Talk:Stanley Park Stadium

Name?
I thought the new Liverpool stadium was going to be called Anfield as well?

As did I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.27.118 (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That what LFC said and it still seems like the current plan, Stanley Park Stadium is the provisional name (remember Arsenals's ground was called Ashburton Grove up until it opened). When its opens it will be given its official name. Hopeful the owners wont name it after the sponsors 87.127.157.166 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes because sponsors are well known for donating anonymously, I'm sure they won't insist on the name including their brand.. Sorry to be mocking but it's probably best you crash to Earth now rather than later. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Decision Date
The article gives both Feb 2003 and 8th December 2006 as the decision date for planning permission.

The liverpool council website: http://www.liverpool.gov.uk/environment/planning/mvm_explorer.asp Gives 11 April 2006 as the decision date for application 03F/3214 which is the application for the stadium. The likelihood is that all three dates are correct for different parts of the planning process but the ambiguity needs clearing up. --Williham 12:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism
This whole page is plagarised - http://www.sports-venue.info/FIFA/Stanley_Park.html

I don't know what to do with it though. Blanking it wouldn't be right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackbeltMage (talk • contribs) 07:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for keeping an eye out, but we're safe.
 * A review of that site's other stadium articles seems to indicate that it's happening the other way around. Each stadium's article on that site matches that of Wikipedia.  Examining the history of the Wikipedia articles reveals that they have been appropriately written peice by peice by users over time.  Take the opening line, for instance.  It has remained completely unchanged, having been written for the first version of the article here on November 26, 2004 by Grunners.  Sports-venue.info apparently copied Wikipedia's article sometime between September 2006 and February 2007 as the article basically remained unchanged during the period after the lease was given and prior to the Liverpool takeover by Gillette/Hicks. - Slow Graffiti 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A review of that site's other stadium articles seems to indicate that it's happening the other way around. Each stadium's article on that site matches that of Wikipedia.  Examining the history of the Wikipedia articles reveals that they have been appropriately written peice by peice by users over time.  Take the opening line, for instance.  It has remained completely unchanged, having been written for the first version of the article here on November 26, 2004 by Grunners.  Sports-venue.info apparently copied Wikipedia's article sometime between September 2006 and February 2007 as the article basically remained unchanged during the period after the lease was given and prior to the Liverpool takeover by Gillette/Hicks. - Slow Graffiti 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Pictures
I have put in a request for picures of the revised stadium. Adam 17:05 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given request notification and confirmed picture Adam

Criticism of the design
I am removing this section of the article. It sounds incredibly biased and no sources are provided to back up any of the statements listed.

HRH The KING 02:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My response:

“Incredibly biased” That is funny. The original article included lines such as “The unique asymmetrical design.” “One striking feature.” And “Into the heart.” Can you say those lines aren’t biased? Can you seriously say that those lines weren’t written by somebody who was trying to make the stadium sound good? Manipulative is the word.

You think that no sources were provided to back up any of the statements listed? Firstly, I am new to Wikipedia and I don’t know how add sources or hyperlinks etc. Secondly, I live in Liverpool, (Huyton to be precise.) For every 10 people I know, only 3 of them think the stadium is beautiful. I stated as a fact that the stadium has been criticized, (Which it has.) I didn’t say that it is ugly. Do not take it out again. I stated facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard LVP Real (talk • contribs) 10:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. Why is it then that any opinion criticising the design would be accepted as fact by you, yet any opinion praising the design is regarded as bias and manipulation? I would recommend that your section on the design of the stadium should not be added until you learn to add sources. You say the design has been criticised by "a large percentage of the public?" OK, what percentage? What are you basing that on? Where is the figure you are using? Where is the source? Which people made the statements you cited? Who called it "a modern monstrosity?" Where is the evidence for this supposed "propaganda" and who is the source of these opinions? The section you added regarding the symbolism of "glass" is absurd. Where is the evidence for this alleged conspiracy to censor information? The section is being removed. Your section has been removed by three different members. Please do not add it again until you can back up your information.

HRH The KING 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My logic is flawed? I think not. You see the original article was as one sided as it possibly could have been. I merely balanced it out. Why is it then that any opinion criticising the design would be accepted as fact by me? It is a fact that the stadium has been criticised. Whather the stadium is ugly or not is a matter of opinion. Fact: The stadium has been criticised. I added a paragraph in which I stated facts. What percentage of the public? I don’t know. What percentage of the public would critisice Margrret Thatchers reign over Britain? I don’t know, but I bet that percentage is large. If I had given a precise percentage, then that would have been ridiculous, but I didn’t because I don’t know what percentage of the public has criticised it. I can’t imagine you knowing what percentage of the public has praised it!

