Letter says Glebe were league's first club

[gong_eagle]

Letter says Glebe were league's first club

David Middleton | February 15, 2009
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...gues-first-club/2009/02/14/1234028349290.html


An ancient letter unearthed in a Brisbane library may finally end the long-running argument over which was Australia's first rugby league club.
Newspaper reports from the period clearly record that the Glebe club - long since defunct - was established first on January 9, 1908. However, officials of the Newtown club cling steadfastly to the belief that they were first, formed on January 8, 1908.
The Newtown men claim bragging rights due to the possession of the club's first minute book, with the date 8-1-1908 hand-written by the original club secretary.
League historians including Ian Heads, Geoff Armstrong and Sean Fagan are convinced the date on the minute book is almost certainly incorrect, while Newtown president Barry Vining is equally adamant that his club's record is authentic.
But the discovery of an original letter, hand-written by league founder James J. Giltinan, and dated January 10, 1908, adds considerable weight to the argument that Glebe's foundation meeting came first and Newtown's followed later (on January 14, 1908).
The letter, which forms part of the Harry Sunderland Collection at Brisbane's John Oxley Library, was penned by Giltinan and addressed to Simon Boland, a pioneer of the new rugby league movement in Brisbane.
In it, Giltinan tells Boland he has "nothing new to tell you only our movement is still going ahead and of [a] meeting held in the Glebe [before] an attendance of 500 people. They enlisted 140 members." Had a meeting been held also at Newtown before January 10, it is inconceivable Giltinan would not have mentioned it.
"The discovery is just about game, set and match for Glebe being first," said Heads, who has comprehensively researched league's early history.
When the game celebrated its centenary in 2008 the argument over who was first was debated vigorously. Vining went to extraordinary lengths to prove the veracity of his document, even enlisting the services of a forensic writing specialist. But the historians held their ground.
In correspondence at the time, Heads wrote: "It remains a lively debate and not unhealthy. But the next step is certainly Newtown's. Until some dramatic piece of 'fresh evidence' is produced, I doubt there will be any change in the status quo …"Now the "fresh" evidence is in and it weighs heavily in favour of the view that Glebe, indeed, were the first cab off the rank.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

i really dont mind if they were the first, but they are gone now, and thats ok.

first, last, what does it matter.

 

[Non Terminator]

Or a quick look at RL1908 could tell you the same information.
Known a fair bit back...

 

[Big-Steve]

All I know is North Sydney has the 'Number 1' receipt for payment of registration to the NSWRL. Souths has the 'Number 2' receipt.

What 'Number ?' does Glebe and Newtown have?

 

[RL1908]

The receipt numbers are irrelevant - each of the district clubs had to pay their affiliation fee to the NSWRL by the 1st April, 1908. The money wasn't taken by the NSWRL at the founding meeting of a club. The numbering/dates of the known receipts don't come even close to the order of the newspapers documented meeting dates for each club.

All the founding meetings were reported in numerous daily and weekly Sydney newspapers. This provides us with Glebe on Jan 9 and Newtown on Jan 14. None of the newspapers are in conflict on these dates. If all the news reports in January 1908 were wrong, then we could expect to find a letter or similar in the newspapers from the Newtown club setting out the error - there is no such letter from Newtown.

There is no evidence of when the Newtown minute book entry was made.

In any event, whichever 1908 club was formed first, or last, is really of minor importance...

The NSWRL announced in Aug 1907 that it would be following the RU's Sydney district scheme and that meetings would be held in early 1908. It's not as if by being first that a club could claim dibs on another district's players. Each club had to be formed by 1st April and be ready for the season kick-off.

The "clubs" in Sydney in 1908 were not "clubs" in the sense of the word that we understand it today. In simple terms, they were merely a local branch outlet of the NSWRL, and had responsibility for organsing teams in their districts (in the same way the NSWRL or QRL or VRL today is responsible for RL in it's state).

http://www.RL1908.com/clubcomps/founding-clubs.htm

 

[Loudstrat]

i really dont mind if they were the first, but they are gone now, and thats ok.

If only the last remaining 9 clubs dies tomorrow - you'd rejoice.

