Letter says Glebe were league's first club

[Southernsaint]

I won't be able to sleep at night until this burning issue is resolved...

 

[Southern Rooster]

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!!!

11 years ago I was preparing to watch the final season in the St George Dragons history. A grand old club they were too.

 

[RL1908]

This matter isn't RL's biggest issue. It is interesting, it is important. But it isn't worth starting WW3 over.

Southern Rooster - As far I know, no one has yet found the Glebe receipt.
Newtown has receipt #1. However, the receipt numbers don't correspond even closely to the order that the clubs were formed.

Additionally, Newtown's receipt can't be used as evidence to support the Minute Book date (and that Newtown were first) as the receipt is signed by Victor Trumper, the NSWRL Secretary. The problem is that Trumper wasn't at, and couldn't have been at, the Newtown meeting (whether it was the 8th or the 14th).

Trumper was playing in "timeless Tests" in Melbourne & Adelaide for Aust v England at the MCG from 1st Jan to 16th Jan. There is no way he could have been in Sydney on Jan 8th or the 14th. "The Australian Star" of Thursday Jan 16th lists who attended the Newtown meeting - Trumper is not one of them.

One theory I've heard suggested that could explain the different meeting dates is that when the bound version of the Minute Book was written up years later, whoever did it knew that Newtown had receipt #1, and presumed that meant Newtown must have been founded before Glebe i.e. before Jan 9th, and chose a suitable date to place Newtown before Glebe.

Bluebags1908 - when it comes to accepting one historical source over another, or giving one greater weight than another, the newspapers from the time will always be taken as a primary source over anything else - unless that other item (such as the Minute Book) can be corroberated by supporting documents.

It's not a matter of saying that the Minute Book is correct until proven otherwise - it is the reverse. There is no way of proving when that Minute Book was written. Clearly, with the newspapers, there is no doubt they were written at the time.

As for "How can a 'lie' last that long?" - because until the 1980s no one had ever gone back at looked at the original newspaper reports. That was still largely the case with many RL "truths" in the early 2000s when I started researching for The Rugby Rebellion - from Alec Burdon's injured shoulder, to Dally Messenger signing with the All Golds on his mother's consent, to the defection of the Wallabies - all these so-called RL facts, were all contorted and twisted by 100 years worth of "Chinese whispers" as history was passed from generation to generation of RL fans/clubs/media, mostly in an oral form.

It's also worth considering that the absence of a Glebe club and any of its players, officials and fans since, say the 1950s, means no one has been advocating Glebe's claims on being first, and I imagine plenty of the "Dirty Reds" would gladly have a barney with the Bluebags over just about anything!

 

[coolumsharkie]

This might be a stupid question but what is a minutes book?

 

[RL1908]

This might be a stupid question but what is a minutes book?

This is as good a definition as any http://www.thefreedictionary.com/minute+book

Noun 1. minute book - a book in which minutes have been written

written account, written record - a written document preserving knowledge of facts or events

minutes, transactions, proceedings - a written account of what transpired at a meeting

 

[coolumsharkie]

Aaahh ok it's a record of what transpired at a board meeting.. cheers.

 

[Mr Saab]

I won't be able to sleep at night until this burning issue is resolved...

They should delay the start of the 2009 season until this issue is resolved.

 

[Southern Rooster]

Thanks for that Sean I always thought Newtown had receipt but then Big Steve stated Norths did.

Anyway the best way to resolve this is a Delorian and a Flux Capacitor.

 

[RL1908]

Anyway the best way to resolve this is a Delorian and a Flux Capacitor.

As long as your the designated driver for the return trip - I intend to party.

 

[Bluebags1908]

This matter isn't RL's biggest issue. It is interesting, it is important. But it isn't worth starting WW3 over.

Southern Rooster - As far I know, no one has yet found the Glebe receipt.
Newtown has receipt #1. However, the receipt numbers don't correspond even closely to the order that the clubs were formed.

Additionally, Newtown's receipt can't be used as evidence to support the Minute Book date (and that Newtown were first) as the receipt is signed by Victor Trumper, the NSWRL Secretary. The problem is that Trumper wasn't at, and couldn't have been at, the Newtown meeting (whether it was the 8th or the 14th).

Trumper was playing in "timeless Tests" in Melbourne & Adelaide for Aust v England at the MCG from 1st Jan to 16th Jan. There is no way he could have been in Sydney on Jan 8th or the 14th. "The Australian Star" of Thursday Jan 16th lists who attended the Newtown meeting - Trumper is not one of them.

One theory I've heard suggested that could explain the different meeting dates is that when the bound version of the Minute Book was written up years later, whoever did it knew that Newtown had receipt #1, and presumed that meant Newtown must have been founded before Glebe i.e. before Jan 9th, and chose a suitable date to place Newtown before Glebe.

Bluebags1908 - when it comes to accepting one historical source over another, or giving one greater weight than another, the newspapers from the time will always be taken as a primary source over anything else - unless that other item (such as the Minute Book) can be corroberated by supporting documents.

