Burnley documentary coming to Sky from this season

[Taffy on the wing]

So much positivity around the club at the moment doing amazing things and STILL we have posts like this.

Pete will be along to **** on it soon.

[Taffy on the wing]

Fookin' brilliant!

[Spiral]

Really excited for it, but surely I'm not the only one whose alarm bells started ringing at the title "mission"? Remains to be see how the doc has been put together, but from the trailer the narrative framing seems to be around Pace/ALK's acquisition and involvement of the club, which is a different story entirely from a documentary whose narrative is framed to display Burnley Football Club in and of itself.

To use a subject-object interpretation, the trailer seem to frame Burnley FC as the object in relation to Pace/ALK as the subject, and this is a very different thing indeed from Burnley FC as the subject in relation to objects within the doc (the people involved). Critiquing it through this lens will allow us to discover what messages and ideas the doc is trying to communicate. Bear that in mind when it is released.

I expect to get a lot of $hit for saying this, but I've got my guard up about the possibility that this could be a bit of slick Mormon propaganda smuggled into a sports documentary about Burnley, and if I'm right, this raises questions about supporter consent that can be asked more obviously of clubs like City and Newcastle. Why even put "Mission" in the title if it is other than what I suggest in this post? The owners are religious missionaries, and the documentary looks as though it places a significant focus on them. Mormonism is utterly, utterly benign compared to the nation states who use sport to launder their reputation, but even though Mormon sportswashing (such as it exists?) doesn't register as being remotely egregious compared to the practices of the gulf states that obviously come to mind when we think of sportswashing, it is still a variation, again, an admittedly benign one by comparison, but a variation nonetheless on the same sportswashing practices, assuming, of course, I'm correct about the framing as suggested by the trailer.

By the way, responses like, "WOW, just won the league and fans are still complaining", etc. are not worth my time. They validate my general concern, if anything.

[Spiral]

Just be vigilant is all I'm saying. It's our club as much as it is theirs.

[Burnley1989]

Really excited for it, but surely I'm not the only one whose alarm bells started ringing at the title "mission"? Remains to be see how the doc has been put together, but from the trailer the narrative framing seems to be around Pace/ALK's acquisition and involvement of the club, which is a different story entirely from a documentary whose narrative is framed to display Burnley Football Club in and of itself.

To use a subject-object interpretation, the trailer seem to frame Burnley FC as the object in relation to Pace/ALK as the subject, and this is a very different thing indeed from Burnley FC as the subject in relation to objects within the doc (the people involved). Critiquing it through this lens will allow us to discover what messages and ideas the doc is trying to communicate. Bear that in mind when it is released.

I expect to get a lot of $hit for saying this, but I've got my guard up about the possibility that this could be a bit of slick Mormon propaganda smuggled into a sports documentary about Burnley, and if I'm right, this raises questions about supporter consent that can be asked more obviously of clubs like City and Newcastle. Why even put "Mission" in the title if it is other than what I suggest in this post? The owners are religious missionaries, and the documentary looks as though it places a significant focus on them. Mormonism is utterly, utterly benign compared to the nation states who use sport to launder their reputation, but even though Mormon sportswashing (such as it exists?) doesn't register as being remotely egregious compared to the practices of the gulf states that obviously come to mind when we think of sportswashing, it is still a variation, again, an admittedly benign one by comparison, but a variation nonetheless on the same sportswashing practices, assuming, of course, I'm correct about the framing as suggested by the trailer.

By the way, responses like, "WOW, just won the league and fans are still complaining", etc. are not worth my time. They validate my general concern, if anything.

Basically, you’d prefer nobody to disagree with an opinion you expect most will.
All I’d say is wait before gauging a pretty strong opinion based on a 60 second trailer.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

I think that's the bingo card filled now

[Burnley1989]

Sky will show what they think will make good tv, Pace doesn’t direct and edit to suit his narrative.
I’m sure it will involve his faith as I suspect non Burnley fans are also interested in that side as well.

[dougcollins]

Yes - I love everything that's happening, but harbour the same concerns as Spiral over the title 'Mission' and its religious overtones.

