Mission to Burnley (including spoilers from page 9)

[Hipper]

According to my Virgin Media Listings, the first episode will be shown on the 10th August at 0200 and 2200 on Sky Documentary but will also be shown on Sky Showcase and on the 11th August, on various Sky Sports channels after our thrashing of Man City.

The second episode will be shown at 2200 on the 17th August.

[aggi]

The latest teaser they just released doesn’t feature the chairman or board. It’s all about Vince & the team. Maybe each episode will have a different focus.

https://twitter.com/skytv/status/168711 ... hrPAGxw_EQ

Can't see any backstreets on there, think I'll give it a miss.

[agreenwood]

I'm surprised that Sky are bothering with these promotional teasers, given that half of this thread have obviously seen the whole series.

Yeah. I was wondering whether I’d still be able to convert to Mormonism if the documentary doesn’t feature it as much as some people on here are predicting.

[Burnley1989]

Yeah. I was wondering whether I’d still be able to convert to Mormonism if the documentary doesn’t feature it as much as some people on here are predicting.

I’ve just booked a flight to Salt Lake City, starting to worry I won’t be prepared

[Bosscat]

Yeah. I was wondering whether I’d still be able to convert to Mormonism if the documentary doesn’t feature it as much as some people on here are predicting.

You need to learn the back catalogue of Osmond Singles/Albums by heart don't forget

[RVclaret]

https://twitter.com/skytv/status/168747 ... 53312?s=46

Another teaser just released

[Rileybobs]

https://twitter.com/skytv/status/168747 ... 53312?s=46

Another teaser just released

Bit disappointed in that to be honest, I'd finally come round to the idea of this being a religiously themed documentary and I was looking forward to learning a lot more about the Mormon faith.

[wilks_bfc]

If they keep showing the teasers there’ll be nothing we haven’t seen left in the actual epsiodes

[mikeS]

Todays Observer has Mission To Burnley
As Pick Of The Day on Thursdays Tellybox

87BC2CB9-32ED-4B54-B4EB-ED815D71BB6E.jpeg (1.31 MiB) Viewed 2907 times

[jos]

I'm always uncomfortable when people's religion and religious views are ridiculed. Religions should always be questioned but if people find a spiritual or other need fulfilled by their religion and they don't harm or try to indoctrinate others then they should be let to live as they want.

I’m in agreement with this, but is it a religion or a cult or both?

I had a book years ago titled ‘The Four Major Cults’ and The Mormons featured in it.

Mind you I go to B&Q religiously every Sunday, is that my church!

[Vegas Claret]

interview by Turfcast with the executive producer of Mission to Burnley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSqTs_BsiM

[Claret Till I Die]

https://twitter.com/skytv/status/168747 ... 53312?s=46

Another teaser just released

Who's the fat lad without a shirt ?

[ClaretAndJew]

I dated an ex Mormon and she told me how bonkers the whole thing was. She was basically brought up in it all and didn’t know any different.

Anyway I can’t wait to convert after watching the documentary.

[Clovius Boofus]

No offence to anyone, but I find all religious doctrine a bit bonkers.

[Inchy]

Mormon, Christianity, Islam, paganism, Judaism etc


They all are mental to me.

As long as it doesn’t impact my personal life let them get on with it I say

[Clovius Boofus]

As long as it doesn’t impact my personal life let them get on with it I say

Aye, I agree.

[Rick_Muller]

About 10 years ago I relocated to a new area with my other half and she didn’t settle too well and ended up visiting the local community church (Grace Community Church) cafe for some spiritual guidance. They were fantastic for her and later both of us. We had various members of the congregation invite us for Sunday dinner etc to spread the word of Jesus and God. We were honest with them and they with us. We didn’t believe and they did. It was cathartic and refreshing to socialise and meet with these lovely people.

10 years on, we’re still not religious and we’ve still got good friends in the church who are just nice people trying to make the world a better place.

[HahaYeah]

interview by Turfcast with the executive producer of Mission to Burnley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSqTs_BsiM

No mention of Religion/Mormonism.

[Bosscat]

No mention of Religion/Mormonism.

