Stadium cold feet? If the sock fits 'get over it'

But then, you never will eat them, as it doesn’t matter what facts come to light, they are exonerated with feeble justifications. False figures eh? the survey was randomly scattered, I suppose you think it was fluke. A referendum would have proved who was the majority. As far as figures go, on Monday 12 ODT, we have a stadium supporter saying that Carisbrook is jinxed after another game loss, and thus it's all bad luck, justifying Awatea st. If that’s not unfounded doom merchantism (as anti stadium get called), then what is? And as for all the hyperbole about the doom and gloom of losing a game, you'd think it was an article about walking upon some killing fields, or New Zealand was about to be invaded by the Khmer rouge as the last line of defence was broken. No. It was over a game of rugby. Nothing how seriously it is taken, and now basing another stadium justification of the stadium in that The Brook has a jinx, just for a win, show how dangerously fanatical the stadium crowd are. Let the rest of the town fall apart or starve, buses, and anything else a smidgeon more important than a silly game being lost or wion in a roofed stadium, can go west. Get over it. as my workmate said today, as we rolled past Carisbrook, "The stadium will be Dunedin's Clyde Dam, no one will ever know how much it really cost". the only difference being the Clyde Dam at least is of fundamental use, 24/7. And Carisbrook is more multi purpose that the stadium, I learned t day cricket won’t be played at the ‘multi purpose’ stadium either. Its really looking good for our veneered ‘positive thinkers’ so bent on seeing it up. I’m going to laugh my socks off the day a rugby ball hits one of the trusses and comes spiralling back down, that’ll cause absolute pandemonium amongst the fraternity, they’d will be the end as whey know it. In fact, maybe if the get over it socks are still around I’ll even buy a pair just for the irony. 'Joyless rustics' must have changed its definition, and now has something to do with realists, and at the least, more inventive, imaginitive than this. And as such should be proud of it.

If these girls chose, after due consideration, to produce a product which was bound to be seen as provocative by a high proportion (if not a majority), of Dunedin's population, and did so mindful of what the reaction was likely to be, then none of this 'they're only kids' stuff actually 'washes'. Regardless of being a School-based marketing exercise, this product was being promoted in the wider community, where that community's criteria, (not the school's), prevail. And just incidentally, 'Get over it' is a provocative enough expression in itself; in fact, I have never heard it used, except from a situation of 'advantage', usually after a 'point' has been scored, or someone else has been the loser. The last time it was used on me, was when a neighbour took a chainsaw and attacked a macrocarpa hedge at the back of our property (not on our common boundary), without even the courtesy of prior discussion, and hacked it back so far that it is now beginning to die-off. I am sure ODT readers have similar instances of where this expression has been employed; and, frankly, because of the circumstances in which it is invariably used, I find it objectionable. Perhaps the people of Dunedin should 'Get Over' the well-merited trouncing last Saturday evening, by a much more skilled and better-motivated team which understood its reasons for being on-the-field.

Isn't it great to see the young people of this province getting in behind a project in which they will benefit from in the future. The decisions been made get over it and get on with it. Quoting false figures proves nothing, the majority want it. Go you good young things.

Something that should be celebrated and again they take it back down to their level. Kudos to the girls and their efforts. To the wowsers, Dunedin is building a Stadium and will grow from it with or without you!

If their aim is to "to get through to this separated community" by selling socks saying "get over it" at Carisbrook and then giving some of their profits to CST then I submit that they've failed at their goal and been given some extraordinarily bad advice. Encouraging a small portion of the community to insult a much larger part of the community is not a way bring people together.

It would have been gracefully accepted defeat had it run a proper course of democracy and transparency, like a referendum, amongst the clear signs that stood out that it was not a popular idea. Or perhaps simply that the private sector had paid for their own and no one would have worried. Perhaps, because if I were rich, I'd like to own a classic world war 2 fighter plane, I should demand the public pay for it. Same sort of thing. As far as telling people in this abruptly to get over it, it's just a juvenile, stirring, brash stick-in-the-eye tactic. Whether the decision was made or not, I will never turn around and accept it, I've got a backbone, and am not a sheep either. Most people realise there are far better uses for $200plus million than a roofed stadium, when there’s simply thousands far more pressing, even interesting issues and concerns about the city that would gladly receive a cash injection. To suggest that people who cannot afford the rates rise for it, to ‘get over it’ is like telling people in a third world country the same when you, the power that is, decides you want to replace your Rolls Royce with an even later model , with their meagre monies. If the socks were about young enterprise and about the stadium, why didn’t they just make ones titled 'Dunedin Stadium' rather than prod further salt into the proverbial, adding to the insult.