[Ampth7]

These documentaries are increasingly becoming the norm in sport and ultimately serve to raise profiles via the media. Really it’s all a clever way of marketing the business and the individuals who own and run the business with the intention to increase follower numbers on various social media platforms for example.

Personally, I don’t really care about any kind of religious connotations that may or may not be a part of this documentary as long as the club benefits from further positive media attention that may lead to increased revenue and support. Furthermore, in fairness to the owners, they have been pretty faultless in the past 12 months leaving the club in a good place moving forwards. I will continue to judge them on these matters above all.

[Spiral]

Basically, you’d prefer nobody to disagree with an opinion you expect most will.
All I’d say is wait before gauging a pretty strong opinion based on a 60 second trailer.

I expect most will disagree, and people have that right, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing it because I've said my piece, and anyone who has read my post will at least go in to the doc with what I've said in mind for the very reason that you can't unread something you've read. The suggestion I'm putting forward to watch it critically will be either accepted or rejected, but once you've had the idea put in your head to view it through this lens, you can't forget it. You can choose to ignore the framing as I've stated it, but then this raises the question of vigilance, which is how I summarised my post.

[123EasyasBFC]

Really excited for it, but surely I'm not the only one whose alarm bells started ringing at the title "mission"? Remains to be see how the doc has been put together, but from the trailer the narrative framing seems to be around Pace/ALK's acquisition and involvement of the club, which is a different story entirely from a documentary whose narrative is framed to display Burnley Football Club in and of itself.

To use a subject-object interpretation, the trailer seem to frame Burnley FC as the object in relation to Pace/ALK as the subject, and this is a very different thing indeed from Burnley FC as the subject in relation to objects within the doc (the people involved). Critiquing it through this lens will allow us to discover what messages and ideas the doc is trying to communicate. Bear that in mind when it is released.

I expect to get a lot of $hit for saying this, but I've got my guard up about the possibility that this could be a bit of slick Mormon propaganda smuggled into a sports documentary about Burnley, and if I'm right, this raises questions about supporter consent that can be asked more obviously of clubs like City and Newcastle. Why even put "Mission" in the title if it is other than what I suggest in this post? The owners are religious missionaries, and the documentary looks as though it places a significant focus on them. Mormonism is utterly, utterly benign compared to the nation states who use sport to launder their reputation, but even though Mormon sportswashing (such as it exists?) doesn't register as being remotely egregious compared to the practices of the gulf states that obviously come to mind when we think of sportswashing, it is still a variation, again, an admittedly benign one by comparison, but a variation nonetheless on the same sportswashing practices, assuming, of course, I'm correct about the framing as suggested by the trailer.

By the way, responses like, "WOW, just won the league and fans are still complaining", etc. are not worth my time. They validate my general concern, if anything.

How are you reading into the title so much! Literally getting to see behind the scenes of one of the best seasons in history and your finding a negative in the documentary title

[dougcollins]

Furthermore, in fairness to the owners, they have been pretty faultless in the past 12 months leaving the club in a good place moving forwards. I will continue to judge them on these matters above all.

As will I .

But I think it's acceptable in any circumstances to hold reservations.

[123EasyasBFC]

How are people finding a negative in a 60 second trailer and documentary title, it’s crazy.

The Mormon religious element just gives Alan pace a human element to him rather than just Alan pace the American football club owner

[Spiral]

How are you reading into the title so much! Literally getting to see behind the scenes of one of the best seasons in history and your finding a negative in the documentary title

The "negative" is not the title, but the deliberate choice of that word in the title strongly implies the framing of the doc, and it's the framing which I suggest might possibly be contentious (as I've stated originally, this remains to be seen, which is why I'm arguing for vigilance). Titles are fundamental to framing, to the degree that even the absence of a title in a piece of crafted media or art serves to frame piece. This will be apparent to anyone with reasonable media literacy. For example, consider what does an 'untitled' album connote? An absence of artifice. But the absence of artifice is itself an artifice.

[Ampth7]

As will I .

But I think it's acceptable in any circumstances to hold reservations.

Yes I agree.

I suspect the documentary will include some mention of his religious beliefs which I think is fair because it’s a part of what makes him who he is. I would be surprised if it goes any further than that though and very much hope that the focus is on the clubs success following relegation a year ago giving us insight into various aspects of how the club is run.

