looks like some little wag has already signed it for me, oh what a laugh it must be in there house

The suit's got wings hasn't it? How can he flick the V's or make a w@nking sign?

Storm in a tea cup. A letter of warning would have been enough.

The wail will have a field day with this one

is airlie bird banned from caravan park?

At least we've sorted tomorrow's sports headline in the HDM.

Another Monday they can kick back and put their feet up

1) The ban has not been imposed by FC, it's imposed by the SMC for all events at the KC (ie including City).

2) Doesn't say anywhere that the mascot per se is banned. just the individual in the suit at the testimonial.

For all we know the complaints might have been made direct to the SMC with no involvement from FC.

Guess in summary there's lots of possible scenarios for what may have happened and for what possible action may have been taken and by who. Ive said on the Rovers site i think the banning is pathetic, on reflection i'm keen to hear an official statement from the club/smc.

agree it sounds like a major over reaction. However, i'm pretty sure the SMC wouldnt ban someone just for a few complaints from the fans. Get the feeling that there is alot more to this than meets the eye.

Why dont they just replace the fool inside the costume (yeah its not really an oversized robin) for the game????






































Failing that BAN THE FOOOKA!!

If the mascot was making obscene gestures to the crowd - to be clear, not saying this did happen, but in that case - I think the SMC would be right to ban him. It's a family game and as a formal representative of the club that would be unacceptable behaviour IMO. If it turns out this was the case, ie someone reported obscene gesturing to the SMC who imposed a ban, people rushing to slag off Rule for dummy-spitting would look a tad silly.

I agree. However, if there is no evidence of anything that serious and it was simply a wiggle of the backside towards the crowd then i think Rule may look a tad silly for over reacting. FWIW, Rule is normally incredibly level headed so in this instance it may be more serious, hope the club clears this up asap.

cant believe the amount of F.C fans who are taking the side of a scarey deformed tweenie, he only scares the kids anyway, over our very own ja rule!

dont think the club have anything to clear up with us. If indeed he has been banned i am sure it will be for more than a little bootie shaking. If it was the SMC then they can explain the situation if the choose to

It's not Rule or FC who have imposed the ban. The letter to the guy in the Rufus suit came from the SMC. For all we know, FC might not even have been consulted.

James Rule has only been brouht into this by his fan club on here the letter it states on other web sites comes from the SMC and there may have been more too it than just dropping his trousers!

If it's banter with the crowd then it's fine but without knowing exatly what the mascot did it's hard to say whether or not it was harsh.

maybe I was getting mixed up with your Agar out/sack the Board meetings down the pub. You could put this disgraceful episode on the next meeting's agenda ?

A member of the media has spoke to FC's media manager and he confirms the club have banned him

Are you talking about Rob Chadwick?

They should ban him as well, after all the stuff he posts as paintboy on the "hidden" forum.

Fact of the matter is the thing is banned, at least they have given a reason for it, remind me again why the airlie bird wasn't allowed at Poorhouse Lane not so long back?

All people should remember is the pettiness and anomosity that exists between the two clubs at boardroom level is all traceable back to Hudgell and his cronies.

Just get rid of silly mascots per se..........totally stupid.

Think he is:



Who immediately backpedalled when asked who "they" were:




...admitting Rufus had a letter confirming "they" were the SMC:



Having said all this - I really hope Rule contacts the SMC to suggest that the "indefinite" period the ban will last is removed before our next home game to Rovers. Unless the "obscene" allegations are true (which seem incredible, TBH) this is the sensible and right way for an unbitter CEO to demonstrate his pragmatism.

Right here are the facts!!!

Rovers jestured to the crowd in a very provocative way at the Derby. The SMC have sent a letter to the person wearing the outfit saying that he, not the mascot is banned from The KC. Rufus is not banned from the KC.

There is a code of conduct for all mascots set by the RL and this obviouly over steps that too, so no doubt the RL will get involved, however as I see it it has nothing to do with our club at all!! It is perhaps a bit over the top butis certainly not acceptable behaviour at a family sport, from someone on the pitch with a level of responsibility! If a player did it there would be calls for his head!!! But I stress it is the SC that has deemed this unreasonable behaviour and not the club!

So I was right all along. First time for everything

Apologies to James Rule here please.

you was the one who brought his name up on here