FnF on hold for Royal Wedding

[Moffo]

The only good thing about this is there's gonna be monarchist who are gonna be pissed off about this.

It's baffling to me how someone could want a queen. F**king idiots *cough* Moffo *cough*

she'll save us. good chick. once you go queen you never go back (to dutchess')

 

[GongPanther]

We have not seen a better reason to ditch the monarchy and become a republic than this. What an outrage. Thou shalt not steal thy colony's friday night footy, motherf*ckers

Wow God,you've really got your uppity on this one.

And this country that has the monarchy also gave Australia the game we support ( not to mention a few other world class sports,so you have to give them some kind of credit).

Anyway,look at the positive side.

At least we will be having Saturday and Sunday as being the League-A-Thon days,so its a matter of "stocking-up" for the weekend.

*And I just wonder how many people that hate the royals will not be able to resist the temptation in watching this wedding.

You gotta admit,its lie a car wreck...you just have to look.:lol:

BTW...Happy New Year everyone.

 

[Quidgybo]

Schedule the games on Friday night anyway and let the anti-syphoning laws do their thing. Even without the new changes in place there's really no way Nine can legally get out of showing the two matches at decent hours into at least Queensland and NSW (ie. Leaving the other states no more screwed over than usual). With Fox having a contract for covering five games, if we just schedule the remaining three matches as normal then we really leave Nine with no choice but to screen them - wedding or not.

Leigh

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

*And I just wonder how many people that hate the royals will not be able to resist the temptation in watching this wedding.

I can resist..quite easily.....it will just another in a long list of tv viewing that i avoid at all costs.
Neighbours
H & A
Any so called music talent show..Oz idol ,X Factor.etc
Any reality show..Survivor ,Big Brother.Etc..
Most tv viewing is crap so one extra night of Crap wont change anything..

 

[nrlnrl]

Saw this and was about to bring it up... Ch 7 has already signalled it's intent to shift the games to mate or TWO, so I wouldn't be surprised if GEM or GO! ended up taking the footy... preferrably GEM so it can be in HD.

The round in question includes these possible candidates for FNF:

St George Illawarra v Parramatta
Brisbane v Canterbury
Gold Coast v Sydney
Canberra v Wests Tigers

As the Anzac Day game is on Monday in round 7, it's very unlikely the Dragons or Roosters will play on the following Friday, so that reduces the options.

 

[supera]

well good! hopefully the raiders vs the tigers is on the friday night so i can piss off the wedding and just go to the footy!

i'd expect that 9 and the NRL might make a change for one round only and have just the one friday night match - then a bonus match on the sunday arvo i reckon.

 

[BunniesMan]

As I understand it, the first question the people will vote on is -do we want to get rid of the monarchy and become a republic. To that I say yes.

The next question deals with the model of electing a president. Whichever model wins that vote is fine by me.

And that's why it failed in 1999. I for one will vote No. I'm not voting Yes until I know what we're getting ourselves into. I don't want to vote Yes just to get us a stupid model. And that's a concern of a signficiant number of people, enough to decide the referendum.

And if the next referendum fails it would be the last until William and Kate die. Because the best oppurtunity to do it is while Charles is king because everyone hates him, and he won't be around long enough for 2 referendums. And if the referendum fails while he is King then William and Kate will be King and Queen and enough obsessiveive gen y girls will be obsessed in them to stop any referendum.

So if we're going to bother with a referendum, we better get it right or it'll just be 1999 2.0. From what I've heard the polls now are less strongly in favour of a republic than they were in 1999, so there's even more pressure to not f**k it up if we're going to do it at all.

 

[supera]

the last referendum was the right question, people were just too stupid to understand it.

we have never had the opportunity to vote for our head of state, we didn't need the opportunity to vote for a president. we elect our parliament, let them deal with the head of state.

 

[BunniesMan]

the last referendum was the right question, people were just too stupid to understand it.

we have never had the opportunity to vote for our head of state, we didn't need the opportunity to vote for a president. we elect our parliament, let them deal with the head of state.

And with how little people think of the politicians we do have, do you really think people will vote to trust them with that? If we don't have a monarchy, we'll have an elected president. Noone is going to want to spend millions and billions of dollars just to make a cosmetic change to our system. Either change it properly or don't change it at all.

 

[Green Machine]

OK, hands up for the 9 f**kwitts who want to watch the loyal wedding over the NRL?

