News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[A Banderas]

Don’t know why they bothered to be honest.

they shoulda just left it alone i reckon

 

[Socrates2]

But the award was never made, to the satisfaction of club historians. It's similar to the mythical "Champion of the Colony" award from the early years, for which Vic Thorp was credited as a two-time winner. Turned out it was a retrospective title created by journalists years down the track.

Preserving historical fact is the right thing to do.

Rhett said they were awarded in the late 80's retrospectively, what's the story with that? I can't find any info.

 

[Ron The Bear]

A bit pedantic I reckon.

If the club decided in the 80s that these blokes deserved to win the best and fairest for those years they should have just left it, and maybe just put an asterisk next those years saying it was awarded retrospectively.

Strongly disagree. In Peter Blair's comprehensive history of the Brownlow Medal, he notes that Dyer was the popular choice for the League's best player in 1944, while the award was suspended. What you're suggesting would be like the AFL publishing in next year's season guide that Dyer won the 1944 Brownlow. It's bunkum.

Rhett said they were awarded in the late 80's retrospectively, what's the story with that? I can't find any info.

Apparently Dyer's name was first associated with the award in the 1988 annual report.

Not going to post any more on this topic. Just surprised there is so much opposition to making the club's history more accurate. It's about established facts, not interpretations.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Don’t understand why people are upset

I’m sure dyer himself wouldn’t want an award attached to him if in fact he wasn’t awarded it at the time

history is history and the club made the right decision in changing the records to reflect the facts even if people don’t like it

 

[Socrates2]

Was it during Neville Crow's presidency when they got awarded?

 

[Bojangles17]

Im Curious how they determined these recipients in the first place , strange that there weee none 1930-1934 when in fact they were awarded in years prior . For mine there’s too many unanswered questions and I would have preferred they left as is

 

[Socrates2]

Don’t understand why people are upset

I’m sure dyer himself wouldn’t want an award attached to him if in fact he wasn’t awarded it at the time

history is history and the club made the right decision in changing the records to reflect the facts even if people don’t like it

His son isn't happy about it, in fact he's pissed off.

 

[Muddiemoose]

His son isn't happy about it, in fact he's pissed off.

with all due respect that is his son and of course he would be upset but at the end of the day he hasn’t got anything to do with it

Dyer was only awarded it in the mid 80’s anyway it wasn’t as if he was awarded it at the time than was taken away

 

[Slipps]

The fact is why the does Emmett even care piss off leave the richmond legends legacy alone.. just because you dont have a statue outside punt rd oval.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

He's still Jack Dyer a Legend to me...regardless...

 

[telsor]

Emmett Dunne can't find evidence of an award that year. Dyer's son 'very dissapointed'.

Senior (ex-)Police officer conducts internal investigation and fails to find evidence...

We really should have seen this one coming.

 

[sandeano]

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend"

Any chance that the scrutinising of the records could find no evidence of other events occurring?

Such as Alan Bond being made President?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

This all could have waited until we are bottom 4 again and back to the days of eating our own.

 

[Punt rd end]

16 other players were affected as well

 

[69vintage]

Geez if the Dyer family are pissed with the club for taking away 1 BF imagine their disappointment when the club knocks down the stand named after him

On SM-A520F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[joelsyt]

History is one of the most important things in this world, so I get why this was done, however the journo’s could have stopped a s**t storm if they’d just published the correct information, but I guess they’re journo’s, creating s**t storms is what they do best.

 

[captain blood 17]

Don’t know why they bothered to be honest.

i’m in this grouping right here.

 

[fumbler]

I can’t wait until Emmett finds out we’re actually Collingwood

 

[tigerdan]

I agree that we want the records to reflect the facts.

What i'm disappointed about is the club's statement does not give any information about the award of retrospective b&fs in the 80s. There's just some comment about "discrepancies were brought to light".

It would have been better to have just put *1932 with a comment (*awarded retrospectively in 1988).

I support the club's research into game played and goals kicked. It's quite interesting.

But changing the club's records because you simply don't agree with them being awarded retrospectively in the 80s does not sit well with me.

As someone who was awarded a RFC life membership on behalf of a relative two years ago i'm very thankful for the honour.

What that proves is there's precedent for retrospective awards. If the awards were wrong then at least let the reasoning be posted in the club's statement.

They misinterpreted Annual Reports and Minute Books.

Could you please elaborate on this point?

 

[Al Heimer]

If Constable Plod wants to fu**arse around with our history how about he gets the AFL to cancel all the bullshit 'Argus' Grand Final results in the early 1900's. We actually should have been awarded two of Collingwood's given flags.

On SM-J250F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Socrates2]

I agree that we want the records to reflect the facts.

What i'm disappointed about is the club's statement does not give any information about the award of retrospective b&fs in the 80s. There's just some comment about "discrepancies were brought to light".

It would have been better to have just put *1932 with a comment (*awarded retrospectively in 1988).

I support the club's research into game played and goals kicked. It's quite interesting.

But changing the club's records because you simply don't agree with them being awarded retrospectively in the 80s does not sit well with me.

As someone who was awarded a RFC life membership on behalf of a relative two years ago i'm very thankful for the honour.

What that proves is there's precedent for retrospective awards. If the awards were wrong then at least let the reasoning be posted in the club's statement.



Could you please elaborate on this point?

Totally agree.Why no info on who gave retrospective b&f in the late 80's? Are those people deceased now?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I agree that we want the records to reflect the facts.

What i'm disappointed about is the club's statement does not give any information about the award of retrospective b&fs in the 80s. There's just some comment about "discrepancies were brought to light".

It would have been better to have just put *1932 with a comment (*awarded retrospectively in 1988).

I support the club's research into game played and goals kicked. It's quite interesting.

But changing the club's records because you simply don't agree with them being awarded retrospectively in the 80s does not sit well with me.

As someone who was awarded a RFC life membership on behalf of a relative two years ago i'm very thankful for the honour.

What that proves is there's precedent for retrospective awards. If the awards were wrong then at least let the reasoning be posted in the club's statement.



Could you please elaborate on this point?

Good point...not a bad place to start from if your intending to do house record cleaning!

 

[Ned_Flanders]

It was clear in the research that the respective awarding was incorrect.

And it's pretty tacky to give someone something in the late 80's (fifty years after the event), and then take it away thirty years later

Even more tacky is taking it away when they are dead and they don't have the opportunity to defend their position.

Accuracy is one thing. But our club chose to issue these awards retrospectively. To turn around and say "soz, our bad, lol" is pretty pathetic in my book

And this isn't about Dyer, it's more about the rest who lack the accolades he had, and to whom thiS may have meant more

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

And it's pretty tacky to give someone something in the late 80's (fifty years after the event), and then take it away thirty years later

Even more tacky is taking it away when they are dead and they don't have the opportunity to defend their position.

Accuracy is one thing. But our club chose to issue these awards retrospectively. To turn around and say "soz, our bad, lol" is pretty pathetic in my book

And this isn't about Dyer, it's more about the rest who lack the accolades he had, and to whom thiS may have meant more

 

[Ned_Flanders]

View attachment 787110

Stop day drinking you idiot