[longside72]

"It"ll be great , we're gonna make so much money" in a jokingly sarcastic voice

[xxmunkyennuixx]

Really excited for it, but surely I'm not the only one whose alarm bells started ringing at the title "mission"? Remains to be see how the doc has been put together, but from the trailer the narrative framing seems to be around Pace/ALK's acquisition and involvement of the club, which is a different story entirely from a documentary whose narrative is framed to display Burnley Football Club in and of itself

I am with you.

The links with religion are strange. I saw the blurb on our website before the trailer. It speaks of the owner's beliefs quite strongly - "inspired by ALK’s faith as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints". No problem with Mormon faith or any other faith for that matter. Just not sure what it has got to do with Kompany being incredible; us being fortunate to witness an exciting season or Burnley FC in general. Seems strange to shoehorn religion in there. The trailer looked great though. The footage and inside info from this season should be box office. I am looking forward to it; just hope it doesn't get all preachy. It would not be representative of our footballing community.

There's a snippet when Pace is saying he is being blamed for relegation which is interesting. I don't think that was the most common take. The most common take was under investment over several seasons which would be due to the previous owner. He's not lacking in support from us for his on field decisions overall.

[arise_sir_charge]

"It"ll be great , we're gonna make so much money" in a jokingly sarcastic voice

That’s been discussed already,

[arise_sir_charge]

This is the equivalent of judging a new signing as good or bad based on a 60 second YouTube video.

[Spiral]

I am with you.

The links with religion are strange. I saw the blurb on our website before the trailer. It speaks of the owner's beliefs quite strongly - "inspired by ALK’s faith as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints". No problem with Mormon faith or any other faith for that matter. Just not sure what it has got to do with Kompany being incredible; us being fortunate to witness an exciting season or Burnley FC in general. Seems strange to shoehorn religion in there. The trailer looked great though. The footage and inside info from this season should be box office. I am looking forward to it; just hope it doesn't get all preachy. It would not be representative of our footballing community.

I was very deliberate in my use of the word "smuggling" for the reasons you state, and I think the subject-object interpretation I've mentioned above is a good lens to view it through. This will be the tell. Who is the 'protagonist' in the story? Pace/ALK, or Burnley? Is Pace defined in his relation to Burnley (which would frame Burnley as the subject), or is Burnley (and by extension the manager, players, fans) defined in terms of its relation to its Mormon owners (which would frame the owners as the subject). I don't think it's strange as such that Mormonism is being represented in this, ostensibly a sports documentary, I suspect this representation it the very purpose of the documentary, and people will fail to notice ideas propagating through the entertainment (such is the nature of effective propaganda). I suspect the meta-narrative will be that it's 'the Alan Pace documentary', the documentary wearing a disguise so as to conceal its intent (which you correctly mention as being not representative of our footballing community), and as such is ostensibly presented as 'the Burnley documentary' for the sake of making it more agreeable. Because of the fact that nobody is interested in hearing about Mormonism at face value, I suspect propagandic devices will be utilised, and the smuggling of ideas is crucial.

[Spiral]

This is the equivalent of judging a new signing as good or bad based on a 60 second YouTube video.

No it's not. This is all about framing. You don't understand media if you think the two things are comparable.

[RVclaret]

Positive comments here from one of the members of the film crew:

https://twitter.com/jamesfromleeds/stat ... 59Piho1d6w

[CrosspoolClarets]

When this documentary was commissioned the success was unknown so it was probably going to focus a lot on the ownership. Now though, I bet it will be very different. I bet it wasn’t going to be four programmes either.

Focusing on the owners cannot avoid their religion, that is part of their story. There is nothing wrong with that, it doesn’t seem to affect adversely any aspect of running the club. I do think some of us are trying to see things that aren’t there, which is a bit of a prejudiced view. Let’s judge it in 10 years when we can probably weigh up how it has all gone. With luck, gloriously.

[Milltown1882]

So many narrow minded people in our fanbase. Just embrace the future. Judging it off the title of the doc is incredible

[arise_sir_charge]

No it's not. This is all about framing. You don't understand media if you think the two things are comparable.

I’m not an expert in media no.

What I do is watch a programme and decide if I like it.

