News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[NZ_Tiger]

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.

Don’t think it’s made anyone’s life any better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[rmcq]

Where's the truth that they were given out incorrectly? That's right, crickets chirp in the distance.

See, something here doesn't jive.

If the awards were given out in the 80s, why are they asking for proof from the families?

Do they even know the criteria that was used?

The club gave my family a retrospective life membership two years ago. They made a retrospective decision.

Hell, they have changed the voting criteria for the Richmond bnf at least 4 times that I can remember. It's used to be 321, then it was 321 split into backs, forwards and midfielders, then it was every player on the ground got a vote (which saw knights lose to daffy one year), they even had some weird system the year Dan Jackson won it. And yeah, the club awarded a bunch of bnf awards retrospectively in the 80s.

Now if you don't agree with retrospective awards that's fine but I better lock away that life membership in case someone decides to take it away from me because back in 1905 you didn't get a life membership.

i don’t disagree with retrospective awards at all, not sure where you got that idea?

We are not privy to the details that’s correct, but it seems like you’re assuming that they made a mistake whereas I’m assuming that Bartlett et al have been extensive and thorough and did not recommend this action lightly. I’m also assuming that Gale, etc. made a considered decision whereas you assume otherwise.

Now sure maybe it was the wrong decision, but I personally think that’s highly unlikely based on the people involved.

 

[rmcq]

Don’t think it’s made anyone’s life any better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed. This administration is not known for taking the easy road.

 

[Punt rd end]

Where's the truth that they were given out incorrectly? That's right, crickets chirp in the distance.

See, something here doesn't jive.

If the awards were given out in the 80s, why are they asking for proof from the families?

Do they even know the criteria that was used?

The club gave my family a retrospective life membership two years ago. They made a retrospective decision.

Hell, they have changed the voting criteria for the Richmond bnf at least 4 times that I can remember. It's used to be 321, then it was 321 split into backs, forwards and midfielders, then it was every player on the ground got a vote (which saw knights lose to daffy one year), they even had some weird system the year Dan Jackson won it. And yeah, the club awarded a bunch of bnf awards retrospectively in the 80s.

Now if you don't agree with retrospective awards that's fine but I better lock away that life membership in case someone decides to take it away from me because back in 1905 you didn't get a life membership.

19 years of research into the clubs history threw up some discrepancies, this research was done by Trevor Ruddell (MCC Asst. Library), Rhett Bartlett, + Roland Weeks (Museum Curator). I want the club record to be correct not some feelgood B&Fs handed out to 16 players.

 

[NZ_Tiger]

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

We really should have seen this one coming.

Also finds the award beat itself to death.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

i don’t disagree with retrospective awards at all, not sure where you got that idea?

We are not privy to the details that’s correct, but it seems like you’re assuming that they made a mistake whereas I’m assuming that Bartlett et al have been extensive and thorough and did not recommend this action lightly. I’m also assuming that Gale, etc. made a considered decision whereas you assume otherwise.

Now sure maybe it was the wrong decision, but I personally think that’s highly unlikely based on the people involved.

Well if that's the case...
Are they also going to double check in detail all those memberships the club lost some while back and took the member's word as to how long they really held their club memberships for...

 

[mauricerioli]

Where's the truth that they were given out incorrectly? That's right, crickets chirp in the distance.

See, something here doesn't jive.

If the awards were given out in the 80s, why are they asking for proof from the families?

Do they even know the criteria that was used?

The club gave my family a retrospective life membership two years ago. They made a retrospective decision.

Hell, they have changed the voting criteria for the Richmond bnf at least 4 times that I can remember. It's used to be 321, then it was 321 split into backs, forwards and midfielders, then it was every player on the ground got a vote (which saw knights lose to daffy one year), they even had some weird system the year Dan Jackson won it. And yeah, the club awarded a bunch of bnf awards retrospectively in the 80s.

Now if you don't agree with retrospective awards that's fine but I better lock away that life membership in case someone decides to take it away from me because back in 1905 you didn't get a life membership.

