Burnley documentary coming to Sky from this season

[Spiral]

I’m glad we’ve finally got to the crux of the matter, you have a problem with religion.

More precisely, with Burnley FC being used in an attempt to low-key evangelise.

[martin_p]

More precisely, with Burnley FC being used in an attempt to low-key evangelise.

Can you give me an instance over the last two plus years of Alan Pace’s involvement where this has happened?

[123EasyasBFC]

I can't, no, because I haven't seen it, but the title and trailer frame it in such a way that it's not a leap to consider the possibility that the club's brand recognition and the Burnley FC story overall might be used as a vehicle for shining up the reputation of Mormonism.

And if by enhancing the reputation of the club it enhances the reputation of being a Mormon, what’s the problem. No way should a 60 second trailer make a fan of the club spin it into a negative light

[Spiral]

Can you give me an instance over the last two plus years of Alan Pace’s involvement where this has happened?

We had a documentary crew follow people around for a season and a bit, and the title of it invokes a Mormon missionary, and it has like three image and spoken references to Mormonism in a 60 second trailer.

[martin_p]

We had a documentary crew follow people around for a season and a bit, and the title of it invokes a Mormon missionary, and it has like three image and spoken references to Mormonism in a 60 second trailer.

No, actually happened, not you inferring stuff from about three seconds of video footage.

[cblantfanclub]

Spiral you have a poor understanding of the commissioning process for TV docs. Editorial control and access agreements do not operate how you suggest.

[Spiral]

And if by enhancing the reputation of the club it enhances the reputation of being a Mormon, what’s the problem. No way should a 60 second trailer make a fan of the club spin it into a negative light

I'm concerned with the principle, not the consequences, of the club's brand being pressed into work in service of something outside itself. I've said this earlier in the thread, but as a thought experiment people would not be so forgiving if it were conservative Islam in the place of Mormonism, or if we were relegated to League One, which tells me people are not as concerned as I obviously am with the principle of the club being beyond this kind of use, and are quite forgiving of it because of our (relative) success, which is usually how sportswashing manifests. The structure of this discourse is no different to one around sportswashing, even if this instance is, in my view, of an infinitely more benign form than we usually see and hear.

[Spiral]

Spiral you have a poor understanding of the commissioning process for TV docs. Editorial control and access agreements do not operate how you suggest.

No, clubs negotiate a degree of control in exchange for access, even when the club is the one seeking out a production. Football documentaries have universally been milquetoast corporate branding affairs since the experiment of Sunderland 'Till I Die blew up in Sunderland's face and made them look a joke. No club is signing off on documentary access without a degree of narrative control, and even the type of access they grant manipulates and sculpts what they intend to show.

[Spiral]

No, actually happened, not you inferring stuff from about three seconds of video footage.

It's not an inference, it's an observation. Why is 'Mission' in the title, juxtaposed with images that capture Mormonism in the flesh? Could anyone defending their position attempt to explain that choice of title please?

[cblantfanclub]

" I don't want anything not consulted on or not agreed upon by supporters to be hitched to our success (relatively speaking, remember that we were relegated, too) as a football team"

Good luck with that the best way to achieve nothing - as I said you show little appreciation of how these things are constructed and negotiated and whatever you put out will be interpreted by someone in a way that suits them. I suggest you take this up with the shows producers and their parent company if you really are bothered and check the compliance rules.

[forzagranata]

If you were pitching a documentary idea about a traditional club in Lancashire that was taken over by a group of Americans it would be pretty stupid not to include the Mormon aspect. It is such an obvious angle.

I suspect there will be some brilliant speeches from Kompany and some great behind the scenes footage of this season but also probably some ‘cringey’ stuff from the owners that will lead to some mockery.