Albino: you seem to have misinterpreted my post's purport. Yes, we do indeed have some tourist attractions here, ones of which are unique in fact, either to do with heritage or wildlife, and indeed it is these things that surely need to be increased upon. A stadium fits nowhere into any either, especially so when we actually have one that’s in perfect working order, that had bucket loads spent on it recently. Oh right, just because it doesn’t have a roof over the pitch. One, two, three, ohhh. Get over it. You stadium people are never satisfied and don’t let other places/organisation get a turn in this city. And I don’t see people flocking to that (Carisbrook) most of the time. Somehow I don’t think travellers flock to see dull generic stadiums, I’ve been past three other modern ones, (two in the UK) and the places were deserted, drab and depressing spots, I hot footed to places that actually had character. If you think that a few odd full days of a full stadium for a rugby match for that enormous amount of money, then your rose tinted perceptions of stadium being full of opportunities are indeed, as you quote, mind boggling. The concept of adding to our attractions, like putting cable cars in, a city circle tram like Christchurch has done (and it pays), the steamship Te Whaka on the harbour, to name some ideas, is obvious thinking. Or what about a locally owned classic airliner doing scenic flights? This city and it’s region has never been shown off to it’s full potential. We compare well with Bergen in Norway, similar size and disposition to outstanding scenery. Somehow they wouldn’t waste hundred of millions on a mediocre thing such as a costly rugby stadium, when there are real constructive and actually interesting projects to be seen to. And they’d perhaps be sure to see that their public transport system was more traveller friendly, while they're at it. What I was mainly getting at is things like a science and transport and technology museum, of which we have none at all. This sort of thing not only brings about another world class attraction, but preserves much more of our heritage (there’s a lot of Dunedin’s transport history that’s under threat for a start). Oh, and it’s definitely educational, and fun. You could have everything from restored cars to a jet aircraft in there, they are a seller in most centres, Dunedin lacks totally in that spectre. But the crux of my comment, restoring and maintaining such things is a creative, often volunteering job for many people like myself, rather the opposite - a stadium and a few games of kick a ball around a pitch to some puerile yahoo-ing and beer swilling for what amounts to just a few hours per year. As if that will benefit this city, especially set against the cost. This compares to any of these attractions operating daily, year round, and constructed for a mere fraction of the prices of the huge monstrosity. I think that puts things in perspective. Compare what we do compared to Auckland. They do things like build, then expand Kelly Tarltons, things that are unique. That’s what people come to see. I somehow don’t think a ‘stadium tours’ attraction would take off. I don’t somehow think, as you maybe purport at my comments, that locals are going to travel repeatedly on our own attractions regularly, unless they have a visitor. So that somehow does limit opportunities unless you like rugby. Unless you like things such pottery bowls, or housie, like the pro stadium lot suggest all the antis do, in their regular run of swill which has a rather ageist attitude to the older generation. Yes, I see one of the regulars has written suchlike in this column. So, if you think, after that, that your beloved stadium is visionary after that, well, I guess some have their own world. Carisbrook had millions spent on it, and now the wheels squeak for more oil, and get the stadium. Compare that to the Ocean Beach Railway for example, which if given some money, could have had the railway running between St Kilda and St Clair. Like many organisations about the town, including the Te Whaka steamship people, they had lots of vision, enthusiasm and little money, yet big potential to bring about another money making and unique attraction. But they never got a cent. That’s hardly a thank you to many who gave up many hours of voluntary labour, while by compare, no amount of moneys an object on a glass white elephant that 80% of the out of the square thinking people do not want. There’s no question either, apart from a decadent waste of money, what a waste of buildings. Carisbrook’s new terraces and corporate centre, and the modern Fonterra buildings etc being bowled on the site that are nowhere near even prime of their economic life, while in many parts of the world, people area in buildings nearly falling down, and that’s even the case in Dunedin. It’s as tacky as Las Vegas here, where they pull sound modern buildings down to go something even bigger. Compare Dunedin to other centres, and while we have architecture, and Taieri Gorge Railway, there’s a heck of a lot more we could be doing, instead of starving potential adventurous projects with a dismal stadium project. Negative? I don’t think so, in most people’s eyes. Just being cynically honest about the glaringly obvious. Well, to most of us, at least.