I think there are going to be a few disappointed on here when its more about BFC and less about Mormon indoctrinism

[Bosscat]

About 10 years ago I relocated to a new area with my other half and she didn’t settle too well and ended up visiting the local community church (Grace Community Church) cafe for some spiritual guidance. They were fantastic for her and later both of us. We had various members of the congregation invite us for Sunday dinner etc to spread the word of Jesus and God. We were honest with them and they with us. We didn’t believe and they did. It was cathartic and refreshing to socialise and meet with these lovely people.

10 years on, we’re still not religious and we’ve still got good friends in the church who are just nice people trying to make the world a better place.

Just as it should be Rick

[NewClaret]

interview by Turfcast with the executive producer of Mission to Burnley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSqTs_BsiM

Just watched this and I’m even more excited for it now!

Interesting that Sky haven’t committed to a second series, but Matt wants to do one. Makes me wonder why they went with Sky and not Netflix? Presumably they would have been able to take it global much more easily with Netflix.

[123EasyasBFC]

Just watched this and I’m even more excited for it now!

Interesting that Sky haven’t committed to a second series, but Matt wants to do one. Makes me wonder why they went with Sky and not Netflix? Presumably they would have been able to take it global much more easily with Netflix.

Could have something to do with the match footage maybe owned by sky

[Spiral]

I've just got a feeling we're gonna see some really cringeworthy communal prayer in the longside or summat, and everyone is gonna be fine with it for reasons among which being the fact that 'God' is being said and not 'Allah' for instance. Depending on how heavy-handed the doc goes with it I see this possible proximity to religion as implied by the title and what we've seen from the trailer as having the potential to be as cringeworthy as David Dunne noshing down a chicken drumstick for the Venky's; it seems as though others are less embarrassed by this. I'll forever maintain that the only reason folk are preparing themselves to accept religion being welded onto what is ostensibly a Burnley FC doc is because 1. Mormonism is a Christian cult rather than that of another 'heathen' religion, and 2. we're doing relatively well on the pitch (though we still have some way to go to get to peak Dyche levels of PL stability, and even further to go to get to Garlick-era balance sheet health).

[Vegas Claret]

Just watched this and I’m even more excited for it now!

Interesting that Sky haven’t committed to a second series, but Matt wants to do one. Makes me wonder why they went with Sky and not Netflix? Presumably they would have been able to take it global much more easily with Netflix.

it's an excellent interview. I think we will be an incredibly proud bunch when we get to see this

[Vegas Claret]

I've just got a feeling we're gonna see some really cringeworthy communal prayer in the longside or summat, and everyone is gonna be fine with it for reasons among which being the fact that 'God' is being said and not 'Allah' for instance. Depending on how heavy-handed the doc goes with it I see this possible proximity to religion as implied by the title and what we've seen from the trailer as having the potential to be as cringeworthy as David Dunne noshing down a chicken drumstick for the Venky's; it seems as though others are less embarrassed by this. I'll forever maintain that the only reason folk are preparing themselves to accept religion being welded onto what is ostensibly a Burnley FC doc is because 1. Mormonism is a Christian cult rather than that of another 'heathen' religion, and 2. we're doing relatively well on the pitch (though we still have some way to go to get to peak Dyche levels of PL stability, and even further to go to get to Garlick-era balance sheet health).

you've clearly not bothered watching the interview, give it a rest with your pre-conceived nonsense

[Spiral]

Where do people get off on presuming the right to tell me what, and what not to post on here? If my posts are triggering to people, people should ignore me. These incessant, totally contentless emotional outbursts towards me do more to clutter threads with useless shite than any words I post.

[123EasyasBFC]

I've just got a feeling we're gonna see some really cringeworthy communal prayer in the longside or summat, and everyone is gonna be fine with it for reasons among which being the fact that 'God' is being said and not 'Allah' for instance. Depending on how heavy-handed the doc goes with it I see this possible proximity to religion as implied by the title and what we've seen from the trailer as having the potential to be as cringeworthy as David Dunne noshing down a chicken drumstick for the Venky's; it seems as though others are less embarrassed by this. I'll forever maintain that the only reason folk are preparing themselves to accept religion being welded onto what is ostensibly a Burnley FC doc is because 1. Mormonism is a Christian cult rather than that of another 'heathen' religion, and 2. we're doing relatively well on the pitch (though we still have some way to go to get to peak Dyche levels of PL stability, and even further to go to get to Garlick-era balance sheet health).