If I do, I’ll continue to watch it, if not I won’t.

I won’t over analyse it, I won’t think about framings or any other such stuff, I’ll just watch it and either tune in next time or watch something else……like I suspect 99% of the population do.

[Spiral]

When this documentary was commissioned the success was unknown so it was probably going to focus a lot on the ownership. Now though, I bet it will be very different. I bet it wasn’t going to be four programmes either.

Focusing on the owners cannot avoid their religion, that is part of their story. There is nothing wrong with that, it doesn’t seem to affect adversely any aspect of running the club. I do think some of us are trying to see things that aren’t there, which is a bit of a prejudiced view. Let’s judge it in 10 years when we can probably weigh up how it has all gone. With luck, gloriously.

I take your post as apologism for philosophical evangelism, as though there were an exchange having took place (without supporter consent, I might add), the hitching of an idea to a more uncontroversial vehicle, an apology made after the fact of our relative success precisely because of our success. I ask this: hypothetically, would this possibility I mention be less welcome were we relegated to League One this season instead of gaining promotion? I feel it would not be welcomed as openly, and I suspect people would be more alert and receptive to what I'm saying were that to have happened. So, why the contingency? Why is the possibility of the club being used as a vehicle for evangelism deemed agreeable if we're successful and not agreeable of we're not? This is precisely the contingency of the apologia for which we criticise fans of sportswashing clubs, is it not? Are we now hypocrites? It seems we are.

[Billy Balfour]

The best thing about this forum is that people will argue for hours, even over good news.

[Spiral]

I’m not an expert in media no.

What I do is watch a programme and decide if I like it.

If I do, I’ll continue to watch it, if not I won’t.

I won’t over analyse it, I won’t think about framings or any other such stuff, I’ll just watch it and either tune in next time or watch something else……like I suspect 99% of the population do.

You don't need to be an 'expert' to think critically, but you absolutely do have a responsibility to yourself, if to no one else, to be conscious of the fact that people will try to take you for a ride by using your innate desire to be entertained.

People's utter passiveness genuinely depresses me at times. It's laziness, sheer laziness, to place gratification over and above your own wits and even to celebrate that choice, to state it in such a way as though it's normal because it's what '99% of the population do(es)'. If that is so, then the only truth contained in that sentence is that 99% of the population are mugs.

[martin_p]

Just be vigilant is all I'm saying. It's our club as much as it is theirs.

Vigilant about what exactly? Every documentary needs an angle, if you don’t realise that then you must never have watched one. Welcome to Wrexham is about two Hollywood stars but has done wonders for the team and the town. You’re massively over thinking this.

[arise_sir_charge]

You don't need to be an 'expert' to think critically, but you absolutely do have a responsibility to yourself, if to no one else, to be conscious of the fact that people will try to take you for a ride by using your innate desire to be entertained.

People's utter passiveness genuinely depresses me at times. It's laziness, sheer laziness, to place gratification over and above your own wits and even to celebrate that choice, to state it in such a way as though it's normal because it's what '99% of the population do(es)'. If that is so, then the only truth contained in that sentence is that 99% of the population are mugs.

Bore off.

[Spiral]

Vigilant about what exactly? Every documentary needs an angle, if you don’t realise that then you must never have watched one. Welcome to Wrexham is about two Hollywood stars but has done wonders for the team and the town. You’re massively over thinking this.

Vigilant about evangelism. Is this going to be one of those threads where I state my case and have to direct people to previous posts because they don't read them closely enough before responding?

'Big Time Hollywood buys barely-alive club with its own money for a laugh, falls in love with it', is a nice story that mirrors the experience of every fan: go on for a bit of fun, fall in love, become a lifer. 'Venture capitalist takes opportunity to align and promote business and philosophical interests through contentious purchase of community asset', not so much of that the average fan can relate to, truth be told.

[Spiral]

Bore off.

Yeah, was expecting that kind of response a bit sooner to be honest. Glad this forum stayed true to form in the end.

[Spiral]

'Big Time Hollywood buys barely-alive club with its own money for a laugh, falls in love with it', is a nice story that mirrors the experience of every fan...

...minus the money bit, obviously.

