News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[Ned_Flanders]

Correct, well done Ned

You should not be so proud of being a hypocrite dude

 

[Tiger Soze]

You should not be so proud of being a hypocrite dude

So where does that place you with the name calling then Ned, what label would you give yourself?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So where does that place you with the name calling then Ned, what label would you give yourself?

People call me all sorts of shit elsewhere, but in this thread?

I haven't abused the staff, or the other posters who disagree with me, or the people who conducted the review, or made the decision. I disagreed with actions and outcomes, not the people or their intentions.

I called you a hypocrite because you admitted you have two different standards for people in this discussion. If you don't like that, don't have double standards

 

[Tiger Soze]

People call me all sorts of shit elsewhere, but in this thread?

I haven't abused the staff, or the other posters who disagree with me, or the people who conducted the review, or made the decision. I disagreed with actions and outcomes, not the people or their intentions.

I called you a hypocrite because you admitted you have two different standards for people in this discussion. If you don't like that, don't have double standards

You are wrong Ned, it’s called different interpretations. And your interpretation obviously is that I’m complicit in your interpretation of name calling by my emoji response.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

You are wrong Ned, it’s called different interpretations. And your interpretation obviously is that I’m complicit in your interpretation of name calling by my emoji response.

No it's not, but jog on

 

[Tiger Soze]

No it's not, but jog on

Okay, please point out where I have abused the staff, or the other posters who disagree with me, or the people who conducted the review, or made the decision.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Okay, please point out where I have abused the staff, or the other posters who disagree with me, or the people who conducted the review, or made the decision.

I never said you said that, I asked why you didn't criticise those who did, and you replied it was cool because it was in fun

Glad you didn't conduct the review or Ben Lennon would have been made BnF winner

 

[TigerImposter]

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.

Well spoken and I agree there would be plenty of evidence in archives leading to a committee carefully and accurately choosing a winner. As I stated earlier good archaeologists put the bones and remnants together to give us a taste of history and not obliterate them so it’s lost. I’m disappointed as we now have a gap in our history. Apparently some people have been working on this for over 20years at the club and have come up with this outcome, which is basically saying they’ve failed to get a positive outcome. As you say it reeks of power tripping and counterproductive in looking for a positive solution. I want all our players to be rewarded for their achievements and I can assure you this task wouldn’t be a difficult one if all people were working in a way to get a positive outcome.

 

[Al Heimer]

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.

If I may put this here and I hope I am correct, what is known of that time is the Richmond Former Players and Officials Association published 'TIGERLAND' The history of the Richmond Football Club from 1885 by Brian Hansen. Many great Tiger people were acknowledged in compiling the book including the wonderful club historian Bill Meaklim who is credited with being involved in producing the statistics and chronological presentation including our Best and Fairest for each season.

With only a partial official Honour Board B&F to copy into the book, an effort was made along with all the other historical data to try and complete it. Bill and his team would have had to work their hearts out to research and establish who from those early years would have been the correct player. A list dating from 1921 (minus 1930 & 31) was compiled and placed into the book.

So I gather its here we now have the current conflict. What is presented in the book has been accepted as fact over the years (even though it was not official under a vote winning Jack Dyer Medal criteria).

I guess what we need to remember is that at the time our best people worked to produce a history of our club and provide us with a list of champions that were worthy of being our 'Club Senior Best and Fairest' winner.

 

[rmcq]

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

Unsurprisingly, Rhett has already been accused of that on Twitter and has responded.

I’ve got to say though that that is a pretty damning slight on his character. You need to have pretty strong evidence to accuse someone of something so pathetic.


Here is the relevant thread. Rhett says that you are making a fool of yourself.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): This is a good article by @petryan , as it further explains the reasoning behind Richmond's Best + Fairest changes.

(though disappointedly it still doesn't acknowledge by name the exhaustive 19-year research by Trevor Ruddell, and myself)

No 1932 best and fairest for Dyer after Tigers investigation

Richmond have determined that the club only awarded five best and fairests before 1940 after an investigation by their history and tradition committee.

www.theage.com.au

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan No surprise to find your dirty hands all over this. Of course it benefits your father more than anyone else.
The Bartletts have always behaved like their name was bigger than the club.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary @petryan Hello.
I excluded myself from all discussions with players families, that was handled by Leon/Emmett. And I flagged any perceived conflict of interest at initial meeting and subsequents. All researched was viewed by the board, and historical committee.

Have a nice day.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan This wouldn't have happened if Dyer wasn't 1 ahead of your father.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Youre making a fool of yourself.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective Plenty of people share this opinion.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Then they're making fools of themselves along with you

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
We have ours. We know who benefited and we know who was involved.
So yeah, have a good day.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary

 

[blaisee]

Unsurprisingly, Rhett has already been accused of that on Twitter and has responded.