Where is the source for these opinions? My source is the people of Liverpool. Most people I know in college, most people in my community. They are the source. It is all well and good to name the Liverpool Echo and architecture critics as sources but what about the common people? How can you add a hyperlink to a website displaying the opinions of the people of Liverpool? The Liverpool Echo is just another currupt newspaper that is run by people who know how easy it is to manipulate those who do not ask questions.

You persist in asking me for sources as if the comments I added originated in a newspaper or a web site. They didn't. They originated from the minds of the people of Liverpool. Maybe you rely on websites or newspapers as sourses but I and many others are able to form our own opinions. The comments I added didn’t originate from a newspaper or a web site. They come from the opinions of the people in my comminity and college (Most of them at least.)

Conspiracy to censor informtion???? How about every time my paragraph is deleted. Would that not count as censorship?

Who called it a modern monstrosity? Who am I basing this on? The people. The source is the people. People in my college, people in my community. Not a web site or a newspaper.

Excuse me? Symbolism of glass? In what part of my paragraph did I add a statement about the symbolism of glass? Glass doesn’t hold any symbolism. It is the least expensive building material to use. That is a fact. That is why 99% of new buildings are using glass as the predominant compenent. Oh sorry, I added an exact percentage. You’ll have to forgive me for that!!!! The new stadium uses so much glass that it is more like a green house than a stadium. Are you referring to fact that I said the stadium will represent how money concious the stock holders are? Well… It does. Those people don’t want to spend a penny more than they have to so they demanded that the stadium costs as little as possible, and so they chose a design with lots and lots of glass.

- Richard LVP Real

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.193.140 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The original article is not "one sided" and it does not require you to "balance it out". You post statements that are unsupported by sources and not only that, you dismiss any positive opinion regarding the stadium as being conspiratorial. The article is not the place for your personal theories regarding the alleged opinions relating to the stadium. I suggest you take your conspiratorial theories to message boards and not a Wikipedia article. I recommend you don't add statistics, percentages, and figures without citing evidence and sources. This article is not the place for the opinions of your friends from college to be posted and if you believe the Liverpool Echo to be "corrupt" then I suggest you contact them and engage them in a discussion relating to the matter, and once again, your theories regarding the use of glass in the stadium design do not belong in a Wikipedia article. I suggest you move on and let this matter drop.

HRH The KING 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The original article was not one sided???? Are you serious? Do you seriously expect anybody to believe that it wasn’t written by somebody who had a hand in it’s design or approvement for construction??? I’m an not an idiot. It is painfully obvious that it was dropping hints about it’s construction being a good thing! Since this is Wikipedia and it is supposed to be neutral ground that shows praise and criticism of something, I would say that it does require me to “balance it out.” As I have said before, I am new to wikipedia and am still unsure of how to add sources/hyperlinks. I’ve only just discovered this discussion page. I dismiss positive opinion? Well you dismiss negative opinion! Believe it or not, but just because Rick Parry says it is stunning and everyione will love it, that doesn’t mean it is true! Conspirational? If that’s what you want to call it, then yes. Also, the reason that the picture has been removed in my mind is because they don’t want people to take a good hard look at it and realise how ugly it really is! There are conspiracies everywhere. Let me pick one example out of the air… ITN, how many news reports has it done in which they revealed how many people of this country are anti monarchy??? Now look at they amount of news reports it has done in which it describes the monarchy as a brilliant necessity? Anybody with half a brain knows that ITN are pro monarchy and are trying to convince everybody that the monarchy is great! Propaganda, it isn’t just used to convince people to go to war!!!

Wikipedia is not the place for my opinions? How about the opinions of the public? Believe me I am not the only one who despises the design! Of course the critisicm is not openly talked about by LFC TV or the Liverpool Echo because they don’t want the people to know exactly how many people hate it.

Alleged opinions??? No! Vast opinion! (Of the people of LIVERPOOL!) Don’t add statistics or percentages??? When have I ever added statistics or a percentage? I want you to look at everything I have added to the article and find any statistics or percentages that I added. I suggest you stop making rediculous accusations without backing them with evidence!!!

