The9

Probably because I removed red band with the excessive Admiral logos up the sleeve - which incidentally are against the current rules. IIRC you're only allowed one shirt supplier logo within the band along the shoulder from the collar to the cuff, so the repeating admiral logo (or a UA equivalent) wouldn't be allowed.

Rumour is it only needs one PL badge as clubs are allowed sleeve sponsors from next season... There's a new UA design on this thread that shows their logo on the shoulders, I could probably do that from scratch as I don't have a template for it (and maybe create the collar in the same style), but it'll have to wait until this evening if I get the chance.

There's a bigger issue here about the ref not seeing Zlatan's blatant elbow and the overreaction to Surman's light push as well, seriously, what did he think he was looking at?

Because no-one outside St Mary's cared that he'd done it, the ref didn't mention it in his report, and any FA reps watching MotD probably would have though Van Dijk just twisted awkwardly because they didn't even replay it. Oh, and also Vardy plays for England so he gets Shearer/Lennon incident level protection.

The difference in the bans is [EDIT] not due to Mings contesting the charge, but due to the severity of the incident. FWIW I still think that shows a problem with the disciplinary process AND a problem with the balance of evidence, but that's by the by. Makes sense to encourage people not to contest charges but I can't believe for a second that the evidence we've seen is sufficient to support the charge against Mings - yet they've upheld it anyway. If it was accidental as you suggest (and I agree with that) then I don't know why you think it's worthy of a ban, or why video evidence would have seen Mings sent off for a stamp you've just said was accidental. I would imagine the argument for that goes down the road of what is reckless or dangerous - but as he was falling over, Mings had to put his foot down SOMEWHERE irrespective of what was in front of/under him at the time and the question then is to what extent players are expected to protect themselves and their opponents when a collision may be inevitable?

Well, apart from that 40 yard sprint with the ball immediately after he came on which was exactly what was needed, and the couple of times he's scored from nothing, including the only goal in one of the games that got us to Wembley. Though he did lose the ball at the end of that run, as players who can beat people tend to do occasionally. I think he's a fantastic talent with a solid attitude, should be excellent next season with a pre-season behind him, hopefully he'll get fewer injuries from people kicking lumps out of him as he goes past them.

And this one...

Here goes...

* accessibility. Done, despite that.

You've got the top 3 there for me. As time passes Van Dijk will become less obvious but Gabbiadini will win it by a mile if he keeps up his current workrate and anything near this strike rate. Romeu's been very good all season though he's had a game or two where he's been off it.

Well, firstly why would you "ignore Saints" when the entire premise is based on the fixtures Saints played? No, the plan was not to concede and hopefully score without wasting too much energy to do so. Basically for all six Europa League games (Sparta at home being the one where we actually did take the sting out of the game, 2-0 up after 27 minutes meant we could take it relatively easy, and we had a useless Swansea side at home the match after that one - and still picked "the first team" for the League game). We will (probably) have four midweek matches, Palace already is, and assuming Chelsea get through in the FA Cup, three matches to be scheduled against teams with bigger squads who can cope with the fixture congestion, and which will also affect our abilities to win the match after (and probably the one before as well if we need to rotate the team). There are only 6 midweek slots even left to the end of the season from now, not considering weeks when Man U could be playing in Europe. Aside from us, only the teams still in Europe (i.e. top sides with big expensive squads) will be playing even half of the midweek games we are in the rest of the season - more to the point we've had months of 2 games a week and now have weeks without matches, bloody ridiculous scheduling.

Looked where he was, and then everyone moved before he put his foot down, exactly where he'd have normally put his foot down.

"Saints are also prepared to leave him out entirely for the remainder of the season if they are convinced it is in his best interests." AKA "in Saints' best interests". There's no way we'll pick him even if fully fit if it's the difference between him definitely being here next season and not. Same goes with Caceres - if we want to keep him and we're not playing for anything we'll use him sparingly now and sign him permanently in the summer if he's impressed us. No-one else knows how our training is going and that's something we can use to our advantage to build a stronger squad for longer.

He could have got a few cards for simulation in the EFL Cup Final as well.