[Elizabeth]

From the footage already available this looks like it is going to be an amazing documentary with some truly great footage behind the scenes.
It is so fortunate that it has been done during this amazing period in our history.
But the way , any other agenda that is being suggested is simply invention

[Darnhill Claret]

When the guy with the idea had 'to pitch' the idea he or she will have had to persuade someone to commission the idea. He/she probably pitched the title and gave an outline as to how he would portray the whole Alan Pace/Burnley FC story. Enter VK and mix it all up and you end up with a 4 part documentary that we should all enjoy. The company commissioning, might have wanted to do it differently to other football club documentaries, at least content wise. The may have initially thought they would be filming the demise of BFC. But we showed them didn't we. So let's view it is as a backs to the wall, triumph over adversity type of documentary.

[martin_p]

It's not an inference, it's an observation. Why is 'Mission' in the title, juxtaposed with images that capture Mormonism in the flesh? Could anyone defending their position attempt to explain that choice of title please?

So you’ve no examples of the club being used to evangelise Mormons in the last two years then. Mission is in the title because of the mission to get us back in the Premier League. Yes it’s probably a play on words because of Alan Pace’s religion but how you make the logical leap from a play on words to evangelism is beyond me.

[martin_p]

When the guy with the idea had 'to pitch' the idea he or she will have had to persuade someone to commission the idea. He/she probably pitched the title and gave an outline as to how he would portray the whole Alan Pace/Burnley FC story. Enter VK and mix it all up and you end up with a 4 part documentary that we should all enjoy. The company commissioning, might have wanted to do it differently to other football club documentaries, at least content wise. The may have initially thought they would be filming the demise of BFC. But we showed them didn't we. So let's view it is as a backs to the wall, triumph over adversity type of documentary.

That’s even assuming the idea was pitched before we got relegated. The trailer doesn’t have any pre Kompany footage that couldn’t have been taken from the cameras covering the last game.

[Darnhill Claret]

Whenever 'the pitch' took place.

[forzagranata]

That’s even assuming the idea was pitched before we got relegated. The trailer doesn’t have any pre Kompany footage that couldn’t have been taken from the cameras covering the last game.

They were already filming during the final stages of last season.

[Spiral]

So you’ve no examples of the club being used to evangelise Mormons in the last two years then. Mission is in the title because of the mission to get us back in the Premier League. Yes it’s probably a play on words because of Alan Pace’s religion but how you make the logical leap from a play on words to evangelism is beyond me.

Don't put words in my mouth then attack me for not backing up those statements you've imagined I said. I've not once been critical of the owners for what they have done with respect to evangelism (that's not an accusation I've ever levelled at them as having done); my comments are observations on what we know of this documentary based on the title and trailer, with ideas about the nature of framing and propaganda techniques and such applied to the debate. Such is the nature of a conversation that you can make observations and digress from the immediate things you witness and talk more broadly, including about where you see things going, the direction, the implications if suggested hypotheticals become real. To do otherwise, to limit yourself only to stating matter of fact what has happened, sounds remarkably dull. 90% of footy chat would disappear if everyone adopted that attitude. Lots of responses on here can be summed up, "well, we don't know yet, so there's no point talking about it". Wow, truly riveting input. Close the board if that's the case, because this place turns into one of those mindless, pointless comment sections at the bottom of a website and not the discursive forum it can be at times.

[Bosscat]

The church next to the Tennis Club on Belvedere Rd is a "Church of the Latter Day Saints" or "A Mormon Church" to the layman ...

Cannot see whats getting up some peoples nose about this Documentary ... its about BFC ... its not trying to indoctrinate folk into a demon church cult ffs

[AlargeClaret]

Multiple footy docs get commissioned each yr and a few get the nod . If a season doesn’t pan out and it’s not tv friendly it’s simply canned unless they can get another season in to make it work .

[Spiral]

If it's a Burnley FC doc, why does the title imply that there are people who have gone on a mission to Burnley? What is the focus here? Even putting aside the fact that the word 'mission' has proximity to religious mission, if the doc is about their 'mission' in terms of a mission to make the club bigger and better, take it back to the PL etc, the choice of the title frames those on the mission as the subject, and Burnley FC the object.