Yes, I will definatelly contact the Liverpool Echo and accuse them of abusing their power and - I’m sure that they will debate me and even print an article about it!...  I’m sure that they will be happy to make my accusations public knowledge!!!

I will most certainly not let the matter drop. Liverpool is the greatest football club in the world and Hicks and Gillete are nothing more that two money hungry American businessmen who are prepared to rape Liverpool for as much money as possible. They have no love for football, let alone Liverpool. They plan on destroying their home, the land in which Bill Shankly watched his team become a first division club. The land on which great footballers like Dalglish, Gerrard, Rush, Barnes, Fowler, Liddel, Carragher etc etc became known as great Liverpool footballers. Hicks and Gillette are money hungry Americns who chose the cheapest design available! Liverpool is a huge club and I agree that they need a new stadium, but the proposed one is not worthy. If Bill saw it he would throw up! Once again my theory on glass... I see you decided not to refer to it as absurd this time! I know a thing or two about architecture and glass is the cheapest material to use which is why it is used as the largest percentage of the exterior in many many buildings of the 21st century. Once again, the sources for the opinion of this ugly stadium is the people of Liverpool, not a web site or newspaper!

- Richard LVP Real

I have come back to this article recently. What has happened to the description of it's design?? "An ugly stadium that is composed mostly of glass because it is the cheapest building material to use. It is an insult to Liverpool F.C" tells us NOTHING about the shape, style, method of construction etc, and is TOTALLY inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I have read the above comments but am at a loss as to why the original information has simply been deleted. Words like "innovative" and "striking" are not POV, they are comparative. Please restore at least SOMETHING meaningful about the design of this stadium,a and keep such criticisms as are there now for the Liverpool fan website.

User: EasyTiger 07:16, 18 February 2008


 * i'm not getting involved in the rights and wrongs of what was written, but sources must be verifiable. Unless you can provide written signed statements from 'the people of liverpool' that are then publish in a public domain to verify that this is their opinion, then your sources are not verifiable. That is not to say that the information is not correct, but the standards of an encyclopaedia require that all sources are independently verifiable by anyone, whether they live in Liverpool or Shanghai.
 * Your last statements do not support your case - I understand your passion for your club, but to refer to Liverpool as 'the greatest football club in the world' and to use such language describing the owners suggests you are not editing from a neutral point of view. Again, not to say you are wrong, in fact I happen to empathise with Liverpool supporters watching the decline of their club due to mismanaged ownership, but this is an encyclopaedia and such comments and opinions are for other places. The fact that you edited this talk page without logging in again also suggests you were seeing red at the time (no pun intended!) and it is always best to count to ten before acting in such situations. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Capacity
What's all this talk of capacity approaching 80,000? As I understand it, we've got planning permission for a 60,000 seater stadium, and there are discussions going on with the city authorities to expand it to something in the seventies (possibly involving the opening of a rail link - transport seems to be the sticking point), but 81,000? As far as I can tell this is based on nothing but rumours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.29.168 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

i think if we r goin to build a stadium, we should build the biggest 1 in uk... we should build a capacity of 91'000, but only put 60'000 seat on just for the regulation... then in the future we dont have to spend any more money to expanding.. just put extra seat on... or maybe we can go topless... that maybe cheaper...

I thought it was 60,000 with 1,000 seats for segregation. This is what it says in most of the external links. Wikipedia the only place Ive seen where it seem it will open at 71,000 87.127.157.166 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed; I corrected it the 60,000 (and up to 71,000) the official website states but some optimistic soul changed it back to 80,000. Now changing it again.. I shall place a reference this time. --86.138.185.14 (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the capacity 60,000 as said on the main Liverpool FC page or 73,000 as said on the stadiums page. Its really confusing. Cant believe its 73,000 seeing as the owners cant afford to build a 60,000 one —Preceding unsigned comment added by KP-TheSpectre (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Redraft of this article
I have removed all of the NPOV language littering the page, and have hopefully got it back on track.

I cannot find any genuine criticism of the new stadium design from any reputable published source, and as such have removed the section entirely. Please do not return it to the text without providing sources - it is simply not enough for you to believe something to be true, you really do have to convince all Wikipedians that what you write is true by backing it up with evidence.