BTW, UP THE DIRTY REDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Bluebags1908]

I laugh at these historians that try and re-write history!

Sure, there may be some doubt as to which club was the first - Newtown or Glebe - and as a Newtown fan I accept that.

But the fact remains that Newtown DO hold minutes that have the date of their first meeting on 8th January 1908. Whether that date is wrong or not I don't know, but surely historians should not be sweeping Newtown's minutes under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. It DOES exist.

You can dig up as much anecdotal evidence as you like, but the strongest evidence available - Newtown's 1st minutes - is being ignored. Newtown's minutes is not 'second-hand' evidence based of letters, newspaper reports, and probabilities or process of elimination - it's the recording of the very information that the historians are trying to find elsewhere, and that being, the Newtown club's 1st meeting was on 8th January 1908 as dated in the club's own minutes which indicates that Newtown is the first club formed in Australia.

Why can't we just acknowledge that the facts as we know it are that:

a) Newtown's first minutes are dated 8th January 1908 and are first club based on the recording of those minutes, BUT -
b) There is also very strong evidence that Glebe might be the first club.

To simply state that Glebe is the first club without acknowledging Newtown's minutes at the same time is disrespectful towards Newtown and leaves a bad tast in the mouths of Newtown fans.

Historians should be there to record history, not re-write it.

 

[mightybears]

I laugh at these historians that try and re-write history!

Sure, there may be some doubt as to which club was the first - Newtown or Glebe - and as a Newtown fan I accept that.

But the fact remains that Newtown DO hold minutes that have the date of their first meeting on 8th January 1908. Whether that date is wrong or not I don't know, but surely historians should not be sweeping Newtown's minutes under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. It DOES exist.

You can dig up as much anecdotal evidence as you like, but the strongest evidence available - Newtown's 1st minutes - is being ignored. Newtown's minutes is not 'second-hand' evidence based of letters, newspaper reports, and probabilities or process of elimination - it's the recording of the very information that the historians are trying to find elsewhere, and that being, the Newtown club's 1st meeting was on 8th January 1908 as dated in the club's own minutes which indicates that Newtown is the first club formed in Australia.

Why can't we just acknowledge that the facts as we know it are that:

a) Newtown's first minutes are dated 8th January 1908 and are first club based on the recording of those minutes, BUT -
b) There is also very strong evidence that Glebe might be the first club.

To simply state that Glebe is the first club without acknowledging Newtown's minutes at the same time is disrespectful towards Newtown and leaves a bad tast in the mouths of Newtown fans.

Historians should be there to record history, not re-write it.

I don't think Fagan or anyone else for that matter have re-written anything. Historiography at its core is about looking at reliability of source. Newtown's minutes aren't necessarily the strongest source, as demonstrated by the Fagan and Middleton work. They are raising the possibility, a strong one i think that other evidence suggests a different view to the one commonly held. That's not a rewrite, its an exploration of the facts, that as you said the date of the Newtown minutes, and the Glebe evidence to suggest something earlier.

Of course Fagan is wrong about the receipt number business, so i'm with big steve and proclaim the north sydney district rugby league football club the first!!

 

[wittyfan]

I hope all this can be resolved. So much doubt and confusion.

 

[mightybears]

And while we are on Glebe, can we out the 13 members of the NSWRL Committee that voted to arse them [any newtown men wanting to move to number one !], Only the "Smith 3" of 1948 were lower!

 

[bartman]

But the fact remains that Newtown DO hold minutes that have the date of their first meeting on 8th January 1908. Whether that date is wrong or not I don't know, but surely historians should not be sweeping Newtown's minutes under the carpet as if it doesn't exist. It DOES exist.

You can dig up as much anecdotal evidence as you like, but the strongest evidence available - Newtown's 1st minutes - is being ignored.

I think you're stretching it a bit there, no offence. Minutes of meetings these days have typos all the time, let along hand written ones in days of old. Hardly a case for a primary corroborated piece of evidence that should demote Glebe (and its corroborated evidence) to a secondary mention in this situation?