The sentence 'mission to the moon' does not convey the idea that there is a moon and visitors happened to arrived on the moon, though it does imply it by necessity; it more overtly captures the idea that, 1. there were human beings (for there must be human beings — the subject — in order for a mission to be carried out), 2. those human beings went on a mission, and 3. that mission was to the moon. The human beings are the subject, the moon the object, and a documentary made about the moon landings...see how that was said without sounding weird, sounding natural and common sense...'a documentary about the moon landings'...the grammatical structure of the sentence frames the explorers as the subject, not the moon, so a documentary about the moon landings is a documentary about the human beings who went to the moon, not the moon itself.

So, is it strictly speaking a Burnley doc? Or is is a doc about the owners which by necessity features Burnley FC? A documentary about Burnley FC can theoretically exist without reference to ownership, whereas a documentary about football club ownership is more difficult to conceive of without reference to the club owned. A doc about Burnley could be called, for example, "Burnley 'Til I Die", which by its framing immediately implies Burnley FC as the subject, but this doc has gone with a title which frames in such a way so as to suggests a documentary about ownership. Yes, the club will feature, much as the story of the moon landings can't be told without the moon, and so the mission to Burnley cannot be told without Burnley FC. The hidden discourse in this framing is that it's a doc about the mission, not the club. So, from this perspective, can we really say it's a Burnley FC doc? Can a doc about the moon landings be considered a doc about the moon? Who or what is the subject, and who or what the object? For me, the title strongly implies the subject as the owners, owners who are on a mission, a word used in full awareness of its proximity to religious mission, and religious mission being something that is public knowledge about the owners.

[Rileybobs]

It really doesn’t matter so much to me, I’m sure it’ll be a great watch. But those who don’t think the title ‘Mission to Burnley’ is wholly related to a religious mission have their heads buried in the sand. And just because there was once a film made called Mission Impossible does nothing to change that.

[Clockwork Claret]

Don't need to read this to know it's full of tripe and bellends.

Personally v excited about this coverage and opportunity to show the town and club in a good light. Credit to the owners.

Those moaning.. Get down Ewood.

[Spiral]

Let me clarify a point I mis-spoke on in my last post. When I say 'Burnley 'Til I Die' implies Burnley FC as the subject, I was wrong. It frames the supporters as the subject. I applied my own logic poorly. Something like "Burnley are Back" gets across what I'm saying more accurately.

[martin_p]

Don't put words in my mouth then attack me for not backing up those statements you've imagined I said. I've not once been critical of the owners for what they have done with respect to evangelism (that's not an accusation I've ever levelled at them as having done); my comments are observations on what we know of this documentary based on the title and trailer, with ideas about the nature of framing and propaganda techniques and such applied to the debate. Such is the nature of a conversation that you can make observations and digress from the immediate things you witness and talk more broadly, including about where you see things going, the direction, the implications if suggested hypotheticals become real. To do otherwise, to limit yourself only to stating matter of fact what has happened, sounds remarkably dull. 90% of footy chat would disappear if everyone adopted that attitude. Lots of responses on here can be summed up, "well, we don't know yet, so there's no point talking about it". Wow, truly riveting input. Close the board if that's the case, because this place turns into one of those mindless, pointless comment sections at the bottom of a website and not the discursive forum it can be at times.

I’ve not put words in your mouth, quite the opposite, I’m pointing out you have no words to back up your concerns. Cameras capture religious man saying something religious aren’t a basis for concerns.

[Bosscat]

Series offering behind the scenes access due to air in the summer https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/con ... tball-club

Perhaps read this to see what its about

[123EasyasBFC]

If it's a Burnley FC doc, why does the title imply that there are people who have gone on a mission to Burnley? What is the focus here? Even putting aside the fact that the word 'mission' has proximity to religious mission, if the doc is about their 'mission' in terms of a mission to make the club bigger and better, take it back to the PL etc, the choice of the title frames those on the mission as the subject, and Burnley FC the object.