In that interview the guy who produced the documentary spoke about sky wanting to see how it all goes down with the public before commissioning a second season. Can’t imagine sky being interested in a sports documentary being based on religion, they know fans want to see behind the scenes at the club not the owner going to church. I think there will be 2 or 3 scenes within the nearly 4 hours that show Alan Pace religious side

[Vegas Claret]

Where do people get off on presuming the right to tell me what, and what not to post on here? If my posts are triggering to people, people should ignore me. These incessant, totally contentless emotional outbursts towards me do more to clutter threads with useless shite than any words I post.

nobody is telling you what to say, I'm just enlightening you that if you'd bothered to do an ounce of research you'd realise your pre-conceived waffle is way wide of the mark. You crack on though if you think you know more than the producer of it

[Colburn_Claret]

Where do people get off on presuming the right to tell me what, and what not to post on here? If my posts are triggering to people, people should ignore me. These incessant, totally contentless emotional outbursts towards me do more to clutter threads with useless shite than any words I post.

No, they really don't.

You're entitled to your opinion, as bonkers as it is, particularly as so much of your rhetoric is based on presumption.

We don't need to hear it all again, and again, and again.

[Spiral]

I think there will be 2 or 3 scenes within the nearly 4 hours that show Alan Pace religious side

Hope you're right. Daft fkin title if that's the case though. Oh, and I hope it's not an Alan Pace documentary with Burnley in it. I hope it's a Burnley documentary with Alan Pace in it.

[Spiral]

No, they really don't.

You're entitled to your opinion, as bonkers as it is, particularly as so much of your rhetoric is based on presumption.

We don't need to hear it all again, and again, and again.

Aye, I bet you're tired of all the...ahem...preaching. It's quite annoying, isn't it.

Ruminate on that. Maybe the penny'll fking drop.

[Vegas Claret]

Hope you're right. Daft fkin title if that's the case though. Oh, and I hope it's not an Alan Pace documentary with Burnley in it. I hope it's a Burnley documentary with Alan Pace in it.

take 45 mins out of your time when you can and watch this, it's well worth it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSqTs_BsiM

[Spiral]

take 45 mins out of your time when you can and watch this, it's well worth it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkSqTs_BsiM

On the QPR doc he did: "I didn't want it to be about the team, I wanted it to be about the hierarchy" LMFAO

Yeh, I mean who even wants a documentary about their team to actually be about their team

[Vegas Claret]

On the QPR doc he did: "I didn't want it to be about the team, I wanted it to be about the hierarchy" LMFAO

Yeh, I mean who even wants a documentary about their team to actually be about their team

ah, so you think the hierarchy at a football club is just the owner, got it. Your ignorance becomes more blatant with every post, this documentary isn't for Burnley fans, but you would have got that had you bothered to watch the interview.

[Spiral]

ah, so you think the hierarchy at a football club is just the owner, got it. Your ignorance becomes more blatant with every post, this documentary isn't for Burnley fans, but you would have got that had you bothered to watch the interview.

No, you haven't 'got it', I don't think you've 'got' anything. I'm not sure exactly what it is you're even suggesting with that comment. Other BFC board members are Mormon missionaries too, not just Pace. The leader of the UK mission is on the board of directors. Hierarchy refers to the owner, the board they chair, and their various subordinates. That's the 'hierarchy' the producer was referring to when speaking of the QPR doc he made.

And are you suggesting that this is not for our consumption, but rather everyone else's but Burnley fans' consumption? If your argument is correct (it is not), this leads me to believe we are being gawked at, which is a different thing altogether from being represented. It strikes me that you're making pains to move the goalposts in order to justify your positions.

[Vegas Claret]

No, you haven't 'got it', I don't think you've 'got' anything. I'm not sure exactly what it is you're even suggesting with that comment. Other board members are Mormon missionaries too, not just Pace. The leader of the UK mission is on the board of directors. Hierarchy refers to the owner, the board they chair, and their various subordinates. That's the 'hierarchy' the producer was referring to when speaking of the QPR doc he made.

