News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[Ned_Flanders]

JD is currently losing his 1932 B&F on speculative guesses dripping with mayo?!?!

When they say "but if they can prove it happened we will change it again" there is still a big ratio of speculation and uncertainty in this decision

Remember they made this call because they could find something, not because they confirmed nothing happened

 

[Tiger Soze]

Ok, ok my post was directed to RD in relation to Historical accuracy is 'speculative guesswork dripping with Mayo'... ...
Well maybe you need to have a go at the Thread Title as well just for accuracy...
But for you in reference to JD not being awarded the 1932 B&F...it has not been speculative guesswork dripping with Mayo! ...would I now be correct?!?

I’m not having a go at you mate so relax, several people around here have referenced JD as losing the 1932 B&F which is factually incorrect.
And yes the title of the thread is totally incorrect as you point out, well done!

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

When they say "but if they can prove it happened we will change it again" there is still a big ratio of speculation and uncertainty in this decision

Remember they made this call because they could find something, not because they confirmed nothing happened

I understand in issues like these it is never Final...not everybody is going to end up completely happy!...and that for some it's ongoing issue till proven 100%...
( cos you need to cover your arse and not end up looking like a tool!)

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I’m not having a go at you mate so relax, several people around here have referenced JD as losing the 1932 B&F which is factually incorrect.
And yes the title of the thread is totally incorrect as you point out, well done!

 

[Ron The Bear]

When they say "but if they can prove it happened we will change it again" there is still a big ratio of speculation and uncertainty in this decision

Remember they made this call because they could find something, not because they confirmed nothing happened

The club’s official history book, Tigerland, was released at the time of the additions and it seems possible or even likely that there is a connection.

Leaving the gate open if new evidence comes to light is exactly the right approach, and the Dyer family has vowed to find such evidence. Unfortunately the 1932 Hoyts Theatre award cited in support does nothing to show that the club awarded a b&f that year.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The club’s official history book, Tigerland, was released at the time of the additions and it seems possible or even likely that there is a connection.

Leaving the gate open if new evidence comes to light is exactly the right approach, and the Dyer family has vowed to find such evidence. Unfortunately the 1932 Hoyts Theatre award cited in support does nothing to show that the club awarded a b&f that year.

My issue is why the club let this go for 30 years

Saying they won't say isn't acceptable. You are blaming them chasing money, others are saying it's incompetent staff, others are saying it was the media and the club just went along for the ride.

If the club want this decision accepted, they need to be public about how the 1988 decision was made, and why it's now wrong

This "trust us" reply isn't good enough

 

[Ron The Bear]

My issue is why the club let this go for 30 years

Saying they won't say isn't acceptable. You are blaming them chasing money, others are saying it's incompetent staff, others are saying it was the media and the club just went along for the ride.

If the club want this decision accepted, they need to be public about how the 1988 decision was made, and why it's now wrong

This "trust us" reply isn't good enough

I speculated as to whether it was related to the club's parlous circumstances, but further posts from Rhett show this wasn't the case. Mistakes were made in interpreting annual reports and meeting minutes. Maybe this was related to the publication of the book I mentioned (of which I own a copy), maybe not, but Rhett has already said he doesn't want to embarrass those involved. The end.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I speculated as to whether it was related to the club's parlous circumstances, but further posts from Rhett show this wasn't the case. Mistakes were made in interpreting annual reports and meeting minutes. Maybe this was related to the publication of the book I mentioned, maybe not, but Rhett has already said he doesn't want to embarrass those involved. The end.

Sorry, but not the end. If it's people screwed up, that's fine, but we need to know the details of how the screw up was made.

I don't want people's heads on a pike, but I don't accept "trust me, but I'm not telling" as an explanation

I know the club and Rhett have dismissed people on this by saying "they never received a medal, so it doesn't matter", but it does. These records are important, and changes need to be transparent and open.

