Saints Kits Season 2025/26

[lambtiss]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

https://fb.watch/AC0D9U0y7f/

Jack Stephens, lounge lizard

[jamesfp1]

I reckon the 2 different reds was a mistake and probably spotted too late to change it.

[lumuah]

4 minutes ago, lambtiss said:

Jack Stephens, lounge lizard

As long as that is where he spends most of the season wearing that shirt, it's all good. 

[obelisk]

Allow me to be the next to say that it's just a football shirt and that I'm not overly fussed.

[tdmickey3]

2 minutes ago, obelisk said:

Allow me to be the next to say that it's just a football shirt and that I'm not overly fussed.

Yep, the can wear red and white tutu`s as long as they win some games

[hypochondriac]

Quite like that to be honest. It's only a kit either way but normally I think they look shit. 

[sockeye]

Puma’s quality hasn’t really impressed me thus far. I don’t tend to buy kits though except for special seasons where we win something. It’s been quite a while…

[Pamplemousse]

£65 is outrageous, and no season-ticker holder discount either.

If it was £30-40 I'd probably buy it.

[Patrick Bateman]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Quite like that to be honest. It's only a kit either way but normally I think they look shit. 

I do too. I think I'll buy one, not to wear but just to keep (and gather dust), I was born just after the FA Cup final win, so my 50th next year as well 😂

[goodymatt]

16 minutes ago, Pamplemousse said:

£65 is outrageous, and no season-ticker holder discount either.

If it was £30-40 I'd probably buy it.

My membership is showing 5% discount at checkout so pretty ridiculous if STHs aren’t getting any discount.

[ally_uk]

https://ibb.co/354tr2QT

 

£13 here lads 🤣

[Disco Stu]

I quite like it to be fair. The price is a disgrace though.

[trousers]

The red looks consistent on this photo? (albeit of the ladies version)... a much brighter shade than the other photos though!

[Saintbone10]

It looks better without the 70's background. You see the differences between this and the fake one. 

Edited yesterday at 11:42 by Saintbone10

[Chez]

2 hours ago, CSA96 said:

The sponsor logo looks so tacky.

The kit has very little black in it, which is fine by me, but the three items with black on it (badge, puma logo, sponsor logo) seem to have different thickness of black lines around them. Piss poor design work.

Having curves on the shoulders makes no sense at all when you are using straight lines on the main part of the shirt. Again, really poor design choice. I can't stand the puma logos on the shoulders. Worse than stacked logos on the front of shirts, but that's a Puma thing.

I have to say the sponsor logo on the ladies shirt is ridiculous. If you are having that size of white surround, why not have the white bullet shape cut out of the stripes, not have some tacky sticker over the top. Looks fucking cheap...yet you pay a fortune.

Overall, not the worst (the underarmour kits were in a different league of shiteness), but as is so often the small details let it down in my eyes. That said, I never buy shirts, so they are not aimed at me.

 

 

[Chez]

21 minutes ago, trousers said:

The red looks consistent on this photo? (albeit of the ladies version)... a much brighter shade than the other photos though!

Looks better in that photo. The sponsor logo looks a bit smaller too. Less tacky. It's not a bad shirt. Get promotion in it, and I am sure I will grow to like it.

[die Mannyschaft]

It's not too bad. Preferred if if was a direct copy of 77/78 shirt. Not sure why back is blank and sholders looks awkward a last min cut and paste. 

£66 that's a lot, do seasons get discount? May look at getting shirt from other shirt supplier as often cheaper but same product. May wait till play offs as bound to be in away 3rd kit!!

[bpsaint]

32 minutes ago, Saintbone10 said:

It looks better without the 70's background. You see the differences between this and the fake one. 

The pointless red on the shoulders and the plain back just make it look shit. The mock up someone did a few pages looks so much better, don’t understand why we seem unable to release a decent kit but people on her can design much better options.

[die Mannyschaft]

On 18/06/2025 at 15:04, OldNick said:

I played six a side with him , I ribbed him a lot for missing a penalty in a game lol

 

19 minutes ago, Chez said:

The sponsor logo looks so tacky.

The kit has very little black in it, which is fine by me, but the three items with black on it (badge, puma logo, sponsor logo) seem to have different thickness of black lines around them. Piss poor design work.