And are you suggesting that this is not for our consumption, but rather everyone else's but Burnley fans' consumption? If your argument is correct (it is not), this leads me to believe we are being gawked at, which is a different thing altogether from being represented. It strikes me that you're making pains to move the goalposts in order to justify your positions.

like I said, you haven't watched the interview, it's clearer and clearer every time you post.

[Spiral]

Keep saying 'it's clearer and clearer' like it makes you right. I can do the same: It's clearer and clearer you have not grasped my points.

See, I can post unsubstantiated accusations about other people too.

[Spiral]

How do you think I managed to quote the producer verbatim if I didn't watch it you ninny?

[Vegas Claret]

How do you think I managed to quote the producer verbatim if I didn't watch it you ninny?

"Spiral wrote: ↑Sun Aug 06, 2023 3:32 pm
I've just got a feeling we're gonna see some really cringeworthy communal prayer in the longside or summat, and everyone is gonna be fine with it for reasons among which being the fact that 'God' is being said and not 'Allah' for instance. Depending on how heavy-handed the doc goes with it I see this possible proximity to religion as implied by the title and what we've seen from the trailer as having the potential to be as cringeworthy as David Dunne noshing down a chicken drumstick for the Venky's; it seems as though others are less embarrassed by this. I'll forever maintain that the only reason folk are preparing themselves to accept religion being welded onto what is ostensibly a Burnley FC doc is because 1. Mormonism is a Christian cult rather than that of another 'heathen' religion, and 2. we're doing relatively well on the pitch (though we still have some way to go to get to peak Dyche levels of PL stability, and even further to go to get to Garlick-era balance sheet health)."

Where in the interview did it give you the information to form that opinion ?

[Spiral]

This is you incorrectly thinking that post was a reaction to the producer interview when it's not. If you're asking about the basis of my views more generally, I'll direct you to the original thread linked further back on this thread, where I've already explained all that. Contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to repeat myself.

[Vegas Claret]

This is you incorrectly thinking that post was a reaction to the producer interview when it's not. If you're asking about the basis of my views more generally, I'll direct you to the original thread linked further back on this thread, where I've already explained all that. Contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to repeat myself.

yet you can't help yourself, you've repeated it loads.

Turns out the one making assumptions is you:

I know it wasn't a reaction to the interview because you posted it before it was out - I asked you to watch the interview to find anything in it from the producer that backed up your opinion (which you are 100% entitled to btw, zero issue with that) that the series was going to be about Pace and religion. So, you've either watched the interview and chosen to ignore the fact that there was nothing in it to back up your view or you haven't watched it. Either way, I'm looking forward to watching it and I hope it's excellent.

[Spiral]

I know it wasn't a reaction to the interview because you posted it before it was out - I asked you to watch the interview to find anything in it from the producer that backed up your opinion (which you are 100% entitled to btw, zero issue with that) that the series was going to be about Pace and religion. So, you've either watched the interview and chosen to ignore the fact that there was nothing in it to back up your view or you haven't watched it. Either way, I'm looking forward to watching it and I hope it's excellent.

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand which you're hoping I don't see. Earlier you said:

Where in the interview did it give you the information to form that opinion ?

And now you say:

I know it wasn't a reaction to the interview because you posted it before it was out

You're trying to have it both ways. You demand I search this interview for evidence to back up what I've already said. This is very convenient to you because my arguments were made before this interview was done. Like a sophist you're trying to say: 'Aha! this was not found in the interview', as though that settles the matter, as though the apparent absence of so-called evidence for what I say in a promotional interview conducted after I said what I've said invalidated everything I've said. I need no proof for my opinions but for the logic of the arguments I make based on the evidence of what we already know of the doc. I've even touched on the idea of judgement further back on this thread. (I've also argued why you're behaving the way you and other are behaving towards me, and I'm yet to hear a single person even begin to try and tell me why I'm wrong, which is quite telling). I'm not a trained monkey who responds at your commands. This is a pointless discussion with you. Have the last word if it matters to you, I couldn't give a pi$$.