I’ve got to say though that that is a pretty damning slight on his character. You need to have pretty strong evidence to accuse someone of something so pathetic.


Here is the relevant thread. Rhett says that you are making a fool of yourself.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): This is a good article by @petryan , as it further explains the reasoning behind Richmond's Best + Fairest changes.

(though disappointedly it still doesn't acknowledge by name the exhaustive 19-year research by Trevor Ruddell, and myself)

No 1932 best and fairest for Dyer after Tigers investigation

Richmond have determined that the club only awarded five best and fairests before 1940 after an investigation by their history and tradition committee.

www.theage.com.au

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan No surprise to find your dirty hands all over this. Of course it benefits your father more than anyone else.
The Bartletts have always behaved like their name was bigger than the club.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary @petryan Hello.
I excluded myself from all discussions with players families, that was handled by Leon/Emmett. And I flagged any perceived conflict of interest at initial meeting and subsequents. All researched was viewed by the board, and historical committee.

Have a nice day.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan This wouldn't have happened if Dyer wasn't 1 ahead of your father.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Youre making a fool of yourself.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective Plenty of people share this opinion.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Then they're making fools of themselves along with you

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
We have ours. We know who benefited and we know who was involved.
So yeah, have a good day.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary

If anything this backs up my theory as he acknowledges it as conflict of interest himself.

Saying, “you are making a fool of yourself “ is not really an argument

Neither does being excluded from discussing with families relevant

What it does confirm though is there was nothing done to ensure the research itself was done objectively.

Can anyone prove that ?

 

[tigerdan]

If I may put this here and I hope I am correct, what is known of that time is the Richmond Former Players and Officials Association published 'TIGERLAND' The history of the Richmond Football Club from 1885 by Brian Hansen. Many great Tiger people were acknowledged in compiling the book including the wonderful club historian Bill Meaklim who is credited with being involved in producing the statistics and chronological presentation including our Best and Fairest for each season.

With only a partial official Honour Board B&F to copy into the book, an effort was made along with all the other historical data to try and complete it. Bill and his team would have had to work their hearts out to research and establish who from those early years would have been the correct player. A list dating from 1921 (minus 1930 & 31) was compiled and placed into the book.

So I gather its here we now have the current conflict. What is presented in the book has been accepted as fact over the years (even though it was not official under a vote winning Jack Dyer Medal criteria).

I guess what we need to remember is that at the time our best people worked to produce a history of our club and provide us with a list of champions that were worthy of being our 'Club Senior Best and Fairest' winner.

I suspect you are right and if only I was home I'd be checking my copy. In particular I'd check whether the expanded list (apparently from 1993) is in the book or not. From what I can gather, that book was published in 1989.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I suspect you are right and if only I was home I'd be checking my copy. In particular I'd check whether the expanded list (apparently from 1993) is in the book or not. From what I can gather, that book was published in 1989.

Yes, 1989. My edition is from 1992 and contains the first revision, back to 1921.

 

[rbartlett]

If anything this backs up my theory as he acknowledges it as conflict of interest himself.

Saying, “you are making a fool of yourself “ is not really an argument

Neither does being excluded from discussing with families relevant

What it does confirm though is there was nothing done to ensure the research itself was done objectively.

Can anyone prove that ?

Hi Blaise. The research started in 2000 by Trevor Ruddell (MCC Librarian), Roland Weeks (Museum Curator), and myself.
Reviewing that included former president Leon Daphne, and then Museum Curator Ron Reiffel. It was then reviewed by the remaining Richmond Historical Committee. Then a presentation was made to the Richmond Board. From that, the Historical Chairman conducted his own review of all the research, and then presented his findings to the Board, who reviewed the evidence and made the changes that were published late last week.
Happy to answer any other queries, where possible, that you may have

 

[tigerdan]

Yes, 1989. My edition is from 1992 and contains the first revision, back to 1921.

Yeah, we have two editions at home; the latter one has some extra pages at the end with some info from the post-Save our Skins era.

 

[rbartlett]

As well I've updated the Best and Fairest list on TigerlandArchive to include background on how the changes to the B+F took place.

Tigerland Archive | Best and Fairest

Tigerland Archive

tigerlandarchive.org

 

[tigerdan]

As well I've updated the Best and Fairest list on TigerlandArchive to include background on how the changes to the B+F took place.

Tigerland Archive | Best and Fairest

Tigerland Archive

tigerlandarchive.org

Thanks Rhett.

FYI your voting criteria between 1986 and 2008 is incomplete. You may have left the details out for brevity.

For a time in the 90s there was a simple 321 and there was another time where the 321 votes were split between forwards backs and mids.