Our club is brilliantly run, but this has been poorly handled, explained, and justified.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Sorry, but not the end. If it's people screwed up, that's fine, but we need to know the details of how the screw up was made.

I don't want people's heads on a pike, but I don't accept "trust me, but I'm not telling" as an explanation

I know the club and Rhett have dismissed people on this by saying "they never received a medal, so it doesn't matter", but it does. These records are important, and changes need to be transparent and open.

Our club is brilliantly run, but this has been poorly handled, explained, and justified.

Then you should go along to the AGM and press Gale for further details as you suggested earlier.

I understand that this is an unexpectedly emotive issue for some. There are calls on the club’s Twitter account for the “nobody” Emmett Dunne to be sacked. Agree it could’ve been explained better, but I also suspect there is an element of dissenters not wanting to understand the facts.

 

[rmcq]

Sorry, but not the end. If it's people screwed up, that's fine, but we need to know the details of how the screw up was made.

I don't want people's heads on a pike, but I don't accept "trust me, but I'm not telling" as an explanation

I know the club and Rhett have dismissed people on this by saying "they never received a medal, so it doesn't matter", but it does. These records are important, and changes need to be transparent and open.

Our club is brilliantly run, but this has been poorly handled, explained, and justified.

Rhett Bartlett has been quite clear even on this thread that the exact circumstances of the 1988 stuff-up won’t be revealed by him. Which means it’s up to whoever ****ed up to choose to come forward.

Bad luck for you that you’re not the one to have given up your time to do the research yourself.

 

[blaisee]

Don't like this at all to be honest, think it is huge amount of emotional resources spent with no benefit to anyone

Instead of reveling in our brilliance of winning the flag, we are dealing with this garbage, and the question remains, if you follow the money who actually gains from this?

I am of the view that the club should award a best and fairest every year the club runs out on the park. If it wasn't awarded then, it should be awarded now, there are about 200+people on the payroll down there, so surely they can work it out. On what basis has it been decided that a best fairest should be awarded for 1944, but not 1934? Its just dumb, arbitrary and whether the club likes it or not, smells of hidden agendas, power trips and us reverting to type, "eating our own"

Instead of taking away from our heroes, people that are the fabric of the club, they should be building them up more, not less. This is why I am so pro the life membership for premiership players, this is the complete opposite, why not give best and fairest to the families of the era? What exactly do we have to lose? Nothing is the answer.

What they should not be doing, under any circumstances is diminishing the Jack Dyer name and legacy, which they have, IMHO completely unnecessarily.

This for me is the most stupid, shortsighted, and negative thing the club has done in about a decade.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Rhett Bartlett has been quite clear even on this thread that the exact circumstances of the 1988 stuff-up won’t be revealed by him. Which means it’s up to whoever f’ed up to choose to come forward.

Bad luck for you that you’re not the one to have given up your time to do the research yourself.

It's not Rhett's job to explain anything, it's the clubs

And as a member I have a right to ask questions of the club. The day we stop doing that is the day we turn into something like Carlton

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Then you should go along to the AGM and press Gale for further details as you suggested earlier.

I understand that this is an unexpectedly emotive issue for some. There are calls on the club’s Twitter account for the “nobody” Emmett Dunne to be sacked. Agree it could’ve been explained better, but I also suspect there is an element of dissenters not wanting to understand the facts.

Yep, and yep

 

[Ron The Bear]

Don't like this at all to be honest, think it is huge amount of emotional resources spent with no benefit to anyone

Would you concede that the club has taken the harder path here, rather than the path of least resistance when confronted with awkward facts?

As for the rest, maybe have a look at Geelong’s early b&f record for some perspective. History is often ragged.

 

[blaisee]

Would you concede that the club has taken the harder path here, rather than the path of least resistance when confronted with awkward facts?

As for the rest, maybe have a look at Geelong’s early b&f history for some perspective.

it is harder, and more stupid, with no real benefit.

It is a decision made that is not reasonable logical or prudent.