[Spiral]

...your opinion (which you are 100% entitled to btw, zero issue with that)...

give it a rest with your pre-conceived nonsense

[Vegas Claret]

This is a rhetorical sleight of hand which you're hoping I don't see. Earlier you said:



And now you say:



You're trying to have it both ways. You demand I search this interview for evidence to back up what I've already said. This is very convenient to you because my arguments were made before this interview was done. Like a sophist you're trying to say: 'Aha! this was not found in the interview', as though that settles the matter, as though the apparent absence of so-called evidence for what I say in a promotional interview conducted after I said what I've said invalidated everything I've said. I need no proof for my opinions but for the logic of the arguments I make based on the evidence of what we already know of the doc. I've even touched on the idea of judgement further back on this thread. (I've also argued why you're behaving the way you and other are behaving towards me, and I'm yet to hear a single person even begin to try and tell me why I'm wrong, which is quite telling). I'm not a trained monkey who responds at your commands. This is a pointless discussion with you. Have the last word if it matters to you, I couldn't give a pi$$.

I haven't demanded anything, literally nothing. I asked you and gave you the link just in case you missed it when I posted it for everyone and as usual you've come back with some long winded irrelevant waffle because you can't back up your pre-conceived belief because there is zero evidence.

Note: I'm asking you to provide evidence on what you've based your opinion on, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, another mistake you keep making.

Glad you couldn't give a ****

[Spiral]

Note: I'm asking you to provide evidence on what you've based your opinion on

Okay, so we're at the indexing stage, the conclusion to any debate on here.

I need no proof for my opinions but for the logic of the arguments I make based on the evidence of what we already know of the doc.

If you're asking about the basis of my views more generally, I'll direct you to the original thread linked further back on this thread, where I've already explained all that. Contrary to popular belief, I do not wish to repeat myself.

[Vegas Claret]

Okay, so we're at the indexing stage, the conclusion to any debate on here.

so as suspected, you can't or won't provide anything to back up your thoughts on what the documentary is about. You'll struggle to have a 'debate' if you can't provide any of that. I think we call it a night on this one.

[Spiral]

so as suspected, you can't or won't provide anything to back up your thoughts on what the documentary is about. You'll struggle to have a 'debate' if you can't provide any of that. I think we call it a night on this one.

You don't actually care why I say what I say. You're concerned only with driving out, or to the eyes of the gallery, appearing to drive out the heretic. This invitation by you to state my views is just a glorified prosecution that you hope lasts only as long as it rhetorically makes you look right and me wrong. If you are genuine in wanting to understand my viewpoint (which you absolutely are not), then, to repeat myself, because apparently nobody reads, may I direct you to the thread I've previously mentioned on this thread, and which I will now link for your benefit for you to read (which you absolutely will not do because it does not serve you in this spat), which conveys mostly all of my thoughts on the matter if you're willing to engage sincerely with what I say (which you are not).

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69589&start=100

[Spiral]

I'm gonna pre-empt the use of the word 'waffle', which is basically the mark of anyone who has given up on trying to argue why I'm wrong.

[Vegas Claret]

You don't actually care why I say what I say. You're concerned only with driving out, or to the eyes of the gallery, appearing to drive out the heretic. This invitation by you to state my views is just a glorified prosecution that you hope lasts only as long as it rhetorically makes you look right and me wrong. If you are genuine in wanting to understand my viewpoint (which you absolutely are not), then, to repeat myself, because apparently nobody reads, may I direct you to the thread I've previously mentioned on this thread, and which I will now link for your benefit for you to read (which you absolutely will not do because it does not serve you in this spat), which conveys mostly all of my thoughts on the matter if you're willing to engage sincerely with what I say (which you are not).

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=69589&start=100

Once again, you are completely and utterly wrong. I read it on the day you posted it and I'm pretty sure I didn't comment on it because I felt there was no evidence of your concerns either way. However, having watched the interview I posted today and not seeing anything in it to (at this stage) confirm your concerns I asked you multiple times to watch it in the hope you could provide evidence that it backs up your opinion - you refuse.

Despite your ultra defensive posture to every poster I have no ambition to belittle you or anyone on here, I hope you'll find I've not been abusive to you but it's very telling you describe this as a 'spat' rather than a conversation. Shame.

[Vegas Claret]

I'm gonna pre-empt the use of the word 'waffle', which is basically the mark of anyone who has given up on trying to argue why I'm wrong.

that's the difference between you and me sunshine, you are trying to win some made up argument whilst I've asked you a question you wont answer as part of a conversation. You can't win an argument but that's a different conversation