News Jack Dyer loses 1932 B&F .

[Punt rd end]

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 ?

I hope you are also questioning Roland Weeks and Trevor Ruddell as well as our board or are you only singling out Rhett Bartlett?

 

[blaisee]

I hope you are also questioning Roland Weeks and Trevor Ruddell as well as our board or are you only singling out Rhett Bartlett?

I am questioning the whole club.

Rhett to his credit has at least turned up and seems interested in discussing the detail

 

[Tiger Soze]

I am questioning the whole club.

Rhett to his credit has at least turned up and seems interested in discussing the detail

Have you sent an email to the club seeking clarification to your questions?

 

[rmcq]

You may want to edit this, you just doxxed yourself

???? I can’t see where. Can you elaborate?

Not that I mind people knowing who I am anyway, although giving out my home address and phone number would proobably be going too far.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

???? I can’t see where. Can you elaborate?

Not that I mind people knowing who I am anyway, although giving out my home address and phone number would proobably be going too far.

Fair enough. You said you worked on the project and named the other party. Rhett then named all three, so in effect outing yourself

Given you are the museum curator, you may want to rethink calling the 1988 people's idiots and nuffys. It's you have the right as a private individual to have that view, but if you are posting as someone connected to this issue who is a rep of the RFC, you should post as if the club (and media) is seeing everything

 

[Tiger Soze]

Fair enough. You said you worked on the project and named the other party. Rhett then named all three, so in effect outing yourself

Given you are the museum curator, you may want to rethink calling the 1988 people's idiots and nuffys. It's you have the right as a private individual to have that view, but if you are posting as someone connected to this issue who is a rep of the RFC, you should post as if the club (and media) is seeing everything

Is there any possibility you may be incorrect on the assumption Ned?

 

[Rodney Dangerfield]

19 years of research is just speculative guesswork? Come on.

All history in general I was referring to. Unless we were there we don’t really know anything for sure is my view that’s all.
I find all this a waste of time, but that’s just me.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Is there any possibility you may be incorrect on the assumption Ned?

Actually you're bang on

Apologies rmcq I thought the bracket in your post saying you worked on this was an insert by you - it was actually the end of the RB post

I'm back to having no idea who you are

 

[blaisee]

Have you sent an email to the club seeking clarification to your questions?

thats really none of your business

But out of interest what do you care what I do or don't do?


Have you contacted the club about this?

 

[Punt rd end]

thats really none of your business

But out of interest what do you care what I do or don't do?


Have you contacted the club about this?

Maybe like me he is sick of your ranting and raving, getting answers and not accepting them. If you contact the club directly we won't have to read your ramblings.

 

[blaisee]

Maybe like me he is sick of your ranting and raving, getting answers and not accepting them. If you contact the club directly we won't have to read your ramblings.

what answers?

There are no answers mate, therin lies the problem.


Feel like this board has been stacked with RFC apologists .


Why is everyone so insecure ?


I think our members deserve answers to the following 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?


The silence is deafening which just makes this worse

 

[Tiger Soze]

thats really none of your business

But out of interest what do you care what I do or don't do?


Have you contacted the club about this?

No I haven’t contacted the club as I have read their explanation and I don’t have any issue with it, very clear in my interpretation.
But I find it interesting that someone so passionate about this has not put it to the club for clarification and expect to find satisfaction through this social media site.
I can only assume you prefer the banter then actually getting satisfaction in the answers to your questions.
Oh and I don’t care but you obviously don’t know how to get the answers so that was a tip. Email the club

 

[blaisee]

No I haven’t contacted the club as I have read their explanation and I don’t have any issue with it, very clear in my interpretation.
But I find it interesting that someone so passionate about this has not put it to the club for clarification and expect to find satisfaction through this social media site.
I can only assume you prefer the banter then actually getting satisfaction in the answers to your questions.
Oh and I don’t care but you obviously don’t know how to get the answers so that was a tip. Email the club

Nice try to go the man instead of the issue, but I won't allow it.

considering Rhett was investigating, and he responded to my post on this forum and and asked if wanted anything clarified . It is entirely prudent and reasonable for me to raise some questions and awaiting his response.

In the meantime have a lie down because this actually has nothing to do with you.

So jog on champ.

 

[Tiger Soze]

Nice try to go the man instead of the issue, but I won't allow it.

considering Rhett was investigating, and he responded to my post on this forum and and asked if wanted anything clarified . It is entirely prudent and reasonable for me to raise some questions and awaiting his response.

In the meantime have a lie down because this actually has nothing to do with you.

So jog on champ.

Listen CHAMP, you obviously don’t have the mental capacity to understand that some of those questions are not the responsibility of Rhett or anyone outside the board or management of the club to answer and in some case are irrelevant to the history being put back to its rightful position.

 

[blaisee]

Listen CHAMP, you obviously don’t have the mental capacity to understand that some of those questions are not the responsibility of Rhett or anyone outside the board or management of the club to answer and in some case are irrelevant to the history being put back to its rightful position.

look chump

You clearly have too much time on your hands
and to be perfectly clear, I really don't care what you think, so you are now on the ignore list

I sit waiting for Rhett to answer the questions he asked me to ask.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Agreed. This administration is not known for taking the easy road.

#sackbennysackpeggysackhardwick
am I doing this right?

 

[rmcq]

Actually you're bang on

Apologies rmcq I thought the bracket in your post saying you worked on this was an insert by you - it was actually the end of the RB post

I'm back to having no idea who you are

No worries. It would have been better if I'd enclosed the Twitter discussion in some sort of formatting codes I guess.

But you can be sure that apart from paying them hundreds of dollars a year for memberships, I have no other relationship with the Richmond Football Club. I don't even know Rhett Bartlett personally, only have heard him interviewed and read some of his Twitter posts.

