News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[rmcq]

"We know what happened but can't tell you because it might throw someone under the bus" is frankly a bullshit excuse.

Especially when this whole saga has been pushed with an angle of being honest and transparent.

I don't care if they are trying to protect poor Ron reiffel or Neville Crowe or Alice Wills or any other club stalwart who might have f’ed up. They can just say what happened without naming names.

I don't care if it was a public relations exercise to drum up support during save our skins.

What I do care about is transparency and we are not getting any.

All I want to know is the methodology.

You can't say it was unauthorised if it appeared in the ******* club annual reports. That's why they should have htfu and put an asterisk against the names.

I don’t think the club has made any statement regarding 1988.

Only Rhett Bartlett has commented, and has made it clear that it’s not his place to discuss what happened in 1988.

 

[Ron The Bear]

1988 nuffy

Probably an unfair label. I don't think it needs to be a finger-pointing exercise. The records have just been inspected more scrupulously, and the findings verified by a separate investigation by the club.

 

[Michaels]

That's a pretty serious accusation mate.

You think I have an agenda ? What is my agenda?

cause you're carrying on like a 2 bob watch and not prepared to accept anything being told to you.

I was being mildly sarcastic.

 

[Punt rd end]

"We know what happened but can't tell you because it might throw someone under the bus" is frankly a bullshit excuse.

Especially when this whole saga has been pushed with an angle of being honest and transparent.

I don't care if they are trying to protect poor Ron reiffel or Neville Crowe or Alice Wills or any other club stalwart who might have f’ed up. They can just say what happened without naming names.

I don't care if it was a public relations exercise to drum up support during save our skins.

What I do care about is transparency and we are not getting any.

All I want to know is the methodology.

You can't say it was unauthorised if it appeared in the ******* club annual reports. That's why they should have htfu and put an asterisk against the names.

Do we really have to name and shame someone? All the *******s will pound them for the mistake that was probably made without malice.

 

[rmcq]

Probably an unfair label. I don't think it needs to be a finger-pointing exercise. The records have just been inspected more scrupulously, and the findings verified by a separate investigation by the club.

Probably.

I’m not sure either why some people are so desperate to know who to blame and why. Surely it’s enough that multiple people privy to the information are satisfied? Only ones who aren’t are only upset about Jack Dyer for some reason too, as if the guy needs any more accolades.

 

[blaisee]

cause you're carrying on like a 2 bob watch and not prepared to accept anything being told to you.

I was being mildly sarcastic.

Sarcastic?

Really ?

Why did you feel the need to defame me just because I am asking for clarity on this.

What do you think is more likely, that I have an agenda? or that you have an agenda?

And for the record, I am not being sarcastic.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I’m not sure either why some people are so desperate to know who to blame and why.

I'm extremely surprised by the strong negative reaction. It's almost like we need something to be upset about after so many years of having good reason! I guess the old "don't piss on monuments" thing comes into play... even if the monument is only ~30 years old.

 

[Michaels]

Sarcastic?

Really ?

Why did you feel the need to defame me just because I am asking for clarity on this.

What do you think is more likely, that I have an agenda? or that you have an agenda?

And for the record, I am not being sarcastic.

Mate you have already been given answers to your questions and you just simply ignore them lol.

think that answers your last question!

I'm not engaging with you on this topic anymore as it is completely pointless and frankly wasting my time.

You are obviously very passionate about the topic which is fantastic, but you're letting your passion blind you from the answers / reasons people are giving you.


Lets just leave it as hopefully it all comes out in due course officially from the club and any speculation can be put to rest and all questions get answered.

 

[DeLaCon]

Club needs to prove that no b&f were awarded. At the moment the clhb hasnt proven that to be the case. Taking away awards from the likes of Dyer Thorp Geddes isnt right.

 

[Tiger Soze]

"We know what happened but can't tell you because it might throw someone under the bus" is frankly a bullshit excuse.

Especially when this whole saga has been pushed with an angle of being honest and transparent.

I don't care if they are trying to protect poor Ron reiffel or Neville Crowe or Alice Wills or any other club stalwart who might have f’ed up. They can just say what happened without naming names.

I don't care if it was a public relations exercise to drum up support during save our skins.

What I do care about is transparency and we are not getting any.

All I want to know is the methodology.

You can't say it was unauthorised if it appeared in the ******* club annual reports. That's why they should have htfu and put an asterisk against the names.

By putting an asterisk next to their name you are backing the administration of the day in 1988 without actually knowing what was the criteria for the retrospective awards in changing the clubs history, yet won’t afford the current administration the same benefit of the doubt in correcting or confirming the history of the club. Where were everybody back in 1988 questioning the validity of the retrospective awards which obviously treated the clubs history with contempt. That’s right, we only had 3154 members back then so assume this just went through basically unnoticed.

 

[tigerdan]

I'm extremely surprised by the strong negative reaction. It's almost like we need something to be upset about after so many years of having good reason! I guess the old "don't piss on monuments" thing comes into play... even if the monument is only ~30 years old.

Can you at least tell us whether the changes in 88 and 93 were sanctioned by the club.

If it wasn't sanctioned then why did it appear in the club records and if it was sanctioned what are you complaining about?

It seems to me like the current historians just didn't like the methodology that was used.

 

[Tiger Soze]

Club needs to prove that no b&f were awarded. At the moment the clhb hasnt proven that to be the case. Taking away awards from the likes of Dyer Thorp Geddes isnt right.

Tigers CEO Brendon Gale said it was important to note the club was not taking the best-and-fairest awards off the players because the investigation showed they were never awarded in the first place.

There are no existing honour boards recognising the best and fairests that need to be changed and the club remains open to players from that time being recognised as a best-and-fairest winner if evidence can be found that the best and fairests were awarded.

