UKC

Berghaus has signed a deal with the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) to sponsor theGreat British Climbing Team for two years.  The North East based brand, which is celebrating its 50th birthday this year, will provide clothing for the 75 climbers in the senior and junior teams when they compete in regional, national and international events.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Gear:


Does this mean Berghaus will just be giving them free clothes and no financial support then?

In reply to stp:

eBay?

In reply to stp:


I really hope not. That would be worse than nothing, as it would restrict the climbers themselves from having clothing-related sponsorship deals

In reply to john arran:


It doesn't seem that bad, they do get free clothing for doing something they enjoy (assuming they do enjoy it).

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

We had this come up quite a lot when I was more involved in the comp scene. Comp clothing itself is a very small benefit to individuals and comes with the additional benefit of improving team cohesion. So far so good, BUT it could make individual sponsorship deals harder to secure and while it is in place a higher-value team sponsorship deal with another sponsor would not be possible.
Pros and cons. I hope the pros are sufficient to justify the cons.

In reply to john arran:


If you like competing for Team GB, the clothing is just a nice bonus. There might be some other benefits too; do they get free coaching? That's worth a bit.

I would guess the vast majority who compete in team sports get nothing material out of it.

The cons seem to be, you might get less free stuff.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


True, but I would hope that in most cases of national team sponsorship the team itself would benefit either financially or at the very least in other material ways.

Everything has a value - I'm just pointing out that the benefit of team kit itself is very small and has potential drawbacks in terms of limiting the sponsorship potential of either individuals or team management. These need to be balanced.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

The whole point of the British Indoor climbing team is to gather our best to compete against other countries on the word stage, if they don't get the funding that can get them to these events then what is the point? You end up with the same people going who have enough of their own or family money. Britain has a younger breed of climbers coming through who have the ability and just require the opportunity (http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69868). The more events they go to, the better they will get.

In reply to Wood for Trees:

Spot on. I couldn't agree more.

In reply to Wood for Trees:


We all have dream and aspirations, and it'd be nice if we could all be fully funded to chase those dreams, but realistically that won't happen will it?

If you do get on the team and can compete, I think you'd be best to appreciate you're in a fortunate position.


That's true of everybody, of all levels, who want to compete at whatever. Do we fund everybody, and who's going to fund it?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Er no. Check out the salaries of the England football team sometime. Or Tennis players for that matter. I'm not saying climbers should get as much as them. Of course not. But I think actually having the means to travel and train regularly in order to compete should be a very bare minimum.

In reply to stp:


I think you're forgetting about all the Sunday league football teams.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:



Why because you'll get to promote Berghaus products for them for zero pay? (If that's what is happening)



No there's a selection process for the team. Anyone is free to to prove themselves but the best are selected on climbing ability.


Most countries where climbing is a fairly established sport fund their teams by a National body of some kind. In the UK its the BMC.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I'm comparing like for like. This is the national climbing team we're talking about. The football equivalent is the England team.

In reply to stp:


You're free to do that obviously, but you appeared to be answering my point, which was different to the point you answered apparently.

In reply to stp:


Berghaus get exposure, kids get free stuff. It's a hard life in Team GB.


And then they get to compete, probably a dream for a lot of them, and they get free stuff. Sounds like they're the lucky ones.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

What I would be concerned to avoid is the possibility of comp team sponsorship being given away cheaply as part of a bigger deal that brings benefits somewhere else in the BMC. I would hope that the BMC wouldn't act that like nowadays but it's the kind of thing that would certainly have been possible in a previous era.

That's not to say I wouldn't want to see all aspects of BMC work funded as well as possible, but the real value of comps sponsorship should be realised in terms of comps funding. If the real value is genuinely the cost price of t-shirts and shorts then maybe fair enough, but I'm not convinced that would be a deal really worth having.

In reply to john arran:


Should the BMC set an example to other sports, by investing equally to help kids of all abilities to compete?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Is that related to anything I've written? In any case, I think not. However, encouraging good practice in comps at all levels is a worthy objective.

In reply to john arran:

Sorry for asking a question!


Thanks for answering.

EDIT: I would add, that how the 'spoils' should be allocated is the point of the discussion isn't it? The market is determining these kids are rewarded with free gear. And if we aren't happy with that, how should the system work? And should that system just apply to Team GB and competition climbing?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


But they don't, do they?
Very few, if any of the British team members compete at all the events throughout the year as they just can't afford the travel costs.

In the bouldering WC series last year the events were in Canada, USA, 2 rounds in China and only one in Europe - Munich. What's the motivation to work hard to get to the top of the sport? Get selected and you win the chance to stump up £000's in travel costs.
A couple of free t-shirts aren't much use to anyone if the athletes aren't able to compete whilst wearing them.

In reply to UKC/UKH Gear:

I got to say I kind of agree with some of the posters. The climbers are basically advertising Berghaus for free. I mean how much does a printed T-shirt really cost? You could probably slap the BMC logo on them and get them printed for £8 online as part of a bulk deal. I would hope Berghaus would be helping with the costs of sending climbers to events rather than giving them free clothes

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


The market isn't determining anything. There is no market because the BMC is the national representative body and a monopoly. Individual climbers can't go to Rab or Adidas and play them off against Berghaus.