The sentence 'mission to the moon' does not convey the idea that there is a moon and visitors happened to arrived on the moon, though it does imply it by necessity; it more overtly captures the idea that, 1. there were human beings (for there must be human beings — the subject — in order for a mission to be carried out), 2. those human beings went on a mission, and 3. that mission was to the moon. The human beings are the subject, the moon the object, and a documentary made about the moon landings...see how that was said without sounding weird, sounding natural and common sense...'a documentary about the moon landings'...the grammatical structure of the sentence frames the explorers as the subject, not the moon, so a documentary about the moon landings is a documentary about the human beings who went to the moon, not the moon itself.

So, is it strictly speaking a Burnley doc? Or is is a doc about the owners which by necessity features Burnley FC? A documentary about Burnley FC can theoretically exist without reference to ownership, whereas a documentary about football club ownership is more difficult to conceive of without reference to the club owned. A doc about Burnley could be called, for example, "Burnley 'Til I Die", which by its framing immediately implies Burnley FC as the subject, but this doc has gone with a title which frames in such a way so as to suggests a documentary about ownership. Yes, the club will feature, much as the story of the moon landings can't be told without the moon, and so the mission to Burnley cannot be told without Burnley FC. The hidden discourse in this framing is that it's a doc about the mission, not the club. So, from this perspective, can we really say it's a Burnley FC doc? Can a doc about the moon landings be considered a doc about the moon? Who or what is the subject, and who or what the object? For me, the title strongly implies the subject as the owners, owners who are on a mission, a word used in full awareness of its proximity to religious mission, and religious mission being something that is public knowledge about the owners.

Are you still waffling on with this, give it a rest will you

[martin_p]

If it's a Burnley FC doc, why does the title imply that there are people who have gone on a mission to Burnley? What is the focus here? Even putting aside the fact that the word 'mission' has proximity to religious mission, if the doc is about their 'mission' in terms of a mission to make the club bigger and better, take it back to the PL etc, the choice of the title frames those on the mission as the subject, and Burnley FC the object.

The sentence 'mission to the moon' does not convey the idea that there is a moon and visitors happened to arrived on the moon, though it does imply it by necessity; it more overtly captures the idea that, 1. there were human beings (for there must be human beings — the subject — in order for a mission to be carried out), 2. those human beings went on a mission, and 3. that mission was to the moon. The human beings are the subject, the moon the object, and a documentary made about the moon landings...see how that was said without sounding weird, sounding natural and common sense...'a documentary about the moon landings'...the grammatical structure of the sentence frames the explorers as the subject, not the moon, so a documentary about the moon landings is a documentary about the human beings who went to the moon, not the moon itself.

So, is it strictly speaking a Burnley doc? Or is is a doc about the owners which by necessity features Burnley FC? A documentary about Burnley FC can theoretically exist without reference to ownership, whereas a documentary about football club ownership is more difficult to conceive of without reference to the club owned. A doc about Burnley could be called, for example, "Burnley 'Til I Die", which by its framing immediately implies Burnley FC as the subject, but this doc has gone with a title which frames in such a way so as to suggests a documentary about ownership. Yes, the club will feature, much as the story of the moon landings can't be told without the moon, and so the mission to Burnley cannot be told without Burnley FC. The hidden discourse in this framing is that it's a doc about the mission, not the club. So, from this perspective, can we really say it's a Burnley FC doc? Can a doc about the moon landings be considered a doc about the moon? Who or what is the subject, and who or what the object? For me, the title strongly implies the subject as the owners, owners who are on a mission, a word used in full awareness of its proximity to religious mission, and religious mission being something that is public knowledge about the owners.

And a documentary that frames a club as the subject such as ‘Welcome to Wrexham’ can turn out to be about the owners who happened to choose Wrexham. Just goes to show, you can read little about a documentary from its title.

[Spiral]

I’ve not put words in your mouth, quite the opposite, I’m pointing out you have no words to back up your concerns. Cameras capture religious man saying something religious aren’t a basis for concerns.

