News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[TigerImposter]

I’m not being a smart arse here , but are the people who’ve conducted the research from 1988,1993 and over the last nineteen years actually qualified historians? Have they actually exhausted all the correct archives and taken the necessary educated paths?Should this be passed onto an independent professional firm so the correct outcome can be reached? The club is loaded with money now and IMO the real truth needs to be found and possibly it would be better if it was done by professionally qualified people with no emotional attachment or interest in the RFC.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I’m not being a smart arse here , but are the people who’ve conducted the research from 1988,1993 and over the last nine years actually qualified historians? Have they actually exhausted all the correct archives and taken the necessary educated paths?Should this be passed onto an independent professional firm so the correct outcome can be reached? The club is loaded with money now and IMO the real truth needs to be found and possibly it would be better if it was done by professionally qualified people with no emotional attachment or interest in the RFC.

Fair question. I imagine it's not terribly viable as a profession unless you're retained by e.g. an academic body. Rhett has published three versions of his RFC history book but again, non-fiction books tend to be a labour of love and are not generally a means to riches!

Not sure anyone without a football background could come in cold and do a better job than the likes of Rhett.

Would be interesting to hear Rhett's take as he would no doubt be aware of the others working in this field, e.g. Gillian Hibbins, Mark Pennings, Stephen Rodgers etc.

 

[TigerImposter]

Fair question. I imagine it's not terribly viable as a profession unless you're retained by e.g. an academic body. Rhett has published three versions of his RFC history book but again, non-fiction books tend to be a labour of love and are not generally a means to riches!

Not sure anyone without a football background could come in cold and do a better job than the likes of Rhett.

Would be interesting to hear Rhett's take as he would no doubt be aware of the others working in this field, e.g. Gillian Hibbins, Mark Pennings, Stephen Rodgers etc.

I think if an external party handled it then the likes of Rhett wouldn’t be accused of the things that have been mentioned as well as the club for doing the wrong thing. It moves the responsibility and blame onto an independent party and I think people would accept this better as the club would be seen as acting professionally as well as prudent. That ad hoc notice that was given to us doesn’t cut it for me and many others simply bc most don’t know what happened in 88 and 93 and what the basis of their decisions were. It may not even be that they were incompetent as Rhett is implying, but just unqualified. So really imo there shouldn’t be any red faces as they were acting at the time in the best interest of the club in trying to get our history right and honouring our heroes.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think if an external party handled it then the likes of Rhett wouldn’t be accused of the things that have been mentioned as well as the club for doing the wrong thing. It moves the responsibility and blame onto an independent party and I think people would accept this better as the club would be seen as acting professionally as well as prudent. That ad hoc notice that was given to us doesn’t cut it for me and many others simply bc most don’t know what happened in 88 and 93 and what the basis of their decisions were. It may not even be that they were incompetent as Rhett is implying, but just unqualified. So really imo there shouldn’t be any red faces as they were acting at the time in the best interest of the club in trying to get our history right and honouring our heroes.

Sure.

Could be wrong but my assumption is that Rhett & co. weren't paid by the club for their work. If that's the case, who else would trawl through reams of ancient documents about Richmond than a Richmond fanatic?

Yeah I think the club could've handled it better, especially in hindsight. First I heard was a TV news story that focused solely on Dyer losing the 1932 award. Maybe the news could've been distributed via a club email.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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?

this s**t matters

if you want to test it, go on the north board and tell them they were disbanded and then replaced by Hotham back in the day, and get ready for the reams of abuse. Or post that Brisbane merged with Fitzroy, and set the timer for when a certain poster bobs up with his three screen reply on why that never happened.

people love their club, and the histories of the club when taken away are an emotional issue

 

[blaisee]

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

Can i ask why you are stalking me on this ? Especially when you said you would stay away ?

Also I am waiting for you to tell me what my agenda is, and for your apology

 

[Michaels]

Can i ask why you are stalking me on this ? Especially when you said you would stay away ?

Also I am waiting for you to tell me what my agenda is, and for your apology

Please dont flatter yourself, I'm far from stalking you.

You just happen to be in a thread I'm interested in and you're replies are extremely humorous.