These girls are only 17 and 18, I think you all need to give them a break. They are not out to get you like you seem to think and have done their homework. I agree with Paul. If you understood the purpose of young enterprise you would realise that this has nothing to do with whether the stadium is going ahead or not. It is. "Translation - All you poor people on fixed incomes who can't afford the $600 per year rate increase, just "get over it"." from photonz. I am certain this is not what these girls are trying to insinuate. I don't believe the socks are the real problem here. You are using a simple marketing campaign designed for the girls to learn a little something about business to enforce your views on the stadium. Their aim is to try to get through to this separated community and people like you guys to accept the decision.

Pukeko, can I suggest you head to Tourism Dunedin's website......nothing to do in Dunedin??? You are seriously mistaken. It is a thoroughly accepted fact that with Dunedin's Tourism market, attractions, heritage and variety, our great city is one of New Zealand's most popular destinations for both domestic and international travelers - our new stadium is simply going to add to the opportunities we can offer visitors to Dunedin. Your negativity and that of some of your like-minded correspondents is, frankly, mind-boggling. If your prospects are as dim as you say (and that may be more to to with your attitude than anything else), then I respect your decision to leave Dunedin, but don't leave with the incredulous misconception that "there's sod else here unless you like rugby"......you could not possibly be further from the truth.

While I personally don't think that the stadium site is in any short term danger from seal level changes - if global warming kicks into high gear that's still a longer term issue. But I do think that protecting South Dunedin from encroachment from the sea is a very real issue to Dunedin - all that's there is a pile of sand - a few bad storms and we really are in trouble - it won't float away - it will get wet I have no idea what a Beijing water cube is - are we building a fountain too? or does it have something to do with rising sea levels?

The same "sad" few spinning the same doomsday prophecy. The Stadium is being built and we are going to pay for some of it so we all benefit from it. Such is life.

Golly, how the truth hurts, followed by an attempt to twist it in attempt to shame the person. Anyway, well said Caz. If this is a free country, then that's a laugh in this issue, no democratic process at all, the town starved of other projects because of, and indeed, things like the hospice, which get no monies other than donations. And lets not forget 15 million of taxpayers' money straight to the stadium, not the hospital board. To basically say 'stuff them' for the likes of a stadium we don't need, is unquestionable first degree arrogance. And technically, that's just what has happened. People shouldn't have to pay a cent towards the stadium, if this was a free world, it is not core and we already have a stadium that isnt broken. Easily this has been forced upon us, feeding the greedy in high places, ignoring the needy. it's rife in this country. I’d tried to stop wasting precious time on this farce after it got railroaded through, only because it was affecting myself, but when you get dig in the eye remarks, when most people, perhaps demoralised by the unjust debacle, none-the-less let it ride, well, reaction is inevitable.

Who else but PaulontheBay could create a holy crusade out of socks with no holes?

Well, I hope you like them, they will be just like the Brook ones, hard, and no backs, but costing, sorry, - wasting - mega-millions, replacing something that isn't broken with the same. Unless of course you want to spend hundreds and sit in the corporate box, oh, the brook has one of those, 9 years old. The cost of a brand new jumbo jet for another place with hard backed seats, oh and a roof. Real wow factor.... one shakes his head. With such in mind, the CST attempt to appease people by offering readers winning tickets to each event for the first year in the stadium, second prize must be tickets for two, third prize being tickets for four people, and so on....