One potentially wrong entry in a minutes book does not outweigh the total of conflicting evidence outlined in RL1908's posts. It's not re-writing history - it's simply confirming what was written (in newspapers of the day), and taken by most as accurate history.

I respect Newtown and their current efforts in community rugby league and have no reason to put them down, but I think your royal blue eyes just might be swaying you on this issue.

 

[Bluebags1908]

I think you're stretching it a bit there, no offence. Minutes of meetings these days have typos all the time, let along hand written ones in days of old. Hardly a case for a primary corroborated piece of evidence that should demote Glebe (and its corroborated evidence) to a secondary mention in this situation?

One potentially wrong entry in a minutes book does not outweigh the total of conflicting evidence outlined in RL1908's posts. It's not re-writing history - it's simply confirming what was written (in newspapers of the day), and taken by most as accurate history.

I respect Newtown and their current efforts in community rugby league and have no reason to put them down, but I think your royal blue eyes just might be swaying you on this issue.

That's all fair enough... I don't diagree with you. And Glebe could well be the first club. What irks me is the historian's outright rubbishing of and total non-acknowledgement of Newtown and it's minutes as if it doesn't exist.

The history books should state what we know - and that is, Newtown have their 1st minutes dated 8th January 1908 BUT there is strong comtemporary evidence supporting Glebe as the first club. The history books shouldn't state outright that Glebe is the first club. It should state that there is doubt over the issue and present it as such.

 

[greg]

Good post Bluebags1908. The evidence is not conclusive either way.

 

[RL1908]

The history books should state what we know - and that is, Newtown have their 1st minutes dated 8th January 1908 BUT there is strong comtemporary evidence supporting Glebe as the first club. The history books shouldn't state outright that Glebe is the first club. It should state that there is doubt over the issue and present it as such.

No one is alleging that Newtown fudged the book, or that the club's claims should be dismissed.

If you watch the official "A Century of Rugby League" dvd documentary, you will see that we covered both positions. I set out what the newspapers reported, and we had Barry stating Newtown's position. No hidden agenda there.

Last January, no one stood in the way of Newtown celebrating Jan 8th - no one tried to get publicity to detract or undermine Newtown's celebrations.

On http://www.rl1908.com/clubcomps/founding-clubs.htm I wrote:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is impossible to verify the dates contained in the Newtown club's minute book are correct, and when they were written up - the newspaper reports provide particularly strong evidence that the club's documents are incorrectly dated.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is not to say that some additional evidence may be uncovered in the future to confirm the date of Newtown's meeting as January 8th, but it seems particularly unlikely.[/FONT]

I don't think I've hidden anything from anyone who watches the dvd or visits RL1908 - both my position and Newtown's are there for all to see.

The problem with the Minute Book is that there is nothing to substantiate when the entry of each of the Newtown annual meetings was written.

When it comes to the newspapers, there is no doubt as to when they were written. There is nothing from Newtown in the newspapers in 1908, or even the years immediately after, refuting the regularly produced statement that Glebe were first. Giltinan's letter recently found adds even more weight to the newspapers.

In any event, and I'll keep saying it, which club was formed first doesn't matter. They were each taking a separate district of the Sydney metro area already defined by the NSWRU in 1900.

If the St George RL club had have lived beyond that one night of Feb 28th 1908, even though Newtown were already founded, Newtown would have lost a substantial part of its district and with it players.

This argument matters as much as who was the oldest sprinter in the 100m at the 2008 Olympics.

 

[$$Poor Boy Blues$$]

If only the last remaining 9 clubs dies tomorrow - you'd rejoice.

BTW, UP THE DIRTY REDS!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, Loudtsrat. No, I wouldn't.

 

[Loudstrat]

Well, that's nice to know!

 

[Southern Rooster]

All I know is North Sydney has the 'Number 1' receipt for payment of registration to the NSWRL. Souths has the 'Number 2' receipt.

What 'Number ?' does Glebe and Newtown have?

I always thought Newtown did have the number 1 receipt.

 

[Bluebags1908]

No one is alleging that Newtown fudged the book, or that the club's claims should be dismissed.

