Would you like Hill for another season?

[Moody Blue 9,355]

Depends on budgets, outlay for players and wages. if we can afford to keep someone like him, on the wages he'll be on but not be a first pick then yes. if budgets are slim and anyone on big wages needs to be a first pick then no. 

[TMB 14,167]

No.  He was suppose to be a short-term option and that should remain the case.  Our defence has been a shambles so saying he's been he best individual carries absolutely no weight.  None of them have been good enough.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Yes, but he should cover for a couple of new CB brought in during the summer. 

[geneva_ger 9,331]

2 minutes ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:

Our defence has been a shambles so saying he's been he best individual carries absolutely no weight.

^^^^

Not really making sense but understand that he was short-term and should ideally not be in the plan.

Danny couldn't trap a bag of cement, Rob is not a centre back and Senderos is Senderos. We can't remove all 4 so my opinion is keep the best. This is a nightmare for us but keep Danny/Clint  and add 2 more first picks.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,545]

8 minutes ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:

No.  He was suppose to be a short-term option and that should remain the case.  Our defence has been a shambles so saying he's been he best individual carries absolutely no weight.  None of them have been good enough.

davie weir was a "short term option", 4 years later he lifted 3iar and led us to a european final

[Billy1984 6,314]

I see no harm in him staying another season. Preferably more as a squad player behind 2 new centre backs. He wouldn't let us down if called upon and by all accounts is a good character to have around. 

[Gandalf the Blue 1,384]

Yes, but that depends on the board. We should really be aiming for better if we can. 

[denya 1,661]

If we dont have the funds to completely overhaul the central defensive position then I would keep him maybe mostly as a backup. 

[rfc_watp 1,503]

Had to vote no, against my urge to say yes.

If we want to get where we want to be then a 38 year old defender with no pace isn't the answer, regardless if he has been the best defender we have had this season.

If Warburton was still in charge then I would want him to stay, but Pedro's here now so back him with proper investment and let's get a team to win the title with.

[GOAT 30,449]

I don't know what's worse the fact this is even up for debate and someone's asked the question or the fact that most on this forum seem to want to give him another year.

well done to the guy for scoring on Sunday and keeping his body in the shape it is at his age and still being a footballer.  But we should be aiming to win titles and play in Europe next season, a 39 year old clint hill isn't going to help us do that.  On top of that his mentality is not what is required to play for a team like ours, just the other week there he was telling us third was a good achievement for us.  That shite is why we're in sitting in third just now because we've got a team full of losers that accept mediocrity.

things need to change and hopefully pedro is the man to get us back to the top and recreate that winning mentality. 

[GOAT 30,449]

52 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

davie weir was a "short term option", 4 years later he lifted 3iar and led us to a european final

David weir isn't even comparable.  An international defender, who played at one of the better teams in England for most of his career.

oh and a snakey bastard to boot.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,545]

1 minute ago, GOAT said:

David weir isn't even comparable.  An international defender, who played at one of the better teams in England for most of his career.

oh and a snakey bastard to boot.

wouldnt exactly use they points to compare between hill and weir, weir played for a country reknowned for shite defenders, so getting games was easier, and everton werent exactly awesome in his time there, mind he partnered alan stubbs at the back for everton ffs

[JoeFraser 7]

As others have said, it depends on the budget. However, if he is thinking (or even has started his badges ) of coaching then, maybe, a player/coach role would be good.

[TMB 14,167]

54 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

davie weir was a "short term option", 4 years later he lifted 3iar and led us to a european final

In my opinion David Weir is vastly overrated as a Rangers player.  Cuellar's and Bougherra were wonderful players and Davie benefited a great deal from having players of that quality next to him.  Bougherra especially had to cover a lot of ground in behind because Weir simply couldn't.  Once Bougherra left Davie was left badly exposed, became a liability, dropped out the team and never came back.  At that time they were saying he was injured but I don't buy that.  Strikers were standing right next to Davie and teams were hitting balls over the top because they knew he couldn't run.  I think the injury was fabricated to spare his blushes.

His age made him slow and our teams ended up camped in their own half because of it.  Neil Alexander commented after the Cup final with Celtic that it was difficult to get use to a defence that stood just in front of his goal.  We played five at the back, and were forced to sit all the way back, simply to accommodate Weir.  I was glad when Weir was finally put the team because we could go 442 and play higher up the pitch again.  

The lesson to be learned from Davie Weir isn't that you keep playing someone until their legs go from under them.  Weir was brought in as a short-term option and that's the way it should've stayed.  He was allowed to stay at the club for far too long and in the end became a liability.  Hill came in as a short-term option, he's been the best of a bad bunch, we should thank him and say goodbye.  There's a good reason why 40 year old CBs are not common place among the top teams.  Opposition teams will get quick strikers to stand next to Hill and burn him for pace, just as Hooper and Daniel Larsson did to Weir.

[GOAT 30,449]

10 minutes ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:

In my opinion David Weir is vastly overrated as a Rangers player.  Cuellar's and Bougherra were wonderful players and Davie benefited a great deal from having players of that quality next to him.  Bougherra especially had to cover a lot of ground in behind because Weir simply couldn't.  Once Bougherra left Davie was left badly exposed, became a liability, dropped out the team and never came back.  At that time they were saying he was injured but I don't buy that.  Strikers were standing right next to Davie and teams were hitting balls over the top because they knew he couldn't run.  I think the injury was fabricated to spare his blushes.