My default position is to always assume people are doing things for the right reasons unless evidence sways me otherwise.

Just like I assume you are passionate about the club and its history, and want to be sure the right thing has been done. But resorting to personal attacks on myself, Rhett Bartlett and others is really unnecessary. ... That goes for others in this thread too. Seriously, we all love the club, stop the name calling!

 

[SunshineBoy]

That’s absurd as I’ve never heard a mention of going back to award NS medals back in time. We’re talking about a BF award which is based on a season of games and not one game.
There would be archives supporting the findings of the 88 committee who went back and researched this.
A good archaeologist looks for bones and other remnants to add to history to give us a picture of what life was like back then whereas a bad one removes historical evidence and distorts it
Surely the RFC had an outstanding individual in those years and there’s enough evidence to support this. The only dispute could be if there were players of high and equal recognition according to the tabloids and in this case I would honour both of them as at least it gives me a historical perspective to what happened. Removing these names is the work of amateur historians and puts a void in RFC folklore.

live found the missing winners

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No worries. It would have been better if I'd enclosed the Twitter discussion in some sort of formatting codes I guess.

But you can be sure that apart from paying them hundreds of dollars a year for memberships, I have no other relationship with the Richmond Football Club. I don't even know Rhett Bartlett personally, only have heard him interviewed and read some of his Twitter posts.

My default position is to always assume people are doing things for the right reasons unless evidence sways me otherwise.

Just like I assume you are passionate about the club and its history, and want to be sure the right thing has been done. But resorting to personal attacks on myself, Rhett Bartlett and others is really unnecessary. ... That goes for others in this thread too. Seriously, we all love the club, stop the name calling!

For me it still comes down to explaining why the 88 decision was accepted then, and why it shouldn't be now

Personally from what I've seen I think they should be asterixed, you can't unscramble the egg.

 

[rmcq]

For me it still comes down to explaining why the 88 decision was accepted then, and why it shouldn't be now

Personally from what I've seen I think they should be asterixed, you can't unscramble the egg.

If you look at Rhett's website, you can see that one criteria is that only "Best and Fairest" awards are considered. "Best Player", etc. awards are not considered "Best and Fairest". I guess that's for consistency, but personally I'd argue that "Best and Fairest" in today's terms really means "best player" as I'm not sure the coaching staff consider "fairness" in their voting anyway. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

It seems, however, that this thread is solely about Jack Dyer for some weird reason.

edit: Also on Rhett's website you can read some of the documents they used to come to their decision.

 

[Tiger Soze]

If you look at Rhett's website, you can see that one criteria is that only "Best and Fairest" awards are considered. "Best Player", etc. awards are not considered "Best and Fairest". I guess that's for consistency, but personally I'd argue that "Best and Fairest" in today's terms really means "best player" as I'm not sure the coaching staff consider "fairness" in their voting anyway. I don't have a strong opinion either way.

It seems, however, that this thread is solely about Jack Dyer for some weird reason.

I would just like the history books to be correct, so if a B&F wasn’t awarded that’s how our history should read.

 

[rantonio]

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"

Agree 100%.

Surely those 200 people could invent a time-machine, go back and apply Champion data stats methodologies for every H&A game Richmond ever played pre-WWII.

And while they are there could they take some colour video footage as well, would appreciate it kthanxbi

 

[rmcq]

People are complaining that Jack Dyer's award from 1936 was taken away? Perhaps they can explain why The Argus in 1939 said that Jack Dyer won the Best and Fairest in 1938 for the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW. If he'd won in 1936, then why would they not say "third year in a row"??

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Time for the Dyer family to get over it I reckon. Accuracy more important than feel good.

Football J. DYER, BEST AND FAIREST - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 27 Jan 1939

For the second year in succession J. Dyer has been awarded the H. L. Roberts trophy by the committee of the Richmond Football Club as the best and ...

trove.nla.gov.au

After reading that I can see why the committee decided there was no evidence.

(P.S. This stuff is pretty interesting, anyone know if the RFC annual reports from that era are available online?)

 

[Punt rd end]

People are complaining that Jack Dyer's award from 1936 was taken away? Perhaps they can explain why The Argus in 1939 said that Jack Dyer won the Best and Fairest in 1938 for the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW. If he'd won in 1936, then why would they not say "third year in a row"??

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Time for the Dyer family to get over it I reckon. Accuracy more important than feel good.

Football J. DYER, BEST AND FAIREST - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 27 Jan 1939

For the second year in succession J. Dyer has been awarded the H. L. Roberts trophy by the committee of the Richmond Football Club as the best and ...

trove.nla.gov.au

After reading that I can see why the committee decided there was no evidence.

(P.S. This stuff is pretty interesting, anyone know if the RFC annual reports from that era are available online?)

1932 not 1936

 

[Tiger Soze]

People are complaining that Jack Dyer's award from 1936 was taken away? Perhaps they can explain why The Argus in 1939 said that Jack Dyer won the Best and Fairest in 1938 for the SECOND YEAR IN A ROW. If he'd won in 1936, then why would they not say "third year in a row"??

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Time for the Dyer family to get over it I reckon. Accuracy more important than feel good.

Football J. DYER, BEST AND FAIREST - The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957) - 27 Jan 1939

For the second year in succession J. Dyer has been awarded the H. L. Roberts trophy by the committee of the Richmond Football Club as the best and ...

trove.nla.gov.au

After reading that I can see why the committee decided there was no evidence.

(P.S. This stuff is pretty interesting, anyone know if the RFC annual reports from that era are available online?)

I couldn’t even find the annual report from 1988. And yes you would think the article would still mention 3rd B&F regardless of the year.