You're once again waiting for an answer to a question that has already been answered.

I directly answered that.

See the trend here? You ask a question, someone answers it, but if you don't like the answer you claim that you still don't have an answer.


Pull your head in and start reading and absorbing what people respond to you with, you dont have to agree with it but at least acknowledge they answered you.

Otherwise you might be best to take a breather from the thread.

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

this s**t matters

if you want to test it, go on the north board and tell them they were disbanded and then replaced by Hotham back in the day, and get ready for the reams of abuse. Or post that Brisbane merged with Fitzroy, and set the timer for when a certain poster bobs up with his three screen reply on why that never happened.

people love their club, and the histories of the club when taken away are an emotional issue

I think if you delved into the history of all clubs it’d be a bit murky but that makes history more intriguing to me, you know legend has it type stuff.
What this thread should never have become but unfortunately has is about who did the work both in the late 80’s and now and their intent brought into question.
Just good Richmond people on both occasions, everyone has a different view on how important it is to go back and look right into it or the best way to go about it.
End of the day though RFC are the ones who decide what’ll happen and this is the path they’ve chosen, and it’s done now which has proven pretty divisive.
Just wonder if they appreciate fully that may have been the case.

 

[Michaels]

I think if an external party handled it then the likes of Rhett wouldn’t be accused of the things that have been mentioned as well as the club for doing the wrong thing. It moves the responsibility and blame onto an independent party and I think people would accept this better as the club would be seen as acting professionally as well as prudent. That ad hoc notice that was given to us doesn’t cut it for me and many others simply bc most don’t know what happened in 88 and 93 and what the basis of their decisions were. It may not even be that they were incompetent as Rhett is implying, but just unqualified. So really imo there shouldn’t be any red faces as they were acting at the time in the best interest of the club in trying to get our history right and honouring our heroes.

I disagree with the first line.

If this was done externally there Is nothing more certain than people complaining that it was conducted by people who dont know our club well enough.

From that perspective the club is in a lose lose situation.

Maybe they could run an external one side by side?

But dont think doing an external review in place of what has been done would have been received well.

 

[Tiger Soze]

I think if you delved into the history of all clubs it’d be a bit murky but that makes history more intriguing to me, you know legend has it type stuff.
What this thread should never have become but unfortunately has is about who did the work both in the late 80’s and now and their intent brought into question.
Just good Richmond people on both occasions, everyone has a different view on how important it is to go back and look right into it or the best way to go about it.
End of the day though RFC are the ones who decide what’ll happen and this is the path they’ve chosen, and it’s done now which has proven pretty divisive.
Just wonder if they appreciate fully that may have been the case.

I don’t believe it to be divisive, most people would have read the club statement and gone “fair enough”. This is a very small minority discussing it here.

 

[dustysnecktattoo]

I wonder if Rhett has gotten into Bigfooty enough to like someone’s post?

 

[TigerImposter]

I disagree with the first line.

If this was done externally there Is nothing more certain than people complaining that it was conducted by people who dont know our club well enough.

From that perspective the club is in a lose lose situation.

Maybe they could run an external one side by side?

But dont think doing an external review in place of what has been done would have been received well.

I was more in favour of it bc at least the club would actually have hired an independent and qualified organisation.
People wouldn’t have a leg to stand on to bicker and accuse members of fraudulent behaviour.
A side by side research as you’ve suggested would’ve been an even better approach .

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Sure.

Could be wrong but my assumption is that Rhett & co. weren't paid by the club for their work. If that's the case, who else would trawl through reams of ancient documents about Richmond than a Richmond fanatic?

Yeah I think the club could've handled it better, especially in hindsight. First I heard was a TV news story that focused solely on Dyer losing the 1932 award. Maybe the news could've been distributed via a club email.

In hindsight...the above does start to make a lot of sense and was prolly a good place to start...
As a Club supporter this JD B&F brouhaha feels more like a fait accompli...from the powers that be...and that always seems to cause a little angst!
But then I can imagine the Club wanting to resolve this issue as best as possible without drawing it out and having a long running distracting sheet fight about it involving 100,000 member imputs...like on here...or ongoing into the 2020 Season and beyond...
Passion for the Club and it's History is starting to take us all into strange emotional territory...clear heads with rational input need to prevail!