I think that further revision of the NPOV and personal criticisms of the design without sourcing would be vandalism, and I will ask an administrator to protect the article. A huge number of news outlets, students and individuals will come to this page first when researching the new stadium. Misrepresenting personal views at the expense of fact does no-one a service.Mwmonk 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The new statium is the very unpopular amongst many of the clubs fans. I understand the need for objectivity and sourcing, but just because concerns are misplaced dose not meen they are not real. This explains my recent edit's. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The stadium will have 61000 seats at first with a design to enable enlargement to 81000 seats in coming years.I know this as my father is part of the council who ave planning permission to the stadium —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avery50000 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably, your father is clearly incapable of reading the decisions reached by the council's planning department.

The permission is currently for a capacity of 60,000 with permission for future expansion to a maximum capacity of 71,000. Adittionally, if the club were to increase the capacity beyond the currently proposed 60,000, the Council have an agreement that the club will fund suitable improvements to the local public transport infrastructure to cope with increased matchday travel.

All of the above is a matter of public record.

There has been no permission to extend to 71,000. The transport infrastructure requires upgrading for a 71,000 capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterspaces (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlsberg Anfield
Such a prospective idea does not deserve such prominent placement in the article. Liverpool bosses have not even expressed an interest in the deal. It is merely one minor aspect of a stadium discussion which the results of have not yet been mentioned in the press. I'm moving it into the body of the text. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  13:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

heavily discussed in the media and definiely under consideration - deserves prominance regardless of the feelings of the above 129.11.77.197 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

now now, just because 'carlsberg anfield ' has become a stick to beat you lot with, there's no need to shift it deep into the page and replace it with 'there has no firm name been suggested'. have some pride! 81.96.246.67 (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ground share - what is the point?
Liverpool and Everton are two of the closest rivals in the history of Football, so why share a ground for? Fighting is bound to come into this at some point about costs, rent etc, so I think that the ground share is a no - go. Besides, what are they going to call the new stadium? How are they going to share the seats on Derby day? How are they going to make it stand out on the outside of it? So many questions that need asking in order to make this plan work.

Lewis Charlton 19th February 2010 17:57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.193.247 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, building one stadium would be cheaper than building two and neither of these teams have piles of cash that they are struggling to find a use for. Sure they're rivals but they manage OK with one stadium and two teams in Milan, Rome & Guadalajara.  If they save a bit of cash, then maybe they could boost their squads and be rivals with the top teams in the Premier League (& Europe) rather than just playing out a parochial rivalry for 4th, 5th or 6th place - which is where they're heading at the moment.  Also, they'd be able to build a larger capacity venue and get more revenue from tickets.  The derby day point is obvious, there'll be a notional home and away team each time, but think what the atmosphere would be like with 50,000 home and 30,000 away fans (compared with 50,000 & 10,000, or whatever).  They could call it "The City of Liverpool Stadium" or some nice cuddly name to reinforce the image they like to give of it being 'the friendly derby' when these e teams meet.  MikesPlant (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that talk pages are not forum pages; use this page to talk about the article, not the stadium. Ged UK  10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that both Munich and Milan have large stadiums shared by two teams from the same city. I'm sure supporters of the two Merseyside teams would insist neither compare, but I doubt fans from Germany or Italy would agree. Munich's stadium uses lighting to indicate which team is playing - I see no reason a similar scheme could not be used. Alternatively, each team could have a 'home' end, to avoid arguments on derby day. Both current stadiums already have substantial crowd mixing despite the security rules and the grade A status assigned by the police, and trouble never seems to occur in the stands (not recently anyway). As for a name, what about 'Merseyside Stadium', or sticking with the current article title? It would inevitably be named after a sponsor anyway so no need to worry about whose name is in the title!
 * A far bigger problem is the nitpicking over trivial issues such as these by fans who cannot see past their blue or red coloured glasses..Bertcocaine (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph removed
I've removed this paragraph:

"The stadium would be anchored by an expanded 18,500-seat standalone Kop, an increase of more than 5,000 seats. The parabolic roof of the Kop stand is designed to focus the supporters' volume towards the pitch. The stadium is arranged in a traditional 4 stand configuration, bringing supporters closer to the pitch than in modern bowl stadia. If it had been built in time and England had been chosen to host the 2018 World Cup, the stadium could have been used to host matches at the tournament."

For these reasons:
 * The stadium isn't "anchored" by one side ( or in the case of the Kop one end).
 * Capacity and increase of same need sourcing.
 * Parabolic design needs sourcing, with the reasons.
 * "If it had been built in time..." If we had some fish, we could have some fish and chips, if we had some chips. A paragraph of total speculative waffle. Britmax (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)