anybody

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11756_5465482,00.html

was the reason he was released because he isnt good enough for them, or couldnt they agree terms?

Whether or not he "good enough" does not concern me, We have him on trial so no risk to us, He may just need a change of scenery

Wasn't bad at sheff wed a few years ago.

We seem to be looking at a lot of players who have been released by clubs lower down the league ladder than ourselves. It must be a little bit worrying surely.

Peterborough anybody?

What about them? They paid for players from lower leagues. Not ones who were deemed not good enough.

Oh no, that's DRUM BANGING!

andy monkhouse was considered not good enough for a league 2 club 3 year ago

True, there are bound to be occasional exceptions but surely we should be looking at players from bigger clubs than us who have been released rather than teams considered to be poorer than us. I mean a gateshead reject ffs!

We are obviously aiming high this season.

no harm in looking though is there. Its about getting in players with the right attitude. Besides, haslam can play anywhere across the back 4, has plenty of championship experience and is at the right age.

No harm in looking, no! But we're a week away from the start of the season and we're still looking at lower league rejects, we have injuries to key players and still short of a quality midfielder, a striker, a left back and a defender.
Oh. and we haven't exactly been great pre season have we!!

I'd be interested to know what the bury fans opinions of him were. If he was released due to an attitude problem then we may be able to get the best out of him but if he was simply not good enough then we are obviously scraping the barrel. Will go and see what I can find about him now since the friggin cricket aint on

EDIT:

talk about an up and down career!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Haslam

Seems odd that CT did not rate him at Sheff Wed but wants him now.

You do that!

We will all tune in for another whinge along a grave in a few moments

why does it seem odd?

Aint he a right back mainly??

It seems from a few sources that he tends to prefer playing at right back.

This site interviews Alan knill about why he was released. I may have been a bit hasty, it sounds like they had 2 decent right backs so one had to go. They must not have felt he could do a job at centre half. Im not sure we need another right back though.

http://www.prestwichadvertiser.co.uk/sport/football/bury/s/1117752_manager_explains_release_decisions

"BURY manager Alan Knill has explained the thinking behind releasing striker Glynn Hurst and right back Steve Haslam.

It was inevitable that the other player on Bury’s retained list, centre Paul Morgan, would move on having spent last season on loan at Macclesfield.

But Hurst, who scored 27 goals in 127 games for Bury having signed from Shrewsbury in January 2007, and Haslam, who played 61 games for the Shakers after joining from Halifax Town in the same year, both played their part in the club’s highly impressive 2008-09 campaign.

Manager Knill said: "Obviously, we’ve had to let some go and they were pretty tough decisions.

"We all know what Glynn Hurst is about and it was really difficult decision for me to make.

"Glynn came in and more or less said to me that he wouldn’t have accepted any offer from us anyway. Hursty wants to play every week and I couldn’t guarantee that.

"Hopefully, next season I will have four strikers and I can’t guarantee anyone that they will start every week.

"I’m disappointed to see him go. He is an experienced player but he felt and I felt that he wouldn’t be happy in the same role next season so it was probably best for both of us.

"With Steve Haslam, again it was a really difficult decision. He came in and did really well but I have Paul Scott at right back. I don’t think I need two experienced right backs and, unfortunately, his contract was up.

"Hursty was fine with it but it wasn’t so good for Steve Haslam, as I expected because he had done so well.

"We haven’t lost since Steve got in the team but, unfortunately, you have to make these decisions and I had to free up some money somewhere to strengthen elsewhere.

"It was just one of those things. I’m quite sure that Steve will get another club. He’s solid and a great professional. He hasn’t ever given me any cause for bother or any trouble."

Meanwhile, Knill has revealed that Ben Futcher was also heading for the Gigg Lane exit door at one stage.

He said: "Ben has been fantastic for us but when I first came in the door I wasn’t particularly enamoured with him.

"I thought that he would be one that I would have to change. But full credit to him, he’s now a big player for us.

"He gives us a lot on the pitch and in the dressing room. Plus, he’s really focused and the good thing for me is that he thinks he can be a lot better and I am delighted with that."

yes so if he did sign then it would probably to be cover for the 1st choice defenders

Its just that Bury, a second division club must not have felt he could do a job at centre half otherwise they would have kept him on as "cover for the 1st choice defenders"

you must be ignoring the point where their manager Alan Knill said he didn't want to lose him but needed to free up wages to strengthen other areas of the team.

Or your just being picky for the sake of it as usual.

Fact is how ever Knill sugar coated it-he didnt think he was good enough to play anywhere but right back and therefore god rid.

Haslam starts at right back.

Can Austin play Centre back?

why does he need to play centre back?

maybe he might have to seeing as Clark is out for a while and Collins has already received treatment this afternoon and he missed a game the other week through injury, that only leaves Liddle and Hartley but Hartley might have to play left back yet

Austin can play left back. He has done it plenty of times in the past and is more than comfortable there according to the Barnsley fan at my work.

Maybe Turner isn't as daft as some of you lot think?

Has CT tried him at left back yet?

Is it wrong for me to want a left footed player playing at left back?

No, as long as its not Sir Ritchie

Depends if you are hung up on him being a natural left footed player or are happy with somebody who is comfortable using their left even though they are predominately right footed.

Is it wrong of me to question if you have the ability to add anything positive or constructive to any thread?

I love the way he puts a laughing smilie at the end of every whinging post.

I am sure he is taking up unnecessary band width using all of them. Action might be taken,

There seems to be a lack of humour bloody everywhere of late Grave!! Tending to agree with ya, whats the point in signing another right back unless Austin is as versitile as some suggest. One things for sure, i bet nobody can predict Turners starting line up come Saturday!

Think it'll be just ressies at Garforth tonight? realise it will be at Horden on wednesday, but not sure about tonight.

Any reason my perfectly sensible and logic post was deleted?

the point is strength in depth. we were woefully short of it last season. This season, if Larkin & Haslam sign then we have strength and depth in most positions barring left back and GK. thats a million times better than what it was like last season.

Dibble wont have agreed with it.

I shouldnt laugh but that was funny

One of the first times iv laughed out loud

you should try it more often and remember......



.....happiness is good!