 

[Boston tiger]

What I still don’t understand is what happened in 1988. What I gather is that the Richmond club/ board didn’t sanction / make official any retrospective B&Fs back then. Then how and why did people think they had won a B&F retrospectively. Was there a rogue Richmond element running around making things folklore?
Was it ex players/families pushing for recognition?
Basically I’m confused about 1988.

 

[Punt rd end]

I remember when delving into the location of my great grandfather’s shop in Richmond, I thought I had found it and truly wanted it to be it as it was still standing but alas after digging deeper it turned out to be further up the road and demolished. History can be disappointing sometimes.

 

[Sir_Loin]

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?

dunno ask them I’m not making any claim to know or want to know their motivation. I’ll leave that to more learned people like you

 

[Ron The Bear]

dunno ask them I’m not making any claim to know or want to know their motivation. I’ll leave that to more learned people like you

Yeah, you simply don’t care and believe the club shouldn’t care.

 

[blaisee]

Please dont flatter yourself, I'm far from stalking you.

You just happen to be in a thread I'm interested in and you're replies are extremely humorous.

You're once again waiting for an answer to a question that has already been answered.

I directly answered that.

See the trend here? You ask a question, someone answers it, but if you don't like the answer you claim that you still don't have an answer.


Pull your head in and start reading and absorbing what people respond to you with, you dont have to agree with it but at least acknowledge they answered you.

Otherwise you might be best to take a breather from the thread.

Why are you threatening me ?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Yeah, you simply don’t care and believe the club shouldn’t care.

I think the club has other things it should concern itself with. If it wants to do something constructive about it I’ll vote for the banning of retrospective awards.

 

[Michaels]

Why are you threatening me ?

Where did I threaten you? It was a suggestion. Stop trying to be destructive for no reason.

If you cant or dont want to discuss the topic properly then it might be best you sit it out.

 

[blaisee]

Where did I threaten you? It was a suggestion. Stop trying to be destructive for no reason.

If you cant or dont want to discuss the topic properly then it might be best you sit it out.

discuss the topic properly?

You mean discuss the topic as you see fit ?

The answers given were a joke

Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

Any chance of making that evidence public?

What exactly do we have to lose through transparency ?

I also find it very hard to understand why you would say you would ignore me, yet keep coming back to attach me, not the issue but me personally.

Why are you doing that? What is in it for you personally?

Do you have an issue with me personally? It sure seems that way.

Stop harassing me, this is a public forum where ideas can be shared right? we don';t all have to agree with you do we?

 

[Punt rd end]

I’m not being a smart arse here , but are the people who’ve conducted the research from 1988,1993 and over the last nineteen years actually qualified historians? Have they actually exhausted all the correct archives and taken the necessary educated paths?Should this be passed onto an independent professional firm so the correct outcome can be reached? The club is loaded with money now and IMO the real truth needs to be found and possibly it would be better if it was done by professionally qualified people with no emotional attachment or interest in the RFC.

Here is a quick summary of Trevor Ruddell one of the researchers

Trevor Ruddell is the Assistant Librarian at the Melbourne Cricket Club. He has researched extensively the early history of football and of the Richmond Football Club. Trevor is also a member of the Richmond FC History and Traditions Committee.

 

[Punt rd end]

discuss the topic properly?

You mean discuss the topic as you see fit ?

The answers given were a joke

Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.

Any chance of making that evidence public?

What exactly do we have to lose through transparency ?

I also find it very hard to understand why you would say you would ignore me, yet keep coming back to attach me, not the issue but me personally.

Why are you doing that? What is in it for you personally?

Do you have an issue with me personally? It sure seems that way.

Stop harassing me, this is a public forum where ideas can be shared right? we don';t all have to agree with you do we?

Would you believe that sometimes an award was a pound of sugar?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Would you believe that sometimes an award was a pound of sugar?

Well there you go...you learn something new everyday even about the RFC!

 

[Punt rd end]

Well there you go...you learn something new everyday even about the RFC!

It was for a performance in a 1947 semi final and the award was won by 2 players lol They had to share it