There was also a time where if we had a really shit game they would not give out maximum votes.

In 1998 every player on the ground got votes out of 10; costing Matthew knights another bnf because he missed a game through injury. The criteria changed again in 99.

Just looking at the tallies and definitely something changed in 92, 96, 99 and 02.

 

[rbartlett]

Thanks Rhett.

FYI your voting criteria between 1986 and 2008 is incomplete. You may have left the details out for brevity.

Oh yes, the voting style altered all the time. But we tried to list a few variations as an overview

 

[blaisee]

Hi Blaise. The research started in 2000 by Trevor Ruddell (MCC Librarian), Roland Weeks (Museum Curator), and myself.
Reviewing that included former president Leon Daphne, and then Museum Curator Ron Reiffel. It was then reviewed by the remaining Richmond Historical Committee. Then a presentation was made to the Richmond Board. From that, the Historical Chairman conducted his own review of all the research, and then presented his findings to the Board, who reviewed the evidence and made the changes that were published late last week.
Happy to answer any other queries, where possible, that you may have

Thanks for making yourself available. Few questions

Who submitted the info to give the 1932 Jack Dyer best and fairest in the 80s ?

What evidence was presented to give the 1932 award to Dyer in the 80s?

Who accepted it from the board in the 80s ?

What proof have you found to change the clubs position now?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

There are no video tapes of games in the 1930s. How do you propose the club decides who should have won an award for best player? Hopefully not Brownlow votes, which are definitely not representative of the best player for a club.

Don't know about that.Umpires wern't as blind as they are today.

 

[TigerImposter]

As well I've updated the Best and Fairest list on TigerlandArchive to include background on how the changes to the B+F took place.

Tigerland Archive | Best and Fairest

Tigerland Archive

tigerlandarchive.org

Hi Rhett

Thanks for clearing up a few holes , but my questions are :
1) Why was an award given in 27-29 and then gaps afterwards?
2) Why was it then awarded again in 35 and then ignored in 36?

Surely from all those archives mentioned by you a winner(s) could have been reached in those gap years?
I find it staggering that this had to come to a head now just after the club has finally crawled out of the 37 years of darkness . Wouldn’t it have been more positive and warming if the committee had rewarded these greats rather than removing them from Our honorary boards? To me it would be obvious that there would be enough evidence to suggest that in those years there would have been at least two boys in the mix and rewarding them would be better than obliterating them. Of course relevant footnotes would need to be included.
Thanks again for your efforts on the matter, but I’m still uncertain whether the right outcome has been found.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

"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.

Agree.What the club is doing now is so mid 80's too the 00's.Afraid of the ramifications if the truth come out.
We're a stronger club these days and we should withstand any "Shenangans" that went on.
Come clean Tigers.
Lets get back to celebrating our 12th.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

If anything this backs up my theory as he acknowledges it as conflict of interest himself.

Saying, “you are making a fool of yourself “ is not really an argument

Neither does being excluded from discussing with families relevant

What it does confirm though is there was nothing done to ensure the research itself was done objectively.

Can anyone prove that ?

Think we just found who Gary The Goat is.

 

[blaisee]

Think we just found who Gary The Goat is.

I have no idea what you are talking about

Please enlighten me

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Unsurprisingly, Rhett has already been accused of that on Twitter and has responded.

I’ve got to say though that that is a pretty damning slight on his character. You need to have pretty strong evidence to accuse someone of something so pathetic.


Here is the relevant thread. Rhett says that you are making a fool of yourself.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): This is a good article by @petryan , as it further explains the reasoning behind Richmond's Best + Fairest changes.

(though disappointedly it still doesn't acknowledge by name the exhaustive 19-year research by Trevor Ruddell, and myself)

No 1932 best and fairest for Dyer after Tigers investigation

Richmond have determined that the club only awarded five best and fairests before 1940 after an investigation by their history and tradition committee.

www.theage.com.au

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan No surprise to find your dirty hands all over this. Of course it benefits your father more than anyone else.
The Bartletts have always behaved like their name was bigger than the club.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary @petryan Hello.
I excluded myself from all discussions with players families, that was handled by Leon/Emmett. And I flagged any perceived conflict of interest at initial meeting and subsequents. All researched was viewed by the board, and historical committee.

Have a nice day.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective @petryan This wouldn't have happened if Dyer wasn't 1 ahead of your father.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Youre making a fool of yourself.

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective Plenty of people share this opinion.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary Then they're making fools of themselves along with you

Gary the GOAT. (@bowledgary): @rhettrospective That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
We have ours. We know who benefited and we know who was involved.
So yeah, have a good day.

Rhett Bartlett (@rhettrospective): @bowledgary

You may want to edit this, you just doxxed yourself