It doesn't make any sense, and it reeks of someone that has a hidden agenda and the power to act on it.

 

[Michaels]

Don't like this at all to be honest, think it is huge amount of emotional resources spent with no benefit to anyone

Instead of reveling in our brilliance of winning the flag, we are dealing with this garbage, and the question remains, if you follow the money who actually gains from this?

I am of the view that the club should award a best and fairest every year the club runs out on the park. If it wasn't awarded then, it should be awarded now, there are about 200+people on the payroll down there, so surely they can work it out. On what basis has it been decided that a best fairest should be awarded for 1944, but not 1934? Its just dumb, arbitrary and whether the club likes it or not, smells of hidden agendas, power trips and us reverting to type, "eating our own"

Instead of taking away from our heroes, people that are the fabric of the club, they should be building them up more, not less. This is why I am so pro the life membership for premiership players, this is the complete opposite, why not give best and fairest to the families of the era? What exactly do we have to lose? Nothing is the answer.

What they should not be doing, under any circumstances is diminishing the Jack Dyer name and legacy, which they have, IMHO completely unnecessarily.

This for me is the most stupid, shortsighted, and negative thing the club has done in about a decade.

way over the top comment there i reckon.

the recipients never had the award to begin with, it never existed.

It's not like they have been awarded the B&F all along since the 30's and 40's.

And even when the retrospective 'awarding' took place in the 80's it wasn't really official, players / families were not notified etc.


Literally all that is being done is actually correcting the initial, real records.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It doesn't make any sense, and it reeks of someone that has a hidden agenda and the power to act on it.

That last part doesn't make much sense to me.

The AFL (controversially) still lists winners of the 'Champion of the Colony' award in oifficial publications, a fictitious title invented by an otherwise respected historian in the 1950's. Currently they credit Dyer with wins in 1942 and 1943, while Peter Blair nominated Dyer as the League's best in 1944 in his written history of the Brownlow. The Dyer family says Jack approached the board in this period and told them he did not want to be awarded b&f votes, which would explain his b&f "drought" in the early 40's. But it's clear he was a remarkable player.

I'm willing to bet many dissenters would mark Dyer down with the knowledge that he baited, and caused great offence to, Doug Nicholls in order to put him off his game (e.g. "Get downwind of me, you stink!"). Facts are facts.

What's important is that his legacy endures, whether he is credited with ten b&f's or three. The legend is not defined by a number, and never was.

 

[blaisee]

way over the top comment there i reckon.

the recipients never had the award to begin with, it never existed.

It's not like they have been awarded the B&F all along since the 30's and 40's.

And even when the retrospective 'awarding' took place in the 80's it wasn't really official, players / families were not notified etc.


Literally all that is being done is actually correcting the initial, real records.

thats cool

Can you give me one good reason why some years best and fairests were awarded and some not?

and the second question, give me one good reason why that should not be fixed now? Instead of taking best and fairests off people, why are we not filling in the gaps?

 

[Muddiemoose]

Also would like to add

no matter what side of the issue we might sit on some of the hate directed at Rhett and our board members have been a joke (not on here but other social media platforms)

nothing wrong with questioning a decision but keep it civil and on issue imo

 

[blaisee]

That last part doesn't make much sense to me.

The AFL (controversially) still lists winners of the 'Champion of the Colony' award in oifficial publications, a fictitious title invented by an otherwise respected historian in the 1950's. Currently they credit Dyer with wins in 1942 and 1943, while Peter Blair nominated Dyer as the League's best in 1944 in his written history of the Brownlow. The Dyer family says Jack approached the board in this period and told them he did not want to be awarded b&f votes, which would explain his b&f "drought" in the early 40's. But it's clear he was a remarkable player.

I'm willing to bet many dissenters would mark Dyer down with the knowledge that he regularly baited, and caused great offence to, Doug Nicholls in order to put him off his game (e.g. "Get downwind of me, you stink!"). Facts are facts.