Agreed.

The life membership criteria for players has been changed by this current admin from 150 games or 10 years, to any player who plays in a Premiership.
Will the club admin in 30 years decide that was incorrectly awarded and take it off the players?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Going by that logic the club should not be proudly displaying the premiership cups from 20,21,32,34 and 43 in our trophy cabinet because they are not authentic.

No premiership cups were awarded until 1959.

There’s an argument to be had that the club shouldn’t have gone to the considerable expense of having those retrospective cups made, but what’s not in dispute is that the club won the premiership in those years. The cups are an aesthetic thing that’s neither here nor there.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The only way the club's course of action can be agreed with is if there was some sort of dishonesty or nepotism involved in the retrospective awards.

Not suggesting that’s the case, but in 1988 the clubhad no money, no members and the closest thing to a star player was Jeff Hogg. About the only thing we had going for us was our proud (but distant) history. Dyer was a central figure in fundraising efforts and if “fleshing out”the club’s history was seen as beneficial, it would be somewhat understandable.

Agree though that the mechanism for making these historical additions would be interesting to hear, but perhaps embarrassing for those involved.

 

[NZ_Tiger]

This whole thing feels very pedantic and completely tone deaf.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Not suggesting that’s the case, but in 1988 the clubhad no money, no members and the closest thing to a star player was Jeff Hogg. About the only thing we had going for us was our proud (but distant) history. Dyer was a central figure in fundraising efforts and if “fleshing out”the club’s history was seen as beneficial, it would be somewhat understandable.

Agree though that the mechanism for making these historical additions would be interesting to hear, but perhaps embarrassing for those involved.

Are you suggesting the club bullshitted the BnF retro results solely to raise coin?

I'd either take that back or validate it, because it's a contemptible accusation to make

 

[Foley#41]

If no B&F was decided in a particular year, then the club records should not show a winner for that year.
Simples.

 

[Muddiemoose]

Are you suggesting the club bullshitted the BnF retro results solely to raise coin?

I'd either take that back or validate it, because it's a contemptible accusation to make

To be fair awarding the awards retrospectively in the first place would of purely been a marketing exercise

since the awards didn’t exist at the time there isn’t any other reason to do it than to generate press

not saying I think the club made up the results or anything but just as to why they were awarded in the first place

 

[Bojangles17]

The only way the club's course of action can be agreed with is if there was some sort of dishonesty or nepotism involved in the retrospective awards.

Unless there's threat of legal action by 80s era board members then there is no reason why we can't be told the actual story.

I've briefly met both Rhett and Emmett a few times and they bleed yellow and black but this thing is in the realm of pencil necked dweebs if they want it withdrawn simply because there were no official votes cast by the RFC in those years. What was the criteria involved, or don't they even know?

Unless there was something dishonest in the 80s then the honour roll should not be changed.

As a compromise I'd support it being given to the highest Brownlow vote getter for that particular year. That would at least fix the missing years back to 1924.

Well said dan , if the case was flimsy and completely fabricated then I’d support this move . We need to clearly understand what was done in the 80s

 

[Ned_Flanders]

To be fair awarding the awards retrospectively in the first place would of purely been a marketing exercise

since the awards didn’t exist at the time there isn’t any other reason to do it than to generate press

not saying I think the club made up the results or anything but just as to why they were awarded in the first place

I just dont like the inference these guys were only honoured to help get us out of the hole

 

[DeLaCon]

The club needs to show the evidence that Dyer Thorp Geddes and co. Didnt win. The onus is on the club not the other way around.

 

[Michaels]

I encourage you all to read rbartlett Twitter posts on this to get a better understanding before s**t canning people and what happened.

- the incorrect records were stumbled across by accident when they were looking at something else, so it's not like it was a direct witch hunt.

-in those early years sponsors donated and picked the award. Some were weekly, player of the game etc.

-from what I can understand the retrospective awarding of a best and fairest in the 80s wasnt actually approved or ticked off by the club. And why it happened I dont think anyone knows.

So there are a lot of circumstances around this and strong evidence.

