To be fair, saying "Both are definitely the worst kits that i have ever seen from any club in the history of SL" is the most ridiculous and over exaggerated thing that I have ever read on this forum. It is laughable.

They are pretty cr*p!

Home shirt is fine, like the idea of replicating the Grand Final winning away shirt but looks a bit bland to me.

How nce is the Hull KR kit? Why oh why can we not just ditch the stupid vee design for one year and have a retro shirt that actually has some history.

Very Nice.
I'd never lose the vee from the saints shirt, but I'm not a fan of the latest design.

To be fair, it's not like we started wearing the V yesterday. It's been on our kit, in one form or another, for fifty years - just as long as the red band ever was, I think.

Yeah, so package it up as a 'heritage' shirt design. Design it like Hull KRs and have a similar design in Meninga blues for the away shirt. THEN the season after, bring back a classic St-George-esque vee shirt.

Just because we moved to the vee doesn't mean we can't ever deviate from that.

I don't dispute that. I was responding to your implication that the red vee doesn't have any history.

It is surprising that we haven't had the hoop come back for 1 season, normally rugby and football clubs jump at the chance to market a retro design, plus the fans' demand for it has been there for years.

They should have a 3 year cycle for the home shirt - Heritage/retro year , standard red vee year, progressive year.

I will be wearing my retro hooped shirt next season, just can't buy the new one which must be a strong candidate for one of the worst designs of all time.

Yup, didn't think last season's could be trumped, but this is a new low. ISC were a bit predictable, but give me a solid looking kit any day over these O'Neills.

It's how low the V is on the home shirt that spoils it. I actually don't mind the away one to much now.

I'll be buying neither

More to the point. Who is in charge of sponsors and why are saints sponsored by typhoo tea which logo in itself spoils any shirt design.

Are you suggesting they should reject the offer of sponsorship from from a major company because you don't think the logo goes with the kit?

That has to be the single most stupid thing posted on here in quite a while!!!!!!

I've been in saints shop todsy to buy a kids home shirt . He's 15 and the child sizes only go to 13 to 14 and look very small. The next size up is small man's which imo is a disgrace! The kids will be walking around looking like wearing tents.

14yr old to small man's is a massive jump. It's a disgrace.

Is there much size difference between aa 14 yr olds shirt and a small man's?

Putting it up to the other I'd have to say yes. You don't become a small man at 14.

To be fair to Saints, that is the same for most leisurewear manufacturers these days. They go from 13-14 to small mens and only some of them bridge the gap with XLB and XSM in between. One of our lads is in that gap now and most of the time he has little choice.

I just think the club should do better with the sizes. No way is a 14 yr old a small man in terms of clothes.

Maybe oneils is the reason for this but nothing worse than seeing kids wearing tents as saints tops.

He could probably get into the 14 size at a push but he's on the books at a super league team and on a nutrition and weight plan, so he will be putting size on as he already has so won't last long at all.

Looked on other clubs sites. Seems most only go to 14 and then jump to small man's. Only a few go up to 16 yrs

No I'm not suggesting that. But it is bloody awful.
But I you suggesting typho tea is the best one of the best super league sides and one of the most successful can attract?

The only thing that matters is how much they pay us, provided they're not someone like Wonga or an arms manufacturer of course.

I can't believe anyone thinks we should choose our sponsor based on whether we like their logo or not.

Oh I think being sponsored by Stark industries would be pretty cool...