It's not a matter of saying that the Minute Book is correct until proven otherwise - it is the reverse. There is no way of proving when that Minute Book was written. Clearly, with the newspapers, there is no doubt they were written at the time.

As for "How can a 'lie' last that long?" - because until the 1980s no one had ever gone back at looked at the original newspaper reports. That was still largely the case with many RL "truths" in the early 2000s when I started researching for The Rugby Rebellion - from Alec Burdon's injured shoulder, to Dally Messenger signing with the All Golds on his mother's consent, to the defection of the Wallabies - all these so-called RL facts, were all contorted and twisted by 100 years worth of "Chinese whispers" as history was passed from generation to generation of RL fans/clubs/media, mostly in an oral form.

It's also worth considering that the absence of a Glebe club and any of its players, officials and fans since, say the 1950s, means no one has been advocating Glebe's claims on being first, and I imagine plenty of the "Dirty Reds" would gladly have a barney with the Bluebags over just about anything!

Hi Sean,

Regarding what I have highlighted above -

Yes, Victor Trumper wasn't at Newtown's 1st meeting because his name isn't mentioned as being in attendance in Newtown's 1st minutes on 8th (or 14th) January 1908.

And if Newtown's 1st minutes have been tampered with at a later date, then surely experts in the field of hand-writing and preservation of historic documents can do forensic tests to see if the date on the document was tampered with.

As you know, the hand-writing of two people are almost like fingerprints - they are rarely if ever the same. I have seen a copy of the document (not the original) and looking at it with the naked eye I must say the hand-writing of the date seems to be consistent with the rest of the document.

Proving that the document was in no way tampered with would go a long way in proving Newtown were the first (but still not 100% conclusively)... and if it WAS tampered with it would definitely prove Glebe were the first... but I get the feeling that because there has been such an issue made by historians that Glebe were the first that there is an agenda against Newtown, and some historians (not necessarily you) wouldn't want to go down that path through risk of embarrasment at being proven wrong.

The article in yesterday's Sun-Herald even mentions that Newtown President Barry Vining had brought in forensic experts to examine the document... I wonder what the outcome of that was (I don't know), and whether the historians have conveniently chosen to ignore such important evidence.

 

[Lambretta]

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!!!

I was busy bribing referees

Something every Saints fan from that era would know all about.

 

[Lambretta]

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!

Erm, you might want to look closely at Souths and Balmain for that beautiful juniors grab.

It was all part and parcel of Souths getting enough votes to take Coogee & Maroubra etc out of Easts area and placing them in Souths district - effectively reducing Easts juniors base by about 70% and turning Souths into the powerhouse of NSWRL for the next 20 years.

Remember those were the days before "professionalism" where players had to live in your "district" to play for you.

 

[RL1908]

Hi Sean,

Regarding what I have highlighted above -

Yes, Victor Trumper wasn't at Newtown's 1st meeting because his name isn't mentioned as being in attendance in Newtown's 1st minutes on 8th (or 14th) January 1908.

And if Newtown's 1st minutes have been tampered with at a later date, then surely experts in the field of hand-writing and preservation of historic documents can do forensic tests to see if the date on the document was tampered with.

As you know, the hand-writing of two people are almost like fingerprints - they are rarely if ever the same. I have seen a copy of the document (not the original) and looking at it with the naked eye I must say the hand-writing of the date seems to be consistent with the rest of the document.

Proving that the document was in no way tampered with would go a long way in proving Newtown were the first (but still not 100% conclusively)... and if it WAS tampered with it would definitely prove Glebe were the first... but I get the feeling that because there has been such an issue made by historians that Glebe were the first that there is an agenda against Newtown, and some historians (not necessarily you) wouldn't want to go down that path through risk of embarrasment at being proven wrong.

The article in yesterday's Sun-Herald even mentions that Newtown President Barry Vining had brought in forensic experts to examine the document... I wonder what the outcome of that was (I don't know), and whether the historians have conveniently chosen to ignore such important evidence.

My understanding of the club's use of a forensic expert was that it confirmed that the same person who wrote the Minutes into the Minute Book, also wrote the date.

However, none of the historians has ever alleged that someone deliberately or accidentially fudged the date of the meeting that is the club's Minute Book.

What we are all saying is that there is no way to confirm when the meeting's Minutes (all of it, not just the date) were written in the Minute Book that the club now holds.

For example, rather than this Minute Book actually being used and written into in 1908, the first meetings may have been recorded in another Minute book, or simply on loose sheets, and then re-written into a firmly bound and larger Minute Book for posterity once everyone realised the importance of them to the club's history.

The NSWRU & MRU Minute Books of the early 1900s are little better than a soft-covered and stapled exercise book you could by from the supermarket.

Basically, the Minute Book stands alone with one date (Jan 8th), while over six different newspapers (daily and weekly) have it as the 14th. The newspapers also refer to the Glebe meeting as being the first.

The most telling is the Sunday Sun of January 12th - this is bang in the middle of the disputed dates - which states: "The first Rugby League Club has been formed at Glebe....Meetings are to be held at Newtown and South Sydney early this week for a similar purpose."