His age made him slow and our teams ended up camped in their own half because of it.  Neil Alexander commented after the Cup final with Celtic that it was difficult to get use to a defence that stood just in front of his goal.  We played five at the back, and were forced to sit all the way back, simply to accommodate Weir.  I was glad when Weir was finally put the team because we could go 442 and play higher up the pitch again.  

The lesson to be learned from Davie Weir isn't that you keep playing someone until their legs go from under them.  Weir was brought in as a short-term option and that's the way it should've stayed.  He was allowed to stay at the club for far too long and in the end became a liability.  Hill came in as a short-term option, he's been the best of a bad bunch, we should thank him and say goodbye.  There's a good reason why 40 year old CBs are not common place among the top teams.  Opposition teams will get quick strikers to stand next to Hill and burn him for pace, just as Hooper and Daniel Larsson did to Weir.

What absolute bullshit.  Davie weir was a fantastic player for us and the best example of that was when Bougherra was out for months in 2009/10 season and Weir made Danny Wilson a player. 

You could also argue Weir helped Cuellar and Bougherra in their time here aswell since neither exactly set the heather on fire elsewhere after their times here. 

[gmcf 34,191]

I think so .

Money is going to be tight and we could do with strengthening all over the pitch , so a back up centre half isn't high on the priorities . He'd not be my first choice if we can bring in two new ones , but as others have said we need cover and now we've seen what Hill can do , he won't be a gamble should he be called upon . 

[Leeds_Bear 8,110]

4 hours ago, K.A.I said:

No. 

Hes not the worst defender I've ever seen but he looks slightly better than what he is imo because Wilson, Senderos and Kiernan are so bad.

Hes been a decent signing overall and I've seen a lot worse even in better Rangers teams but we can't let the emotion of Sunday cloud our judgements - most of the fans made this same mistake last time we got a result against them and thought Halliday, Holt etc were better than what we were

We need big investment and big improvements on almost every player we've got. We can't lose track of that.

Not sure we can afford to buy four new CBs though, so we should keep Hill as part of our squad for one more season. 

[K.A.I 36,183]

Just now, Leeds_Bear said:

Not sure we can afford to buy four new CBs though, so we should keep Hill as part of our squad for one more season. 

I'm not convinced either but it again shows the levels of funding required and the scale of mismanagement from previous managers.

I've said all along that we will have to spend the money on quality players eventually, so why not spend is wisely sooner rather than later and have a chance of success sooner and in the meantime. 

We've 3 sub-standard centre half's aside from Hill as he's OK ... I'd rather we pushed the boat out and bought 1 right good outright quality CB and maybe another on a par with Hill as our pairing and if we want a wee bit of depth and cover than hold onto Wilson for that.

That's why signing players like O'Halloran annoys me too ... we'll sign 2/3 players like him instead of just leaving it and using the same cash to buy one top class player. You can point to Barton I suppose but again that doesn't say much for our transfer policy either.

It's grim reading and the lying bastard King really has to come good now. The excuses and his wee games are long over.

[TopCat 4,511]

4 hours ago, Lloyd72 said:

Yes but only as a 4th choice, we need someone with his experience around the club to help the younger players, we should be bringing in at least 3 CBs this summer so Hill as a backup to them wouldn't be terrible

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject.

[ForeverAndEver 71,495]

37 minutes ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:

In my opinion David Weir is vastly overrated as a Rangers player.  Cuellar's and Bougherra were wonderful players and Davie benefited a great deal from having players of that quality next to him.  Bougherra especially had to cover a lot of ground in behind because Weir simply couldn't.  Once Bougherra left Davie was left badly exposed, became a liability, dropped out the team and never came back.  At that time they were saying he was injured but I don't buy that.  Strikers were standing right next to Davie and teams were hitting balls over the top because they knew he couldn't run.  I think the injury was fabricated to spare his blushes.

His age made him slow and our teams ended up camped in their own half because of it.  Neil Alexander commented after the Cup final with Celtic that it was difficult to get use to a defence that stood just in front of his goal.  We played five at the back, and were forced to sit all the way back, simply to accommodate Weir.  I was glad when Weir was finally put the team because we could go 442 and play higher up the pitch again.  

The lesson to be learned from Davie Weir isn't that you keep playing someone until their legs go from under them.  Weir was brought in as a short-term option and that's the way it should've stayed.  He was allowed to stay at the club for far too long and in the end became a liability.  Hill came in as a short-term option, he's been the best of a bad bunch, we should thank him and say goodbye.  There's a good reason why 40 year old CBs are not common place among the top teams.  Opposition teams will get quick strikers to stand next to Hill and burn him for pace, just as Hooper and Daniel Larsson did to Weir.

Bougherra better than Weir?.

You don't half post a lot of shite btw.

[Stroll_on 16]

I think he could be useful next season as a back up player but I don't think pedro will keep him unless he can't get defenders in.

[left winger 14,175]

Same situation as with Kenny. They have both done enough to warrant new deals for next season, but we should be looking for better. 

[Beaujolais 1,371]

As things stand he is for me a no brainer of a signing for next year. If he is deemed surplus to requirements for next season, then there are a great many other players I would expect to see out the door before him. He has been a rock this season despite his age.

[DMax399 3,704]

Unless we can bring in someone better.  Then, yes.

[Dietspam 733]

Can't hurt, so i say yes.