- Jan 3, 2012
- 43,825
- 89,134
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks,
When I come back from 1932 I will let you knowI don’t understand, mustbe lacking sleep
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
When I come back from 1932 I will let you knowI don’t understand, mustbe lacking sleep
Um, it wasn’t the club wasting their time?
Of course I’m wasting time here, prob should do something worthwhile.
You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually winsorry maybe I missed the bit where Emmett Dunne conducted an investigation and the club stripped the b&f from Jack Dyer
Doesn’t the club have better things to waste their time on than this?
How do you reckon the club got a history in the first place?
You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually win
You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually win
so basically anyone can rock up the club with “research” and they take it on face value? Then why put Emmett Dunne on to it? Did he not investigate the claims? Or are you suggesting he didn’t investigate it?
I'm quoting Brendon Gale so take it up with himWhat's your feeling on retrospective awards?
Historical records amended after investigation
Richmond’s History and Tradition Committee has completed a thorough investigation into the Club’s best and fairest award winners pre-1940, after some anomalies were brought to the attention of the Club Board.www.richmondfc.com.au
how about you make a pit stop in 1982 and 1975 and tell Geoff Raines and Graham Teasdale to stay at TigerlandWhen I come back from 1932 I will let you know
19 yearsseems like they spent a lot of time and effort on it
19 years
WHy is the onus on me providing evidence of something, when you refuse to fully disclose the information you have and who supplied it?
You do understand this is a double standard right?
Mate if i was in your position I would be doing whatever I could to protect and enhance my fathers legacy as well.
Not sure why you would come on here and say you are happy to answer questions and then don’t.[\b]
Well I do know actually, and it is not your fault, the club allowed this to happen and my beef is not with you it is with them.
the club spent 19 years on it?
Trevor, Roland and Rhettthe club spent 19 years on it?
so basically anyone can rock up the club with “research” and they take it on face value? Then why put Emmett Dunne on to it? Did he not investigate the claims? Or are you suggesting he didn’t investigate it?
Plenty of newspaper articles from 1932 about everything from Cinema awards and Annual General Meeting, but not a single one that references a Best and Fairest Award in 1932.
It's of my opinion the 1988 entry was incorrectly added, and that it has not been altered ever since.
However, I need to stress that the Richmond Board rejected the lengthy submission put before them, by saying there was no evidence to suggest Dyer didn't win the 1932 BF, and that it still stands.
The counter argument that there is no evidence (before 1988) that Dyer did win apparently made no difference in their decision.
My opinion is that partly because it is a player of such significance they are wary to changing it. They reviewed the evidence and rejected the submission. The Board said the decision can be looked at again if evidence surfaces that he DIDN'T win the award that year (which to me is such a silly request for evidence)
I don't understand what your argument is. Following years of investigation, a submission was put to the club and Dunne oversaw a lengthy review of the evidence before putting a recommendation to the board, which was accepted.
You know, Emmett Dunne - vice president of the club.
If anyone can put together a viable conspiracy theory as to why everybody involved might want to pull Dyer or anyone else back, let's hear it.
It would be interesting to know whether the successful submission contained new evidence, after a previous submission was rejected by the club.
I’ll make it clear to you. Very simple. I don’t want the club wasting it’s time on second guessing decisions made 30 years ago. They have other things they should be spending their time on. That’s my argument.
as for conspiracy theories- you brought that up. Classic straw man tactic. Nice one
I'm quoting Brendon Gale so take it up with him
No need to be snippy, I was quoting Benny, the question you ask has been answered by Rhett not far back go have a readSpare me the sanctimony. For fu** sake, this is a topic that can discussed without being a smart arse.
I have a life membership that was awarded retrospectively. You didn't automatically get them in 1905.
All I have been asking all along is what was the criteria that they used in the 88 and 93? The historians either don't know for sure, or they do know and aren't saying because it will make one of the old historians look bad. Whatever.
But if they are in the habit of awarding life memberships retrospectively then it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to see best and fairests awarded retrospectively, and in fact that is exactly what happened in 1988. On what basis did this happen? Well no-one's saying.
No need to be snippy, I was quoting Benny, the question you ask has been answered by Rhett not far back go have a read