Matthew Le God

He said "100%" and didn't mean 100%.

You said "100% wrong", which would mean the manufacturer was wrong, colours/style wrong and even the Saints badge used was wrong.

Well it implies it has been confirmed, when it is actually from a random on Twitter. When I clicked on the thread I was expecting to see a link to an OS article annoncing that the aap3 deal had been ended a year early and the details of a new deal with Red Bull.

Thread title is misleading to say the least!

Every club in the country has made numerous changes to their badges over the years. Anyone that gets a tattoo is daft to think that it would never change from the version they pick.

It's clearly a wind up. Accrington's annual wage budget for 2013/14 will around £500k, Billy Sharp would be on more than that by himself! Even if you overlook the huge lack of ambition from Sharp, Cortese isn't going sanction such a loan that wouldn't see much of Sharp's wages paid. Saints will likely be looking to sell him in the summer, not loan him out again and certainly not to a club below the Championship.

Well it can't have been more than the 2005/06 home shirt, which had a collar that didn't stretch and was very difficult to get over your head..

Scotland under 19's.

We got promoted from League One in 2010/11 with this as an away kit...

So what? If someone on Twitter said "Newcastle have told Man Utd it will cost them £25m to sign Cabaye" and Paul Gascoigne retweeted it, does that make it anymore credible?

Only if you believe a random person on Twitter. https://twitter.com/FourFourSpeak/status/338705033665343488 https://twitter.com/FourFourSpeak/status/338705721220812800 It is utter nonsense.

The evolution of Everton crests from 1878 to 2013. The current crest has only been in existence since 2000. New crest unveiled for next season onwards... http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/05/25/evolution-of-the-everton-crest

Doesn't appear to be a problem for Everton...

Shouldn't his children be in school rather than on a long family holiday in May?

That still isn't conclusive... Wednesday morning - Cortese walks into St Mary's and is spotted by security guard Wednesday lunchtime - Cortese leaves St Mary's and is spotted by security guard Wednesday afternoon - Cortese flies to Italy to have talks with an Italian club Thursday morning - Cortese flies back to England Thursday lunchtime - Cortese arrives at St Mary's and is spotted by security guard Thursday evening - Security guard tells Kingsland Red that Cortese has "been around all week".

How can you say that without knowing the full details of his injury record? Shaw has missed some matches for club/country through illness, catching a virus doesn't make him "injury prone". He's also had a couple of injuries, but without knowing the full details you can't call him injury prone. If for example someone does a reckless tackle on you in training and you get injured that doesn't mean by default you prone to such injuries.

Shaw has missed some matches for club/country through illness, that doesn't make him "injury prone". Nor do we know the full background behind his previous injuries, just because a player has a few injuries that doesn't mean he is injury prone. In any case, not sure why that means he should be sold. And now with Shaw, we have Premier League status and seemingly a rich and very ambitious owner and chairman. Even if the club has more than enough funding to push forwards by keeping Shaw and bringing other players?

Can you expand on that some more? Just seeing Cortese at St Mary's last night doesn't mean he wasn't in Italy earlier in the week. Did he or someone else tell you he wasn't in Italy this week or that he was doing something else?

Is £10m really "ridiculous" for Luke Shaw? I think that seriously undervalues him. Did you think the same when we sold Bale for a package potentially worth upto £10m? I think Shaw looks better than Bale did at the same age for us.

Take that up with Opta, I was just explaining what they've done.

Not on away goals it wouldn't. Saints would get the win.

Away goals rule means it would be Saints beating Stoke and losing to Fulham.

This is the only link I can find between Saints and Osvaldo, it is a flimsy source to say the least! http://www.tribalfootball.com/articles/tottenham-southampton-alerted-roma-invite-osvaldo-offers-3812221#.UZ4XheB4WmR

Link to source?

Page 180 of the Premier League 2012/13 rulebook... http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2012-2013.pdf