You can apologise for something whether accidental or deliberate. I once hoofed someone up the ar5e off the ball at a corner once, totally premeditated, completely lost it for a second and apologised to the guy immediately. I've also left a foot in on someone doing a sliding tackle on me purely because they were about to wipe me out, and not said anything. As for Zlatan's elbow, after the "stamp" he looked to see who'd done it when still lying down, then pursued him into the box for the corner that followed, even before they went up for the header together.

I hadn't seen that Mings had been banned for 5 matches, but it's absolutely ridiculous. No way the FA could confirm intent for that, and it didn't look like he did it on purpose - he glanced but everyone moved after that and before he put his foot down, and he put his foot exactly where you'd expect him to have if falling over normally. Meanwhile, Zlatan threw a deliberate elbow (which is a three match ban even if it's accidental and damage results) AND trod on Mings deliberately just before, and gets two games fewer. Absolutely awful decision. Not sure how Surman lightly pushing someone in the chest is a yellow either, and fairly sure he wouldn't have got it if the ref realised he'd already been booked.

So what would you do with the sponsor?

I'll see if I can find some alternative logo colours online and just slap one of those on it. Might even be able to invoke a colour swap, I don't get into PSP in much detail tbh. EDIT: There's a white with red text version online, shouldn't be a problem.

1) They *could*, but since 2009 we have usually stuck to June/July even when we haven't changed supplier (not that that's happened much, 2012/13 was the last time we kept both kit brand and sponsor, and look what happened THEN. (https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37736-New-Kits-2012-13) 2) From next season, yes, and I'm guessing if we haven't signed a deal with VirginMedia with wording preventing secondary sponsorship we'll find someone decent, if not we might be able to use it for someone like Mary's Meals or Saints Foundation until the Virgin deal ends in 2019.

Bit of a pain in the bum actually, seeing as the logo itself is already in the template and a colour switch will probably introduce some ugly jaggies (colour overlay is the usual colour changing method but in this case just makes the whole shape one colour without the lettering). Suppose they went with a white outline on the black kit this season, so maybe I can use that, if I cba.

We, I did say "least expecting it". Yuh, 25th.

I am least expecting it on March 25th, when I shall be at Fratton for the annual (but likely to end this season one way or another) N*wp*rt C**nty appearance. If someone could dig out my prediction for this season's L2 to prove how awesome I am that would be just great. I think I said something like "top 2 is set in stone, so either 3rd or playoffs and we already pretty much know who they're going to be already". I dare say it won't start for closer scrutiny. I can't explain what's happening at the top of L2 though: Doncaster are 4 points clear and have won 1 match in their last 7. Plymouth haven't won at home on a Tuesday since last season, yet are still in the top 2 having won 1 in 6. Carlisle have 3 wins in 12 and have lost 3 in a row. All of which makes the Portsmouth "2 wins in 5" look like a superb run of form, though they're still only in the top 3 because Luton have a game in hand. Exeter seem to have freaked out on going above the Skates and are now bubbling under having at one point looked like they might actually win every game forever. However, they have only won 1 in 6 too, after 10 wins and 2 draws before that. Luton have 1 win in 4 too. Thankfully... Stevenage, 7 wins and a draw, are now up to 6th, 4 points behind Portsmouth. Mansfield have 4 wins, 3 draws and a defeat from 8 matches, though their only win in 5 was against N*wp*rt C**nty. Colchester are 8 points behind the Skates, 3 wins in 10. Blackpool are 9 points back, have just won two in a row, but before that drew 11 out of 15 matches. So who the hell is winning all the matches in League Two? Oh yeah, everyone who a month ago was in touching distance of the bottom 2, that's who.

Anyway, here's 0-9 from the Premier League website - not in bold. The 1 matches the later version and is widely used on the site - though I think the bold version might be more likely for a shirt font. The 2 and 8 seem to match - though none of this confirms they'll actually change the numbers.

You could make the same argument about stripes every season.

It is, that's why it was amended in the third pic (the first two were WIPs). The back might have to be a single colour, would be nice if they could get some red up the sides though - depends on the size of the numbers in 2017/18 which are rumoured to be a new font to match the Premier League rebrand from last summer. Whether they use the number font from the Champions sleeve badges or not remains to be seen: Seeing as the 1 doesn't even match across the two designs it's difficult to make any assumptions. There's also this: