carefully”

This seems very strange to me as Steele is only 28, which is relatively young for a goal keeper. What makes this seem worse is that they have just signed an outfield player in Tom Kennedy to a 2 year deal who is also 28.

Luke Steele was offered reduced terms in his contract which for a club the size of Barnsley can be expected but to not offer a keeper of Steele`s calibre a longer length contract seems a very bad decision to me. I can`t count the number of times his saves have secured us a point or a win when we have been under pressure. A replacement as good a Steele wouldn`t be cheap. It sounds to me from Flitcroft`s comments that as a high earner,the club doesn`t want to take the risk of having his wages on the books in case next season doesn`t go to plan, I thought Barnsley were meant to be showing some ambition for the upcoming season

Reds fans what`s your reaction to Luke Steele`s contract situation?