I just 'love' all these people who class massive chunks of steel and glass as 'beautiful architecture' especially in a city that people travel south for detailed classic old architecture and character. Not something that's akin to something seen all over the world. A mate of mine in USA referred to Phoenix, Arizona as looking depressingly post apocalyptic, because the city's entire buildings had been bowled and all new put up. That inward thinking 'Moving forward' attitude some people proclaim, but such places then get a rating as one of the least interesting places to visit. Even those who admire modern architecture find it dated with in a few years, it’s a fashion fad of such a type, then they move on. It seems to these ones who call us ‘knockers’ are also the ones who in many cities other parts of the world have put up precincts of soulless modern stuff, and funny enough, people stop coming. Reading their lines and attempted justifications, the stadium will be the answer to all our problems *Somehow it will improve the public transport system problem, Improve cycleways
*Stop the third world practice of sewerage in the sea (sorry no, these type of people don’t seem to give much care about the environment, rugby in a roofed stadium is way more important!)
*Increase daily visitor attractions or have new ones created. This city, for one is lacking way behind in likes of a science transport and technology museum, with everything from early computers, classic cars, buses to aircraft and; a daily visitor attraction that would bring in money, create many hands on projects ands save our precious heritage, all a fraction of the cost. No, there’s nothing like that here, and there should be. But, no.
Another stadium is far more important apparently. Because of a few games of rugby, and a possible concert from Daniel O Donnell a few hours a year, not something that would run 365 days a year. (And concerts, Regent. It's got character, in definite warmth, you'll even have a seat with a full soft squab, and a back to it.)
Really, they, (pro stadium), are not worth listening to, they don’t believe in realists, call them doom sayers etc, the usual diatribe. Their justifications for a small fringe benefit of covered rugby defines the word irrational, in a city this size, with an iconic stadium called Carisbrook that was done up not a decade a go, and much more important issues, shouldn’t register at all on the priority list. When it comes to global warming, we allegedly uninformed doomsayers are on a par with Al Gore, as it seems Paul on the Bay hasn’t seen the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'.
Well there's plenty of inconvenient truths the stadium lovers choose to ignore. And not a film Paul on the Bay’d want to see, apparently. Much like Captain Smith in the Titanic, what a good analogy cartoon on the STS website depicting that, couldn’t be more fitting. With the grandmother's words, “if you haven't got something cheerful to share with us, keep it to yourself", well ok, let's all live in la-la land, ignore realism and constructive criticism, even bury our heads in the sand. That’s all that sort of cliché amounts to. The Brady Bunch possibly adopted it as a daily saying. Most people including myself, would have accepted the whole thing, if it had been a fair and democratic fight, needless to say. It's incredulous how a cult desire like this dictates the future of the city to ransom for the next 20-30 years.

It's not very entrepreneurial to market to just a small part of the local population, and not only miss out on the majority, but also alienate them. It would be truely entrepreneurial to offer a range of socks including "support the stadium" "stuff the stadium" and "Stadium? - I'm not sure"

Well, this sets the typical tone of the stadium lot. With this sucker all set to starve other worthwhile projects, from bus frequency improvements to actual attractions, heritage based, that the city is renowned for, we hope they will get over it when the places goes under, visitors drop by droves, and most people that warned them move on out. It’s not time to get over it, it’s time to get out of it, as there’ sod all else here unless you like rugby. Hopefully the lack of sales will tell them the folly of those words, to go with the flow of the losses the stadium will incur. There will only be one sort of interest, which should double the $200 million. Already it’s cost $51 million, and that is surely over and above that supposed 200. Likes of paying to get Fonterra out, and a huge pile of other things. Surely one of the most scandalous infamies in New Zealand history in the making. Any of the masses who prefer Carisbrook be retained should disallow these socks on their ground, and hopefully the sales or lack thereof should make a viable statement, even if, in the usual manner, it will be unheeded. Another set of socks should be produced, once people realize Dunedin has little other than an empty or half finished cost blowout stadium for a few games and supposed concerts. To be titled: “Dunedin doldrums?” “Get out of it”. I’ve already decided it’s finally time to leave my hometown, future prospects are becoming dismal. So little for so much, when we could have had so much for so little.

Paul, Probably they are not the same people who think that the global recession would be mild, short-lived and over by last October...

The reason to oppose the stadium is simple. The costs are too great, and the benefits are too few.

this project has alienated people because it was pushed through without the usual advice and consent a council should perform. A simple referendum would have cleared all this up and still could.