I've stated my case quite extensively and it's disappointing to see you disingenuously reduce every single thing I've posted on this thread to a pithy sentence. If I could express what I'm getting across in a single sentence I would, believe me. It's beyond my control that you're ignoring what I've posted to draw the conclusions that you want to draw from what I've posted, rather than reading what I've said closely. You have perceived my comments as assailing the club, and your monkey brain (which we all have) has reacted to that perceived attack defensively, and because you're in a defensive state of mind you're missing or flatly ignoring the nuances of what I've said. Do you even understand what I mean when I talk about framing? Do you understand how framing is used in media to prime the viewer's mind to engage with the media in one particular way — the way the producers wish for it to be received — rather than any other way? Do you follow what I mean when I stress the distinction between subject and object and how this contributes to the framing?

[Spiral]

Are you still waffling on with this, give it a rest will you

Just add me to your ignore list.

[Spiral]

And a documentary that frames a club as the subject such as ‘Welcome to Wrexham’ can turn out to be about the owners who happened to choose Wrexham. Just goes to show, you can read little about a documentary from its title.

The title "Welcome to Wrexham" contributes to a framing which implies visitors of sorts, someone from outside, the subject (Rob & Ryan) visiting and being welcomed by the object, Wrexham. Which, as it happens, is what the Wrexham documentary was actually about. Outsiders going to Wrexham, buying it, improving it etc. The gaining of the supporters' trust, i.e. being 'welcomed' by the supporters, was an ever-present theme of the doc.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Have the owners spurned your request for an autograph or something?

[Volvoclaret]

Personally I very grateful Spiral for voicing his concerns! I remember the days of the Osmonds and the hundreds of thousands in of impressionable young girls who joined the Mormon Church back in the 70s. Also not forgetting those who listened to Black Sabbath and became Devil worshippers.
So please cut him some slack, he is only trying to save your soul.

[martin_p]

I've stated my case quite extensively and it's disappointing to see you disingenuously reduce every single thing I've posted on this thread to a pithy sentence. If I could express what I'm getting across in a single sentence I would, believe me. It's beyond my control that you're ignoring what I've posted to draw the conclusions that you want to draw from what I've posted, rather than reading what I've said closely. You have perceived my comments as assailing the club, and your monkey brain (which we all have) has reacted to that perceived attack defensively, and because you're in a defensive state of mind you're missing or flatly ignoring the nuances of what I've said. Do you even understand what I mean when I talk about framing? Do you understand how framing is used in media to prime the viewer's mind to engage with the media in one particular way — the way the producers wish for it to be received — rather than any other way? Do you follow what I mean when I stress the distinction between subject and object and how this contributes to the framing?

I understand exactly what you’ve said and if the documentary frames it like that then the discussion can be had. But what I’m saying (and you’re ignoring) is that your concerns about how it will be framed cannot be drawn from two seconds of a man saying something religious and the word mission. It’s proper ‘reds under the bed’ stuff.

[Spiral]

In response to the last three posts, I couldn't care a pi$$ for Mormon evangelism in and of itself. Let them do whatever they want, no skin off my back. My point of contention is this being hitched to Burnley FC. I've actually already stated this point, but it appears nobody actually reads. With that said, knowing his personality on here, I know it's in my best interest to let martin_p have the last word lest another whack-a-mole pop up. I basically rest my case, because I'm at the point where I've said everything that I want to say. My points are all there, interpret them how you so wish, even if it's quite badly, which appears to be the case for a lot of people.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

"basically rest my case"

Phew

[CaptainKirk]

I dip in and out every now and again and I keep seeing Spiral saying he has said all he has to say and will leave it at that. Next time I log on he has swallowed another dictionary and is arguing the toss again?

[Bullabill]

I've actually already stated this point, but it appears nobody actually reads.

Spiral, that's not so. I read and I find your contributions most educational. I genuinely love your style and envy your erudition. I went to Grammar School and regret to say, by comparison, I learned very little.