What's important is that his legacy endures, whether he is credited with ten b&f's or three. The legend is not defined by a number, and never was.

That's a fine opinion to have, but it is not shared by me.

Before last weekend Jack Dyer had 6 best and fairests for Richmond, the most in our history.

Now he has 5, the same as KB.

So why do we call the best and fairest the Jack Dyer medal? Why is not called the KB medal?

Do you understand that all these things have flow on effects? It stinks.

 

[blaisee]

Also would like to add

no matter what side of the issue we might sit on some of the hate directed at Rhett and our board members have been a joke (not on here but other social media platforms)

nothing wrong with questioning a decision but keep it civil and on issue imo

I agree with this. No need for abuse and hatred.

I have every right to ask the questions I have asked, follow the money, who wins from this

 

[Michaels]

thats cool

Can you give me one good reason why some years best and fairests were awarded and some not?

and the second question, give me one good reason why that should not be fixed now? Instead of taking best and fairests off people, why are we not filling in the gaps?

because they never existed in the fist place, so in essence they aren't having anything taken off them as it was never theirs to begin with.

It has already been explained in this thread why they didn't exist back in some of those years, because a lot of the awards were donated by individual sponsors. could have been for player of the week / month, best goal, player of the year, whatever they wanted.

pretty straight forward.


I'll give you a question now.

If you want the gaps filled of those years that no official award was given, on what basis / stats / records / information are we to base it off given the award never existed or was awarded then? Media articles? kicks / marks / handballs? Brownlow medal votes? Past players families recolection of events? Who the local papers awarded the best?

The very same question can be asked about what did they use to retrospectively give out the awards in the 80s.


I'm sure no one would have an issue in filling in the gaps and correctly awarding a best and fairest if proper / actual data existed on which a decision like that can be based on.

 

[Michaels]

That's a fine opinion to have, but it is not shared by me.

Before last weekend Jack Dyer had 6 best and fairests for Richmond, the most in our history.

Now he has 5, the same as KB.

So why do we call the best and fairest the Jack Dyer medal? Why is not called the KB medal?

Do you understand that all these things have flow on effects? It stinks.

As has been said, he is defined by more than just an award count.

The Best and Fairest award was named the Jack Dyer medal in 1964, while he had 5 best and fairest to his name.

the 6th* was the retrospective one done in the 80s

KB's last B&F was in 1977, so still prior to the change that showed Jack Dyer on 6.

If it was all about numbers the award name would have been amended to the Jack Dyer / Kevin Bartlett award during that period of time they were on equal standings if we were to go on that theory.

 

[Ron The Bear]

That's a fine opinion to have, but it is not shared by me.

That's OK.

Before last weekend Jack Dyer had 6 best and fairests for Richmond, the most in our history.

Now he has 5, the same as KB.

Big deal. It's like the "premiership tally" that many carry on about - football clubs are not defined by a number, except to the superficial.

So why do we call the best and fairest the Jack Dyer medal? Why is not called the KB medal?

It was originally called the Vic Thorp Shield and came into being after Thorp passed away in 1941. Thorp at that time held the games record at Richmond and was regarded by many as its greatest player. Prior to that, no formalised "best and fairest" award existed.

Do you understand that all these things have flow on effects?

Of course, which is why the club went to the trouble of contacting the families. They all accepted the club's decision, except the Dyer family. And it's OK that they're upset, but the facts need to prevail. I expect the club would be pleased if they are able to show that Dyer won such an award in 1932.

 

[Tiger Soze]

thats cool

Can you give me one good reason why some years best and fairests were awarded and some not?

and the second question, give me one good reason why that should not be fixed now? Instead of taking best and fairests off people, why are we not filling in the gaps?

Interesting perspective, why do you feel the need to change history, for whatever reason the club didn’t award a B&F in those years and it’s a part of our history.
The question I wouldn’t mind an answer to is why were there retrospective awards given back in 1988 and 1993. Was there the extensive debate on the subject back then? I don’t recall personally.