200 at $.50 would be $100 - for a grand total of $130 - these girls will have raised 3 times the $30 the CST has raised (and we've paid them millions to do that for us). Still only of 0.0002% of that $55M though

Albino Do you object to people's right to free speech?

In retrospect, having 'gobbed-off' yesterday about the socks, I have remembered what they vaguely reminded me of. The small 'name-tags' are exactly what we were required to sew on items of our daughter's school uniform, before she went-off to her first term of boarding-school some years ago. I have a notion that the 'impact' of these socks will be the same. They do not get any 'message' across that most people would be able to discern without a magnifying glass and only close inspection will be able to reveal whether the wearer hasn't, in fact, purloined someone's school-socks from a suburban clothesline. Just as well the 'production-run' was limited to 200, I would say. Good on the girls for their 'entrepreneurialism'; but bottom marks for the product, the sentiments expressed and its targeting. It's going to take more than 'Get over it' to make the bad-taste of this ratepayer 'rort' go away, and I think the Council knows-it.

is faulty market research - we know from surveys that 78% of the city doesn't want to pay for a stadium - so they're selling a product that alienates 3/4 of their potential customers. My guess is that someone's dad is a stadium supporter and did their market research for them. Really kids should do this stuff for themselves. If they were smart they'd have 2 lines of socks with opposing messages then they could sell them somewhere else than outside Carisbrook.

It was an eye-opener to yesterday see a pile being driven for the Stadium foundations suddenly drop vertically over 8 metres under its own weight due to a lack of sound ground below where the grandstand will be built. Now what did the "experts" say about that area being sound and extra deep foundations not being required?

Which masses would these be? Certainly not the informed masses. Would they be the group of surfers at the public march protesting the mess on the city's beaches, knowing very well that only one week later the sewage upgrade scheme would be operating? Would these be the same masses fed all manner of misinformation from alarmist claims of global warming rising sea levels? Or would this be the masses led to believe Bev Butler when she claimed business were lining up to leave due to poor broadband, or the very same masses that were told that the new stadium was a terrorist threat, or the so called enlightened masses who were told that the so called 'glass roof' would break, be too heavy and not work, despite the fact that this is the same material used in the Eden Project in the UK and the Beijing Water Cube? The toping on the cake is the belief that South Dunedin will float away into the ocean if we don't build decent sea defences. It's amazing how people are prepared to be scared to death by ideas which are not only wrong but so alarmist. If the people were as willing to listen to the potential benefits to the city as they were to the so called horror stories (as many of these were nothing more than fables), then the so called 'moral majority' would be actually the minority.

I would request you do your homework sir. This project has been devised and run by some of the most professional people I have had the honour to have met. HOK Sport Architectural firm has built over $1Trillion USD worth of stadia and entertainment facilities over the last decade - they know what they are doing. This stadium has been alienated from the people by the people would would use a false 'Moral' and 'Holy' campaign, evoking the evils of Global Warming, Terrorism, Public debt and despair to pervert and distort any meaningful debate and discussion. Sir If you were to do your homework, rather than rely upon the false dogma dreamt up by those wishing this project fail, you would see that the grass will grow, it isn't a terrorist target, global warming will not flood the place, the roof isn't glass it's ETFE, the very same material in the Beijing Water Cube, the building won't subside, there will be more than rugby in it.

I have noticed the rhetoric surrounding this debate sway from moral to now holy. This is not a holy crusade - do not pervert the issues. I would respectfully ask caz to withhold further offensive remarks. The last time I looked this was a free country. A country in which enterprise and hard work of one's own initiative was to be rewarded. You have no idea if these of indeed any other school group has donated to hospices, animal welfare, women's refuge or other campaigns. It is arrogance to assume they haven't. Further this project does not exploit the needy and protect the greedy. This is not a moral campaign and this is certainly not some holy campaign. There is no side of good and evil, as to introduce such notions of evil would imply.

The message 'Get over it' would be much more appropriate if it were 'Dump the Awatea St. fiasco and Get over it!'.
It would have a much wider appeal and make complete sense in these times.

Or, it will go part way to helping the city recover the money withheld in the so called moral rates revolt.