[martin_p]

Vigilant about evangelism. Is this going to be one of those threads where I state my case and have to direct people to previous posts because they don't read them closely enough before responding?

'Big Time Hollywood buys barely-alive club with its own money for a laugh, falls in love with it', is a nice story that mirrors the experience of every fan: go on for a bit of fun, fall in love, become a lifer. 'Venture capitalist takes opportunity to align and promote business and philosophical interests through contentious purchase of community asset', not so much of that the average fan can relate to, truth be told.

You’re not crediting people with the intelligence to enjoy something without being ‘brainwashed’ by the (perceived) message. So what if it casts Mormons in a positive light, don’t care, won’t change my opinion about religion in the same way I can enjoy art and music ‘evangelising’ about a god/religion without it changing my opinions.

[Spiral]

People might accuse me of being prejudicial, but there's a parallel world in which, say, conservative Islam is promoted through Burnley, instead of conservative Christianity, and it is in this consideration, and the consideration of the inevitable backlash of Islam in place of Mormonism, that people's prejudices are revealed. But nobody dares to say that on here. Nobody dares to answer truthfully: what if Burnley FC were made the object to conservative Islam's subject?

[arise_sir_charge]

Yeah, was expecting that kind of response a bit sooner to be honest. Glad this forum stayed true to form in the end.

Glad I could be of service.

Also thrilled that someone of your intellect, knowledge and such analytical prowess, a critical thinker of the ages, chooses to spend so much time on this forum with a load of predictable, unthinking, easily lead, numb skulls.

Cheers.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I don’t debate religion, as it can lead nowhere, opinions are too entrenched.

But the whole premise of the point you are making Spiral is that this is equivalent to sportwashing, the latter of course intended to disguise some pretty abhorrent things that go on in some countries.

That’s a very disrespectful attitude to the board who have just given us such a magical season, even if this is limited to their choice of manager and the budget to give him, with the rest of the credit going to Kompany. Let’s let them enjoy our moment with us as they deserve to, rather than jumping to conclusions about TV programmes on the flimsiness of evidence. We should all be in this together, until someone gives us solid reasons not to be. Anyway, that’s it from me on this one.

[123EasyasBFC]

The "negative" is not the title, but the deliberate choice of that word in the title strongly implies the framing of the doc, and it's the framing which I suggest might possibly be contentious (as I've stated originally, this remains to be seen, which is why I'm arguing for vigilance). Titles are fundamental to framing, to the degree that even the absence of a title in a piece of crafted media or art serves to frame piece. This will be apparent to anyone with reasonable media literacy. For example, consider what does an 'untitled' album connote? An absence of artifice. But the absence of artifice is itself an artifice.

That’s a lot of waffle for no substance, just enjoy the fact we are getting to see behind the scenes of our club

[Spiral]

You’re not crediting people with the intelligence to enjoy something without being ‘brainwashed’ by the (perceived) message. So what if it casts Mormons in a positive light, don’t care, won’t change my opinion about religion in the same way I can enjoy art and music ‘evangelising’ about a god/religion without it changing my opinions.

This somewhat misses my point. I care not for whether people are actually evangelised by this documentary, I care that it might be an attempt has been made to use Burnley as a vehicle to evangelise. When you suggest that people are capable of ignoring the religious message (I agree with you), you implicitly concede that exists a message, which is precisely what I'm arguing might be the case. So now that we seem to have agreement between you and I of the capacity, at least, of this doc to evangelise, we're on to the question of the ethics of doing it. You say 'so what?', but I'm concerned with the principle first and foremost, not the consequence.

[123EasyasBFC]

I take your post as apologism for philosophical evangelism, as though there were an exchange having took place (without supporter consent, I might add), the hitching of an idea to a more uncontroversial vehicle, an apology made after the fact of our relative success precisely because of our success. I ask this: hypothetically, would this possibility I mention be less welcome were we relegated to League One this season instead of gaining promotion? I feel it would not be welcomed as openly, and I suspect people would be more alert and receptive to what I'm saying were that to have happened. So, why the contingency? Why is the possibility of the club being used as a vehicle for evangelism deemed agreeable if we're successful and not agreeable of we're not? This is precisely the contingency of the apologia for which we criticise fans of sportswashing clubs, is it not? Are we now hypocrites? It seems we are.