 

[tigerdan]

By putting an asterisk next to their name you are backing the administration of the day in 1988 without actually knowing what was the criteria for the retrospective awards in changing the clubs history, yet won’t afford the current administration the same benefit of the doubt in correcting or confirming the history of the club. Where were everybody back in 1988 questioning the validity of the retrospective awards which obviously treated the clubs history with contempt. That’s right, we only had 3154 members back then so assume this just went through basically unnoticed.

I am backing the administration of the day, I don't see why I shouldn't.

I've said all along if there was anything dishonest then by all means correct the mistake.

What we can ascertain is some vague reference to a well intentioned but flawed process, without telling us the methodology, nor whether it was sanctioned by the club.

We know but can't tell you is not really acceptable.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Can you at least tell us whether the changes in 88 and 93 were sanctioned by the club.

If it wasn't sanctioned then why did it appear in the club records and if it was sanctioned what are you complaining about?

It seems to me like the current historians just didn't like the methodology that was used.

I don't know the details, but Rhett has stated that the changes were not vetted by the club. It appears that the results of independent research were incorporated into the club's official history without question.

Last sentence is getting close to the mark. As I suggested earlier, there were probably some very liberal interpretations made in order to deduce past "winners". Not sure it's a case of anyone "not liking" the methodology, just a re-examination of the same documents that showed they didn't say what they were interpreted to say in 1988, i.e. the additions have been subjected to a significantly higher "standard of proof".

And I'm not complaining. I'm neither pleased nor disappointed with the new state of affairs. It just is.

 

[blaisee]

Mate you have already been given answers to your questions and you just simply ignore them lol.

think that answers your last question!

I'm not engaging with you on this topic anymore as it is completely pointless and frankly wasting my time.

You are obviously very passionate about the topic which is fantastic, but you're letting your passion blind you from the answers / reasons people are giving you.


Lets just leave it as hopefully it all comes out in due course officially from the club and any speculation can be put to rest and all questions get answered.

no mate

please delete your post or apologize

What exactly is my agenda? You said it, why did you say it, what did you mean ?

 

[Michaels]

no mate

please delete your post or apologize

What exactly is my agenda? You said it, why did you say it, what did you mean ?

I'm going against my own post here about not replying to you..

but you blatantly ignore any evidence or proof that answers any of your questions, you refuse to acknowledge it, you are just wanting to make a song and dance about something, you want blood, you want answers despite already getting answers because they aren't good enough for you. that's your agenda. and thats fine.

but don't complain and keep trying to play the 'it stinks card' when you have been given answers to your questions, you're just opting to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Like i said, you're passionate about the topic which is great, but you're also blinded by it.

good day to you sir.

 

[Tiger Soze]

What exactly is my agenda? You said it, why did you say it, what did you mean ?

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

You wrote the above so a response that includes the term agenda wasn’t out of context considering your repetitive and continual posts when given answers.
Just how I see it.

 

[blaisee]

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

You wrote the above so a response that includes the term agenda wasn’t out of context considering your repetitive and continual posts when given answers.
Just how I see it.

well since you asked I will tell you what the agenda appears to be.

Rhett Bartlett was the one that investigated it right?

Who had the most best and fairests before the investigation and who has the most now?

There is no need to be creative or invent anything here, it is right infront of your nose

 

[blaisee]

I'm going against my own post here about not replying to you..

but you blatantly ignore any evidence or proof that answers any of your questions, you refuse to acknowledge it, you are just wanting to make a song and dance about something, you want blood, you want answers despite already getting answers because they aren't good enough for you. that's your agenda. and thats fine.

but don't complain and keep trying to play the 'it stinks card' when you have been given answers to your questions, you're just opting to ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Like i said, you're passionate about the topic which is great, but you're also blinded by it.

good day to you sir.

mate

What evidence are you pointing to that I have ignored?

There is no evidence of anything? Stop making things up

 

[Punt rd end]

well since you asked I will tell you what the agenda appears to be.

Rhett Bartlett was the one that investigated it right?

Who had the most best and fairests before the investigation and who has the most now?

There is no need to be creative or invent anything here, it is right infront of your nose

That is absurd, for that to be true Trevor Ruddell and Roland Weeks would have to have been on board with the conspiracy and then convince the board to buy in as well. lololololololol

 

[Tiger Soze]

well since you asked I will tell you what the agenda appears to be.

Rhett Bartlett was the one that investigated it right?

Who had the most best and fairests before the investigation and who has the most now?

There is no need to be creative or invent anything here, it is right infront of your nose

Don’t worry I thought that’s where you were coming from earlier and quite frankly it is laughable. I believe you are very naive to think Rhett has the ability to influence the current administration and it’s an absolute insult to all of them.
You point the finger at others and use the terms agenda and defame when you actually have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Don’t worry I thought that’s where you were coming from earlier and quite frankly it is laughable. I believe you are very naive to think Rhett has the ability to influence the current administration and it’s an absolute insult to all of them.
You point the finger at others and use the terms agenda and defame when you actually have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.

Yet you have no issue with a poster name calling the 1988 staff....

 

[Tiger Soze]

Yet you have no issue with a poster name calling the 1988 staff....

That’s correct I took it for what it was, a light hearted jab. That’s why the emoji response was
Completely different to this disgraceful accusation wouldn’t you say?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

That’s correct I took it for what it was, a light hearted jab. That’s why the emoji response was
Completely different to this disgraceful accusation wouldn’t you say?

So ones a light hearted jab and the other a callous accusation...

Right....

 

[Tiger Soze]

So ones a light hearted jab and the other a callous accusation...

Right....

Correct, well done Ned