News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[SunshineBoy]

I don’t understand, mustbe lacking sleep

When I come back from 1932 I will let you know

 

[Sir_Loin]

Um, it wasn’t the club wasting their time?

Of course I’m wasting time here, prob should do something worthwhile.

sorry maybe I missed the bit where Emmett Dunne conducted an investigation and the club stripped the b&f from Jack Dyer

 

[Sir_Loin]

I am however intrigued that Ray Martin won the 1935 b&f. That dude has some longevity

 

[Punt rd end]

sorry maybe I missed the bit where Emmett Dunne conducted an investigation and the club stripped the b&f from Jack Dyer

You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually win

 

[Ron The Bear]

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?

 

[Sir_Loin]

How do you reckon the club got a history in the first place?

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?

 

[tigerdan]

You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually win

What's your feeling on retrospective awards?

 

[Sir_Loin]

You can't be stripped of something you didn't actually win

I’m just interested if the club is going to be now second guessing and spending time and resources on the clubs past when they should be focusing on its future.

 

[Punt rd end]

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?

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

 

[Punt rd end]

What's your feeling on retrospective awards?

I'm quoting Brendon Gale so take it up with him

 

[Tiger Soze]

What do we think is more likely, in comparing the Neville Crowe lead board back in the save our skins era to the recent/current board and management. Which one would you suggest might have the more stringent oversight and governance capacity?

Personally I prefer to have our history as it actually is, which until someone can prove otherwise the club did not award a B&F in those years. People wanting to go back over notes etc to then declare a winner is changing our history from the actual facts at hand. The answers to most questions are in these statement grabs from the club.

"This has been an exhaustive process that has involved a forensic examination of our history,"

"The investigation included a review of annual reports, media reports from each season and discussions with the next of kin of relevant players in an attempt to locate trophies or other memorabilia that might verify the presentation of a best-and-fairest award in those seasons.

The investigation was unable to confirm that the club had declared best-and-fairest winners for a number of years and the board has subsequently determined that club records be amended accordingly."

Ultimately the integrity of our historical records is paramount and as such the board took the view that these amendments should be made.”

So it doesn’t really matter what was thrown up back in 1988 and 1993 because this more recent investigation supersedes that of which I dare suggest was a bit more of a Mickey Mouse type investigation in comparison to this recent one.

We can debate this until we are all exhausted but one thing is clear, this decision was not taken lightly and won’t be reinstated unless proof is brought forward that a B&F was in fact awarded in any of those years.

 

[Sir_Loin]

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

seems like they spent a lot of time and effort on it

 

[Al Heimer]

When I come back from 1932 I will let you know

how about you make a pit stop in 1982 and 1975 and tell Geoff Raines and Graham Teasdale to stay at Tigerland

 

[Punt rd end]

seems like they spent a lot of time and effort on it

19 years

 

[Sir_Loin]

19 years

the club spent 19 years on it?

 

[Michaels]

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.

Post of the year contender right here, mainly the bolded bit.

Would hate to have seen your reaction if Rhett actually didn't answer any of your questions

 

[Punt rd end]

the club spent 19 years on it?

the club spent 19 years on it?

Trevor, Roland and Rhett

 

[Ron The Bear]

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 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.

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)

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

anyone looked behind the shelving and display units ect in the tigers museum? Some evidence may turn up

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

Or it’s hidden at the Bartlett pyramids and they ain’t gonna let ya find it

 

[Sir_Loin]

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

 

[Ron The Bear]

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

It seems the people that don't really care much about historical accuracy are the ones who are up in arms.

An example: until fairly recently, it was thought that Hawthorn was founded in 1873. An independent researcher presented evidence to the club that the original Hawthorn had been disbanded in 1883, and that the current club was formed in 1902. Initially the club president and the historical committee rejected the research, but through persistence the evidence was eventually accepted and the club's history was updated.

Does it make any material difference to Hawthorn supporters whether the club was formed in 1873 or 1902? No. But better to know where the club came from than wondering about 29 years of undocumented history.

And I don't need a strawman. Just wondering what the motivation to pervert history could possibly be, from people dedicated to the club?

 

[tigerdan]

I'm quoting Brendon Gale so take it up with him

Spare me the sanctimony. For * 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.

 

[Punt rd end]

Spare 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

 

[Ron The Bear]

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

Think maybe it's referring to the specific text in the minutes or annual report that was interpreted in 1988 to indicate Dyer had won the "b&f".

Would perhaps be interesting to see, but without full understanding of the context of such things, could provoke further debate.