This report states Glebe was first, and mentions no other as having been yet formed. As it said would happen, Souths duly met on January 17th, and everything in the newspapers tells us that Newtown met on January 14th.

It's hard to dismiss the numerous newspaper reports, particularly that in the Sunday Sun on Jan 12th, in favour of the Minute Book, when there is nothing to support the Minute Book other than taking it on face value.

 

[Jesbass]

I'm a complete novice when it comes to this, but has the following conspiracy theory been examined and refuted?

Going by the current Bluebags President's eagerness to have Newtown proclaimed as the first Sydney club, it seems to me that such a title carries a lot of prestige - and understandably so. Is it possible that if the first Newtown meeting was held after Glebe's, and if those present were aware of what such an honour it would be to hold the title of being the earliest club, that whoever wrote the minutes deliberately altered the date in an attempt to convince the history books that they were the first?

(This is not an attack on Newtown - I'm actually quite fond of Newtown, courtesy of F7s and The Longest Winter, and have no opinion of Glebe. It's just a thought and, if the historians are to be balanced and thorough, every avenue has to be examined. As I already implied at the beginning, it may well have already been considered and rejected.)

 

[Parra]

Why are NSWRL receipt numbers disregarded so flippantly.

Until the club is registered it is just notes on a page - nothing but good intentions.

Collecting money and paying to register is a positive action, rather than words and good intentions.

 

[Jesbass]

Why are NSWRL receipt numbers disregarded so flippantly.

Until the club is registered it is just notes on a page - nothing but good intentions.

Collecting money and paying to register is a positive action, rather than words and good intentions.

That's a really good point. It raises the question of when a club becomes a club. Is it when they hold their first meeting? Or is it when their governing body recognises them as such?

 

[RL1908]

Why are NSWRL receipt numbers disregarded so flippantly.

Until the club is registered it is just notes on a page - nothing but good intentions.

Collecting money and paying to register is a positive action, rather than words and good intentions.

"Flippantly"?

A club can't pay it's affilitation fee until it exists in the first place.

Further, the NSWRL set out that the fee need not be paid until April 1st.

As I have stated numerous times, the original clubs were not "clubs" in the sense of the word that we understand it.

As early as mid August 1907 the NSWRL said that the 1908 comp would be run on district lines using the same boundaries as the Sydney RU comp of 1900 was. So, when each club formed is largely irrevelant.

In effect, the 1908 clubs weren't clubs at all, but were local branch outlets of the NSWRL.

In fact, the NSWRL co-ordinated the timing of the 1908 club meetings, which is why they weren't all on the same night - so that the NSWRL officials could attend each of them.

 

[RL1908]

I'm a complete novice when it comes to this, but has the following conspiracy theory been examined and refuted?

Going by the current Bluebags President's eagerness to have Newtown proclaimed as the first Sydney club, it seems to me that such a title carries a lot of prestige - and understandably so. Is it possible that if the first Newtown meeting was held after Glebe's, and if those present were aware of what such an honour it would be to hold the title of being the earliest club, that whoever wrote the minutes deliberately altered the date in an attempt to convince the history books that they were the first?

(This is not an attack on Newtown - I'm actually quite fond of Newtown, courtesy of F7s and The Longest Winter, and have no opinion of Glebe. It's just a thought and, if the historians are to be balanced and thorough, every avenue has to be examined. As I already implied at the beginning, it may well have already been considered and rejected.)

It's a theory, but with absolutely no evidence to substantiate it.

Certainly if a club held receipt #1, then there may conceivably have been a misplaced presumption years/decades later that they were the first club to have been formed, and a date before the known date of Glebe's meeting of Jan 9th would have been appropriate.

However, there is nothing to support the theory that this is what happened at Newtown.

 

[Parra]

Maybe flippantly wasn't the right word.

In this thread it seemed that some documents - eg the letter that did not mention Newtown, are given a lot of weight, whilst other documents - eg official NSWRL receipts, are dismissed as almost meaningless.

The rest of us will have to defer to the experts, and I expect that there are solid reasons for why some information given more weight. I am glad that there are at least a couple of league historians doing this work. It is very interesting.

 

[RL1908]

Maybe flippantly wasn't the right word.

In this thread it seemed that some documents - eg the letter that did not mention Newtown, are given a lot of weight, whilst other documents - eg official NSWRL receipts, are dismissed as almost meaningless.

The rest of us will have to defer to the experts, and I expect that there are solid reasons for why some information given more weight. I am glad that there are at least a couple of league historians doing this work. It is very interesting.

No worries.

The NSWRL receipts aren't useful as the money wasn't paid to the NSWRL on the night each club was formed - it's just when the club secretary got around to paying the money by April 1st.

Giltinan's letter provides further support to the information, dates and reports in the newspapers.

I'm not sure this issue can ever be progressed any further short of someone finding a newspaper report that confirms the Newtown Minute Book date of Jan 8th, or a Council record of the Newtown Town Hall booking (which has been attempted, but nothing found).