If you watch the official "A Century of Rugby League" dvd documentary, you will see that we covered both positions. I set out what the newspapers reported, and we had Barry stating Newtown's position. No hidden agenda there.

Last January, no one stood in the way of Newtown celebrating Jan 8th - no one tried to get publicity to detract or undermine Newtown's celebrations.

On http://www.rl1908.com/clubcomps/founding-clubs.htm I wrote:



I don't think I've hidden anything from anyone who watches the dvd or visits RL1908 - both my position and Newtown's are there for all to see.

The problem with the Minute Book is that there is nothing to substantiate when the entry of each of the Newtown annual meetings was written.

When it comes to the newspapers, there is no doubt as to when they were written. There is nothing from Newtown in the newspapers in 1908, or even the years immediately after, refuting the regularly produced statement that Glebe were first. Giltinan's letter recently found adds even more weight to the newspapers.

In any event, and I'll keep saying it, which club was formed first doesn't matter. They were each taking a separate district of the Sydney metro area already defined by the NSWRU in 1900.

If the St George RL club had have lived beyond that one night of Feb 28th 1908, even though Newtown were already founded, Newtown would have lost a substantial part of its district and with it players.

This argument matters as much as who was the oldest sprinter in the 100m at the 2008 Olympics.

Hi Sean, OK maybe you are not as bad as the other historians, such as Ian Heads and David Middleton, which simply treat Newtown with utter disrespect. For Ian Heads to say that “The discovery is just about game, set and match for Glebe being first," smacks of arrogance – does he want to re-write history or does he want to record that facts as we know it? Unless Newtown's 1st minutes can be proved to be a forgery, or proved to have been tampered with, then it's plain rude to not at least acknowledge Newtown's 1st minutes, of which there is no dispute is dated 8th January 1908.

That article by Middleton in today's paper - quoting Giltinan in that letter - I find interesting. Depending on which way you read it, it could actually strengthen Newtown's claims. Giltinan is quoted as saying:

"nothing new to tell you only our movement is still going ahead and of [a] meeting held in the Glebe [before] an attendance of 500 people. They enlisted 140 members."

According to teh article that letter was dated 10th January 1908 and so Giltinan was referring to the most recent developments in that there was a meeting at Glebe the previous night. That quote merely states what we already know - that Glebe was formed on 9th January 1908. Giltinan does not actually mention in the letter that Glebe were the first club formed. Now IF Glebe were in fact the first club, don't you think that Giltinan would have, in his excitement and considering the historic milestone of that meeting, said something along the lines of "nothing new to tell you only our movement is still going ahead and we had our first club meeting at Glebe [before] an attendance of 500 people. They enlisted 140 members."

Sure, he doesn't mention Newtown's meeting, but he doesn't say Glebe were the first either.

And another question - why would Newtown, or any of the other clubs get their dates wrong considering the enormous historical importance of their first meeting? Sure, mistakes are made in recording minutes... but a major mistake occurring for such a milestone meeting such as this?

And another question - 8th January 1908 was a Wednesday and the gap between Wednesday 8th January and Tuesday 14th January is 6 days. If the error was exactly 7 days/one week out, it could be reasonable to assume that whoever took the minutes simply looked at the wrong Wednesday in their calendar and inadvertently recorded Wednesday 15th January instead of Wednesday 8th January - so if Newtown's 1st meeting was actually on a Tuesday 14th January then that's one hell of an error to get both the date and the day of the week wrong! Especially for such a significant meeting!

And if the recording of the date was an error, don’t you think the error in the minutes would have been corrected days later as soon as it was noticed? And how is it that up until the early 1980's it was always accepted that Newtown were the first? How can a 'lie' last that long? If an error was made, don't you you think Rugby League identities in the ensuing decades that actually were alive when the game was formed in 1908 would have corrected the issue and recorded Glebe as being the first?

 

[bartman]

Some fair points made there B1908. Nothing like good historical debate ;-)

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

11 consecutive Premierships.

No receipt required for those.

Woah.

Think about it.

11 in a row.

That is heaps!!!

WHAT WERE YOU DOING ELEVEN YEARS AGO!!!