It doesn't diminish anyones views of the players involved in any way, we know they were great players, reckon its play on for this one.

 

[tigerdan]

19 years of research into the clubs history threw up some discrepancies, this research was done by Trevor Ruddell (MCC Asst. Library), Rhett Bartlett, + Roland Weeks (Museum Curator). I want the club record to be correct not some feelgood B&Fs handed out to 16 players.

If there was 19 years of research I want to see it.

So far... Nothing except for weasel words.

The best I can make from it is this:

They can't find any reference to votes from the disputed years and they can't get to the bottom of the rationale used in the 80s.

If this is all the historians have got (absence of proof) it's petty.

All I want is rationale for used in the 80s decision. All I hear is crickets.

 

[tigerdan]

There’s an argument to be had that the club shouldn’t have gone to the considerable expense of having those retrospective cups made, but what’s not in dispute is that the club won the premiership in those years. The cups are an aesthetic thing that’s neither here nor there.

What's also not in dispute is that a bunch of best and fairest awards were retrospectively awarded by the RFC to former players.

 

[Michaels]

If there was 19 years of research I want to see it.

So far... Nothing except for weasel words.

The best I can make from it is this:

They can't find any reference to votes from the disputed years and they can't get to the bottom of the rationale used in the 80s.

If this is all the historians have got (absence of proof) it's petty.

All I want is rationale for used in the 80s decision. All I hear is crickets.

The decision in the 80s was never sanctioned or reviewed by the club.

And no one was ever awarded the best and fairest in the first place

 

[Ron The Bear]

Are you suggesting the club bullshitted the BnF retro results solely to raise coin?

I'd either take that back or validate it, because it's a contemptible accusation to make

Not "bullshitted", exactly. "Interpreted" is probably a more appropriate word.

Why, I don't know. I'm only speculating.

 

[NZ_Tiger]

This stuff shits me. It’s not as bad as when they changed the song but it’s the same nerdy I know everything about Richmond fc mindset. Just ******* leave it alone we were all happy with the way it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TigerImposter]

Surely the RFC in those missing years of B&F awards had an outstanding player in the team or were all men equal in those years? There would be archives of evidence suggesting who performed in individual games to make an accurate decision who was the best player in each of those years. Surely this process was used in 1988???
This is more embarrassing than 2016 and Ernst and Young need to be called in again as Constable Dunne seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
Gutted for all those great Tiger men who’ve lost their honours and rightfully so their families should be irate.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Surely the RFC in those missing years of B&F awards had an outstanding player in the team or were all men equal in those years? There would be archives of evidence suggesting who performed in individual games to make an accurate decision who was the best player in each of those years. Surely this process was used in 1988???
This is more embarrassing than 2016 and Ernst and Young need to be called in again as Constable Dunne seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
Gutted for all those great Tiger men who’ve lost their honours and rightfully so their families should be irate.

Not even the AFL has attempted this with the Norm Smith, and of course they have complete footage of numerous grand finals. But they backdated the Coleman as it requires no subjective judgement.

The other families accepted the decision; only the Dyer family is unhappy (which of course is their prerogative).

 

[TigerImposter]

Not even the AFL has attempted this with the Norm Smith, and of course they have complete footage of numerous grand finals. But they backdated the Coleman as it requires no subjective judgement.

The other families accepted the decision; only the Dyer family is unhappy (which of course is their prerogative).

That’s absurd as I’ve never heard a mention of going back to award NS medals back in time. We’re talking about a BF award which is based on a season of games and not one game.
There would be archives supporting the findings of the 88 committee who went back and researched this.
A good archaeologist looks for bones and other remnants to add to history to give us a picture of what life was like back then whereas a bad one removes historical evidence and distorts it
Surely the RFC had an outstanding individual in those years and there’s enough evidence to support this. The only dispute could be if there were players of high and equal recognition according to the tabloids and in this case I would honour both of them as at least it gives me a historical perspective to what happened. Removing these names is the work of amateur historians and puts a void in RFC folklore.