 

[Perth Red]

TBF whenever anyone hears the word "president" they think of Bush and think why the frick would we vote for that? Maybe we need a new Aussie word to describe some nominal figure who gets voted in but really does very little othe rthan have the power to dissolve Govt if things really go pear shaped.

 

[Perth Red]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to get out to a live game! Whoever plays that Friday night should make sure they are at a big stadium.

 

[ANTiLAG]

Every unmarried man with a partner is going to feel more uncomfortable watching the wedding than watching their own team take on a salary cheating storm outfit in a must win game.

I remember going to a party that coincided with Di's funeral. Needless to say, once the tele was turned on, and the girls sat glued in front of it, that the mood of the party changed.

 

[LESStar58]

Reading the Telecrap* this morning & it looks like ch9 will reschedule the NRL games set down for the 29th April as the Royal wedding will be on at 8pm that night with all networks set to cover the event, a nine spokesman said "its a very important event and we want to cover it to the best of our ability. We have not made a decision on the NRL yet but it will be something we will liik at over the next couple of weeks."thoughts ?

This is obviously that ex-AFL lollipoper now in charge of NEIN towing the line on the issue of "female friendly" programming. Channel 9 continue to f**k rugby league in the arse over 2 Pommy merkins from an inbred royal family who are becoming less and less relevant to Australian culture as the years pass. At least the Irish fought the merkins tooth and nail for 500 years before they got their independence. Meanwhile, we continue to suck the teet of mother England. f**k em.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Its simple, compromise. At 730 we watch the footy as per usual. At 1030, we watch their honeymoon.

 

[bobmar28]

And that's why it failed in 1999. I for one will vote No. I'm not voting Yes until I know what we're getting ourselves into. I don't want to vote Yes just to get us a stupid model. And that's a concern of a signficiant number of people, enough to decide the referendum.

And if the next referendum fails it would be the last until William and Kate die. Because the best oppurtunity to do it is while Charles is king because everyone hates him, and he won't be around long enough for 2 referendums. And if the referendum fails while he is King then William and Kate will be King and Queen and enough obsessiveive gen y girls will be obsessed in them to stop any referendum.

So if we're going to bother with a referendum, we better get it right or it'll just be 1999 2.0. From what I've heard the polls now are less strongly in favour of a republic than they were in 1999, so there's even more pressure to not f**k it up if we're going to do it at all.

Ok you're a monarchist. Fair enough. The point is the initial vote is for the public to decide whether they want to get rid of an outdated monarchy and move into the 21st century. If the Australian people decided that was the way to go then a vote on which type of election for the president would follow and only then would a referendum be called.

 

[skeepe]

Sounds like a perfect opportunity to get out to a live game! Whoever plays that Friday night should make sure they are at a big stadium.

People keep saying that, but that only helps people who live in the city the game is being played, not the rest of the country.

 

[BunniesMan]

Ok you're a monarchist. Fair enough. The point is the initial vote is for the public to decide whether they want to get rid of an outdated monarchy and move into the 21st century. If the Australian people decided that was the way to go then a vote on which type of election for the president would follow and only then would a referendum be called.

I'm certainly not a monarchist. But the current system is tolerable, and I won't vote to change it if I don't know what it will be changed too. And it's not just me that thinks that way, I think you'll find a lot of people voted No in 1999 for the same reason.

The definition of crazy is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. If the referendum takes the same route it did in 1999 it will fail again.

 

[muzby]

The definition of crazy is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

like continually paying overs for a player and then bragging that he will win a premiership for you next year?

fletcher..
wing..
asotasi..
taylor..
inglis..

 

[The Engineers Room]

Ok you're a monarchist. Fair enough. The point is the initial vote is for the public to decide whether they want to get rid of an outdated monarchy and move into the 21st century. If the Australian people decided that was the way to go then a vote on which type of election for the president would follow and only then would a referendum be called.

Firstly, I would hope your first question would not be worded like that. That is a loaded question. Also, how would people vote in the first two ballots you propose? Via SMS to a 199 number? They would need to be referenda then a third one, how much money do you think the government has to waste on three ballots?

If they come up with a good enough system then people will vote in a referendum for it, but no system is as stable as the current one. And to change it just for the sake of it is a stupid waste of time and money, money that could be spend on more serious issues.