Having curves on the shoulders makes no sense at all when you are using straight lines on the main part of the shirt. Again, really poor design choice. I can't stand the puma logos on the shoulders. Worse than stacked logos on the front of shirts, but that's a Puma thing.

I have to say the sponsor logo on the ladies shirt is ridiculous. If you are having that size of white surround, why not have the white bullet shape cut out of the stripes, not have some tacky sticker over the top. Looks fucking cheap...yet you pay a fortune.

Overall, not the worst (the underarmour kits were in a different league of shiteness), but as is so often the small details let it down in my eyes. That said, I never buy shirts, so they are not aimed at me.

 

 

Shirts have a cheap look and also quality is cheap and nasty theses days especially £50 and over.  Reminds me of a darts shirt toomuch fuss and sponsors.

[die Mannyschaft]

1 hour ago, Pamplemousse said:

£65 is outrageous, and no season-ticker holder discount either.

If it was £30-40 I'd probably buy it.

It will be that stupid 1 week window for 10% which I missed. I didn't get last seasons home but got away one when £25 in sale. 

[beatlesaint]

9 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

It's not too bad. Preferred if if was a direct copy of 77/78 shirt. Not sure why back is blank and sholders looks awkward a last min cut and paste. 

£66 that's a lot, do seasons get discount? May look at getting shirt from other shirt supplier as often cheaper but same product. May wait till play offs as bound to be in away 3rd kit!!

No discount for season ticket holders this year and if you live outside of Southampton and order it by post its costing you an extra £5.95, so over £70 for a football shirt.  

[hypochondriac]

2 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

No discount for season ticket holders this year and if you live outside of Southampton and order it by post its costing you an extra £5.95, so over £70 for a football shirt.  

If you really want it, much better getting the cheap knockoff for small amounts.

[Gloucester Saint]

53 minutes ago, Saintbone10 said:

It looks better without the 70's background. You see the differences between this and the fake one. 

I quite like it overall, sponsor logo should have a smaller edging but a minor point.

The lighter and darker reds are odd though. If that was deliberate rather than a design mistake that’s a strange choice.

Good concept, execution not miles off but could’ve been a classic with another layer of attention to detail.

[EBS1980]

It’s ok. It’s a shame the sleeves and shoulders seem to be a different design to the mail body, would have been better with the stripes on the shoulder down onto the sleeve.

doesnt look to be any pattern or texture on the shirt either and just solid red and white. 

[Colinjb]

It's the best shirt we've had for a while. But that is probably damning with faint praise. It could have been even better still.

[franniesTache]

I need to see it in it's correct environment to judge.

Until it's being worn in a spoons barely concealing a beer belly with a full english spilt down the front, and the owner singing about a players cock to the boredom of the minimum bar staff it's impossible to say if it fits it's role correctly.

[saintant]

Not a fan but, as with any Saints shirt, it's let down by the naff club badge which is long in need of modernisation - just my opinion of course 🙂

[SaintsLoyal]

If i was head of media at #saintsfc i wouldnt be using Jack Stephens anywhere near club media.

Im not a shirter, but red should be darker and stripes over the back.

Edited 22 hours ago by SaintsLoyal

[CB Fry]

Looks very nice to me, but stripes should be on the back.

[rooney]

The black shorts with a red stripe down the sides and the white socks with two red rings around the top look good too.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, franniesTache said:

I need to see it in it's correct environment to judge.

Until it's being worn in a spoons barely concealing a beer belly with a full english spilt down the front, and the owner singing about a players cock to the boredom of the minimum bar staff it's impossible to say if it fits it's role correctly.

over a hoodie, with ill fitting jeans and shit trainers too, yes?

[leesaint88]

5 minutes ago, Turkish said:

over a hoodie, with ill fitting jeans and shit trainers too, yes?

Nothing says 'Spoons chic more than a pair of Slazengers & supermarket jeans. 

[Chez]

14 minutes ago, leesaint88 said:

Nothing says 'Spoons chic more than a pair of Slazengers & supermarket jeans. 

...except the Lonsdale karate slipper.

[St Louis]

36 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

If i was head of media at #saintsfc i wouldnt be using Jack Stephens anywhere near club media.

