North v Central Match Review

[Ian]

Great effort by the Dogs, completely smashed North mentally and physically as they usually do, with so many players out it was a fantastic effort.
Only thing less insipid than North players mentality was Weslo security's effort in the pocket I stand in, just when you think this organisation can't be any more incompetent than they are they bring a rabbit out of the hat and suprise you with further levels of incompetence.
*NOTE: No Central supporter was involved or even in the proximity of the event.

looks like your comment has been confirmed officially

from http://www.nafc.com.au/news/2010/p3089.aspx

Statement from the SANFL
On Sunday, May 2, North Adelaide played Central District at Prospect Oval. During the third quarter, there was an incident between players in the south western pocket of the oval. This incident occurred right against the fence and it was reported that a spectator or spectators had made physical contact with a player. The security at the ground identified a person that they believed was responsible for the incident and this person was consequently evicted from the oval. Following a review of the incident, the SANFL can confirm that the person who was evicted was in fact incorrectly identified and not responsible for the incident. The SANFL regrets this incident and has conveyed a personal apology to the person concerned.

[Wedgie]

Nice statement.
They say there was an incident between players and that a spectator didn't cause the incident.
It takes them 2 weeks to work that out? Derrrr SANFL.
Talk is cheap. Get rid of WESLO and stop wasting time and money on taking 2 weeks to work out what dozens in the area could have told them in seconds.
Sad to see that the chap I saw was incorrectly evicted hasn't been back for a game with his son despite going every week before the "incident".
Nice work SANFL and WESLO.

[Booney]

I understand your dismay at Weslo and the way they act Wedgie, but what do you want the SANFL to do?

-The pay rate for the Weslo people would be so appaulingly low, who would want to do it?

- If they hire a new security company then the blokes who work for Weslo probably get retrenched and start work for the new security contractor. No plus' there.

- If they seek another firm ( I dont know who else could do it ) the new firm may charge 4 times the price Weslo do, who pays for that?

Pointing out problems is one thing but finding or suggesting solutions is far more constructive.

What do you propose?

[Wedgie]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

[Booney]

Certainly would not be able to have over 3000 people on a regular basis converge on one site without security in the modern world, even if the security is worthless.

I'm sure the problem is the pay structure for the workers. Weslo would charge the SANFL next to nothing ( thats why they have the contract ) and therefore not be able to afford to pay the staff a decent wage resulting in people working for them who dont give a rats. Why would they? Probably on $12-15 and hour.

[Wedgie]

Pay isn't the issue. The problem can (and may) be fixed in he near future for minimal if any extra cost if the SANFL do the right thing.

[nickname]

Given Weslo's ability to ping the wrong bloke for an incident, if they do lose the security contract they could always apply for the umpiring contract.

[rod_rooster]

Given Weslo's ability to ping the wrong bloke for an incident, if they do lose the security contract they could always apply for the umpiring contract.

[locky801]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

A new company has just taken over the MCG and have opened up here is SA as well. Believe they have put up tenders for Aami stadium and also Hindmarsh, never know they may be an option. As for the Prospect Oval matter, my info is that we will here more about it

[Brucetiki]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

A new company has just taken over the MCG and have opened up here is SA as well. Believe they have put up tenders for Aami stadium and also Hindmarsh, never know they may be an option. As for the Prospect Oval matter, my info is that we will here more about it

I've heard the new company that now does the MCG makes Weslo look competent

[Wedgie]

Crikey! I'm going there in less than a month so will bring back a review of their performance.

[smithy]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

In the days pre crows, when you'd get crowds of over 10000 people to the game, was there anyone handling security besides a few red coats and a handful of police patrolling the ground?.
I can't seem to recall security firms being employed then( I could be wrong).

[Wedgie]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

In the days pre crows, when you'd get crowds of over 10000 people to the game, was there anyone handling security besides a few red coats and a handful of police patrolling the ground?.
I can't seem to recall security firms being employed then( I could be wrong).

The cops were free in those days mate.

[Ian]

Appoint a different company who have a different entrance requirements to Weslo and doesn't charge much if any more. Might be in the works at the moment.
Things would actually work better at the moment IMHO with no security firm but I'm not sure that's possible.

In the days pre crows, when you'd get crowds of over 10000 people to the game, was there anyone handling security besides a few red coats and a handful of police patrolling the ground?.
I can't seem to recall security firms being employed then( I could be wrong).

................and after that SAPOL sarted charging for police to attend................way more $$$ than Weslo charge.

[on the rails]

The Police do not charge for SANFL games and only charge a nominal fee for AFL games too.

[smithy]

So if a handful of cops and red coats can handle security at games with over 10K in attendance, why do the SANFL persist with WESLO that can't cope with 2500 people.

And if OTR is correct in saying that SAPOL don't charge for officers, it makes you wonder why WESLO are employed at all.

[The Sleeping Giant]

I would gather that the SANFL have more control over how crowds are (over) policed at games by contracting Weslo.

[locky801]

The Police do not charge for SANFL games and only charge a nominal fee for AFL games too.

Unless things have changed recently, they were not even charging OTR to my knowledge, lots of threats to but never did

[Zathrus]

So if a handful of cops and red coats can handle security at games with over 10K in attendance, why do the SANFL persist with WESLO that can't cope with 2500 people

One problem is these days there are a lot more idiots and morons, generally more people looking for trouble and being stupid. Call it a sign of the times.

[johntheclaret]

The Police do not charge for SANFL games and only charge a nominal fee for AFL games too.

Unless things have changed recently, they were not even charging OTR to my knowledge, lots of threats to but never did

Not even charging OTR? With what offence ?