Your name fits! You have spiralled a 60 second trailer way over the top and tried to put a negative spin on it, the fact afterwards you said ‘people won’t agree with me’ shows you know your being edgy for no reason

[123EasyasBFC]

People might accuse me of being prejudicial, but there's a parallel world in which, say, conservative Islam is promoted through Burnley, instead of conservative Christianity, and it is in this consideration, and the consideration of the inevitable backlash of Islam in place of Mormonism, that people's prejudices are revealed. But nobody dares to say that on here. Nobody dares to answer truthfully: what if Burnley FC were made the object to conservative Islam's subject?

Are you going to watch the documentary?

[Spiral]

I don’t debate religion, as it can lead nowhere, opinions are too entrenched.

But the whole premise of the point you are making Spiral is that this is equivalent to sportwashing, the latter of course intended to disguise some pretty abhorrent things that go on in some countries.

Total misrepresentation of what I've said in this thread. I was explicit in my original post that Mormonism and gulf state politics and practices are not comparable. I'm concerning myself with the practice of using a brand (sports clubs in this case) as a means to some end outside the brand itself. Morality and ethics proceed in gradations.

[martin_p]

This somewhat misses my point. I care not for whether people are actually evangelised by this documentary, I care that it might be an attempt has been made to use Burnley as a vehicle to evangelise. When you suggest that people are capable of ignoring the religious message (I agree with you), you implicitly concede that exists a message, which is precisely what I'm arguing might be the case. So now that we seem to have agreement between you and I of the capacity, at least, of this doc to evangelise, we're on to the question of the ethics of doing it. You say 'so what?', but I'm concerned with the principle first and foremost, not the consequence.

I haven’t implicitly conceded anything, in fact I included the word ‘perceived’ in my post (meaning perceived by you) to indicate I wasn’t making that leap. I’ll choose to watch the programmes before I comment on their content, a bit boring and traditional I know, but I usually find it the best way.

It’ll be a bit of PR for all involved, but if you have some sort of ethical objection to PR best to avoid all types of media for ever!

[Spiral]

Are you going to watch the documentary?

Of course I am. What kind of question is that?

[NewClaret]

Pete will be along to **** on it soon.

[123EasyasBFC]

Of course I am. What kind of question is that?

Stop moaning about it then and spinning a negative view on it, if your going to watch it anyway, just enjoy it

[Spiral]

I haven’t implicitly conceded anything, in fact I included the word ‘perceived’ in my post (meaning perceived by you) to indicate I wasn’t making that leap. I’ll choose to watch the programmes before I comment on their content, a bit boring and traditional I know, but I usually find it the best way.

Nothing what I've posted is a commentary on the documentary — it hasn't aired — but rather, I'm stating a possible concern that might arise about which we ought to be vigilant. I can't believe I'm the only fkker on a Burnley board being vigilant about this.

[martin_p]

Nothing what I've posted is a commentary on the documentary — it hasn't aired — but rather, I'm stating a possible concern that might arise about which we ought to be vigilant. I can't believe I'm the only fkker on a Burnley board being vigilant about this.

Maybe that should be telling you something about your concerns.

[Spiral]

Maybe that should be telling you something about your concerns.

That those concerns are misplaced, perhaps; that I've got an over-active immune system to this kind of stuff; or maybe it tells me that everything is given a pass because of promotion and because we're back in the same league we were a year ago; or maybe it tells me that Burney fans are every bit as bewitched by success as Newcastle, PSG, and City fans. I'm not asking for boycotts, I'd just rather people not freely offer themselves up as apologists.

[Spiral]

We read and listen to the views of the fans of other clubs that are cynically bought, we see and hear discussions about the cynicism of those particular ownership models, we see a lot of fans revelling, celebrating their Faustina pact, and we label them plastic, then you hear a comment from their own that says 'steady on, let's keep our dignity here, let's not be so servile towards these owners', and we celebrate it, that sobriety — and here we are, this discussion has the same structure, even if the parts are different, only, those who might have been critical of others are now on the side of the celebrators and the apologists. Even if nothing of interest or note happens in this documentary some folks' natures have been revealed on here, I think, as though this were a test-run for the real thing should it ever happen.