[Corky]

I share Spirals concerns maybe not as deeply but they are there. From the title of the trailer to the religious content contained therein there seems to be an emphasis on the fact that our new owners are Mormons. And whilst they are seen as a somewhat benign bunch they do strike me as being a bit of a weird bunch of quasi cultish types. I don't do religion myself but here is a comparison for you. I am old enough to have lived through a fair chunk of the stewardship of our club by Bob Lord. He could be an arrogant ignorant sort but in my view he was a visionary who saw the need to have proper training facilities before anyone else. He was also aware, again before anyone else, of the dangers of too much TV coverage. But, to this day I have no idea as to his religious affiliation. Nor need I. So even though the Mormons might be OK upstanding guys; connecting our club with a load of nonsensical religious ramblings does not sit easily with me however benign they may seem to some. Now all this may be a construct of the people producing the series and the Mormons may be just innocent willing participants and there may be nothing to worry about. Time will tell.

[Billy Balfour]

I think it would be better for some fans if we could turn the clocks back to the Fourth Division Days when nobody cared about us and many had given the club up as a lost cause. I mean, just look at this thread. It's embarrassing.

[wilks_bfc]

I must be missing something

Has, in the 2 years here, Pace or anybody else “pushed” their Mormon beliefs into the club and supporters?

Other than the removal of gambling sponsorship (a positive imo) nothing has overtly changed. Alcohol is still served at the ground

If they have it must be subliminal. Maybe there will be a hidden trigger in the documentary that when we see it will convert us all at once

[Raconteur]

I must be missing something

Has, in the 2 years here, Pace or anybody else “pushed” their Mormon beliefs into the club and supporters?

Other than the removal of gambling sponsorship (a positive imo) nothing has overtly changed. Alcohol is still served at the ground

If they have it must be subliminal. Maybe there will be a hidden trigger in the documentary that when we see it will convert us all at once

Spot on Wilks. If the end game was to convert everyone, surely they would have stopped the sales of alcohol, coffee and tea that has not been decaffeinated.

[Rileybobs]

Spot on Wilks. If the end game was to convert everyone, surely they would have stopped the sales of alcohol, coffee and tea that has not been decaffeinated.

Has anybody claimed that Alan Pace is trying to convert everyone to Mormonism? There are a lot of men constructed of straw in this thread.

[Lancasterclaret]

Has anybody claimed that Alan Pace is trying to convert everyone to Mormonism? There are a lot of men constructed of straw in this thread.

He might do though

According to people who pay for blue ticks on twitter, that is exactly his plan

He's going to rename the Turf "The Brigham Young Football and Prayer stadium"

[Billy Balfour]

It's a good job he's not a Muslim. I mean, just look at some of the comments on here on and elsewhere.

[Billy Balfour]

I'm beginning to think that we have some of the most unhappiest fans in the country. A season like this one, and we still have people looking for negatives all over the place. Enjoy the current good times because football is unpredicable, and life is way too short.

[Rileybobs]

It's a good job he's not a Muslim. I mean, just look at some of the comments on here on and elsewhere.

What does that mean?

[claretonthecoast1882]

Watched a different Burnley FC programme this morning called capital punishment, wasn’t what I was expecting seen as we are to judge programmes on a title

[Raconteur]

Has anybody claimed that Alan Pace is trying to convert everyone to Mormonism? There are a lot of men constructed of straw in this thread.

Sorry, i should have said "Pushing his beliefs".

I am just following if, buts and maybe's and not truths.

I am just jumping to conclusions ( the same as Spiral and others after a 60 second clip) and stating that if Pace wanted to push his beliefs onto everyone, surely he would be banning the things I've mentioned.

Like i said, I am just jumping to conclusions.
Something that only posters like yourself and spiral are allowed to do.

[FeedTheArf]

A 5 page thread and 99% of it is about 3 seconds of the trailer.

Of course the religious aspect is going to be covered in the doc. Mormonism is different, some think odd, some poke fun at it. If I was Editor, I’d almost be doing the doc a disservice by not covering it in some way given (I assume) it’s a big part of the life and beliefs of the bloke they’ve been following round for 9 months.

If you’d have told the 7yr old me who waited for an eternity to see a snippet of Burnley-related news on Ceefax that we’d have a 4 part doc on Sky I’d think you were crazy! Absolutely cannot wait to see this!