Probably the only player they could guarantee would still be here, and I'm sure that does come into the thinking with any club marketing. Its also a heritage campaign, and he's been here nearly 15 years.

And I know he's often the scapegoat for many, but he is the captain, didnt have a bad end to the season, will be decent enough in The Championship, will always fight for the club, etc, etc. 

We dont really have a 'star' player or 'golden boy' anymore either, maybe Dibling if they were certain he would be here to wear it?

[franniesTache]

26 minutes ago, Turkish said:

over a hoodie, with ill fitting jeans and shit trainers too, yes?

Grey hoody, three quarter length white (but stained) lonsdale shorts and a pair of "goodyear" Puma's. They travel the country on the bingo bus singing about how much they "hate" pompey when they're from salisbury, winchester, basingstoke or the isle of wight.

First down for a half time pint, first to start Fathers Gun, and always looking to steal a chant from another club to sing at a 100miles an hour.

Will often be heard slagging off the city of Southampton despite supporting the team.

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, franniesTache said:

Grey hoody, three quarter length white (but stained) lonsdale shorts and a pair of "goodyear" Puma's. They travel the country on the bingo bus singing about how much they "hate" pompey when they're from salisbury, winchester, basingstoke or the isle of wight.

First down for a half time pint, first to start Fathers Gun, and always looking to steal a chant from another club to sing at a 100miles an hour.

Will often be heard slagging off the city of Southampton despite supporting the team.

talking of scruffs who start random songs is Hat Kunt still a regular?

[bugenhagen]

5 hours ago, lambtiss said:

Jack Stephens, lounge lizard

[bpsaint]

By the way, what is this weird fascination with kit launches recently showing football shirts tucked into smart trousers with a belt, particularly beige ones. Not only is it fucking horrendous, but it just reminds me of this scene from The Inbetweeners 

 

[Saintbone10]

AC Milan 3rd shirt. Same sleeve design. Though clubs can have a degree of a "bespoke" design, its still got to work around a chosen template

[S-Clarke]

I quite like it. I had a fear that the sponsor would be contained within a 'box', but they've done quite a good job to incorporate that into the shirt without spoiling it.

£65 is too much though, wouldn't be going near it at that price. £30 was about the max I'd ever pay.

[RedArmy]

For the second season in a row Puma have decided to make the U5’s kit different to the real one. Last years had red around the collar instead of black and no black at the end of the sleeves and this years has a round neck and not a collar. 
 

Why? 

[beatlesaint]

 
 

Well looking at this photo the club re-tweeted it doesn’t look like different shades of red on the front and shoulders. It actually looks really good tbh.

Edited 19 hours ago by beatlesaint

[sfc4prem]

27 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

 
 

Well looking at this photo the club re-tweeted it doesn’t look like different shades of red on the front and shoulders. It actually looks really good tbh.

Agreed, it does look good 'on'

[hypochondriac]

For me, that's the nicest shirt we've had since the sash. 

[Master Bates]

6 hours ago, Saintbone10 said:

It looks better without the 70's background. You see the differences between this and the fake one. 

Not really, but then I was never any good at spot the difference 

[Spoonman]

Front 8/10

Back 5/10

[Dr Who?]

Hope for a basic yellow with blue trim FA Cup final away then. Keep an eye on the Chinese sites. DH Gate will break the away top. I see they have Saints sponsor has been popped on to the fakes now. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Dr Who?

[Dr Who?]

7 hours ago, Saintbone10 said:

It looks better without the 70's background. You see the differences between this and the fake one. 

Yeah about £50 for a slightly bigger badge and a sponsor stuck on it. Rest pretty much the same. Will only wear to gym and the other is for my boy, so he does not care. Happy with the cheaper one! 

[danjosaint]

4 hours ago, beatlesaint said:

 
 

Well looking at this photo the club re-tweeted it doesn’t look like different shades of red on the front and shoulders. It actually looks really good tbh.

Looks better in that pic, however badgecand logo should've been inside stripe, probably would look better with just P&O rather than Spidermans web splodge maybe  even if was in proper colour. Also stripes on the back please plus navy shorts  

[Verbal]

16 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Spidermans web splodge

Mods, to honour the new season, kit etc., please consider this excellent suggestion for rebranding saintsweb