Right now we are just speculating because we don't know what the deal between the BMC and Berghaus is. I really hope the BMC have extracted more than free clothes in return for having the Begrhaus logo on the team.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Sorry but you've completely lost me here.

You used the example of Sunday League football teams. I think that's an invalid comparison because there are hundreds of these versus just one GB climbing team. And the GB team obviously represent the whole country.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:



You seem to have a strange attitude to this. It comes across like a condescending dislike of the British team.

They are representing our country. Shouldn't we be supporting them in every way possible?

BTW I totally agree with you that helping disadvantaged kids is an extremely worthwhile cause. But that's a totally separate issue.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Yeah I do too. But it certainly doesn't sound like it from reading the press release.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


What if other sponsors were offering more to the BMC and Team GB?

In reply to stp:


Why? Seems like you want to paint me as the bad guy.


I'm try not to be too nationalistic, I just don't see it as positive really. I'm not looking to be represented by anyone. Are you 'supporting them in every way possible'? I'm would guess you're not.


If the BMC has a budget, spending it in one place means you can't spend it in another place.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Hi All,
Theres a bit of misunderstanding here; Berghaus' sponsorship takes the form of kit supply. Consisting of competition kit, insulation kit etc etc. Given the numbers involved, its not exactly a tiny commitment for them.

There is no restriction caused by this on individuals having personal deals with competing clothing companies, and indeed several GB climbing Team members have deals with competing manufacturers; agreements are in place to prevent conflicts.

The return for GB Climbing is also more than simply ££. Association with a brand such as Berghaus is a positive thing for GB Climbing, and will allow us to build awareness of the GB Climbing brand. I think it safe to say that we can learn a lot from Berghaus in terms of publicity and media exposure.

We will also continue the search for funding for the team; we know from recent discussions that we have a good, saleable product - so if anyone knows of a company, not necessarily involved in the outdoor industry that would like to be associated with us, just let me know!!

Ian Walton
Chair, BMC Comp Committee

In reply to stp:


The point I'm making is, the vast majority of people compete at sports for the fun of it. A select few might get some free gear too. Bonus. If you happy to be a top footballer, then you're ridiculously fortunate.

I think most of us in the first group aren't complaining, we compete and love it. Why should the people is the second group, who are even luckier, have cause to complain?

Stating that there's a third group that's even luckier than the second group, still doesn't change that fact.

In reply to BobbyH:


Not sure what you're saying? First you say they don't compete, then you say they don't compete at all events.

In reply to Ian W:


Comp climbers probably spend more on travel than outdoor gear so maybe you should try having a hotel partner for the comps that gets advertised on the website and e-mails. There's a fair number of hotel nights getting booked by all the families attending the youth comps (as well as other climbing related trips) and a budget hotel chain might be willing to swap some complimentary rooms for the inside track on that business.

In reply to stp:

Companies provide sponsorship to teams and individuals in order to boost their visibility and, they hope, sales and profit. Like it or not, the general public have next to no interest in competition climbing, the majority of climbers have very little interest in competition climbing and a significant minority of climbers are actively antagonistic towards it. So it's a pretty hard sell. The alternative is public funding through the BMC, but again, the majority of climbers that the BMC is supposed to represent probably see competition climbing as a bit of an irrelevance. So maybe the answer is to have a breakaway, separately funded, organisation to represent competition climbing and let them sink or swim.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

what has luck got to do with any of this?

In reply to simon rawlinson:


Depends what you mean by luck, which is a pretty deep question. But if I can do something I love (and not everybody on this planet even has that privilege), I feel lucky if I get anything else out of it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Whether you can get sponsorship is not about how many people are not interested it's about (number of people who are interested x how much those people spend). The trick is to find the businesses who can make money from the people who are interested. Outdoor climbing gets sponsorship because it helps sell high margin products like coats.

Indoor climbing and competitions don't really help sell coats or gear. But indoor climbing is absolutely not cheap so there must be other businesses making money off it that might be persuaded to sponsor it. There is a fair bit of money getting spent which could be influenced by association with 'star' climbers in comps , just not on coats: it goes on wall membership, coaching, travel and consumables like ropes and shoes. If comps did a better job of getting video online and building up a YouTube audience brands could advertise to it would help.

The most obvious commercial beneficiaries of GB Team athletes are climbing walls selling coaching to other kids who want to reach that standard. One way to access that to develop the sport would be to add say a pound to fees for schemes like NICAS and NIBAS and to raise entry fees for youth comps by say £5 and use that money to fund travel for the UK comp teams and prizes/trophies.

£5 extra to enter the comp sounds like a lot but actually the charges to enter comps are trivial compared with the travel and coaching expenses so putting them up a little so there is a surplus to fund the team would not be a deterrent. It might even encourage more participation in the comps if people knew that doing well and getting on the team brought travel money to go to at least one international competition.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

They do indeed!, and unsurprisingly I suspect, we have tried such companies. We did have a preferential rate scheme with one of the chains, but they stopped it.
It also depends on the type of exposure a company is after; we had serious discussions with a brand who liked what we had to offer, but their marketing strategy was to maximise brand exposure, and we couldn't offer that without TV exposure, so they went with a televised sport.
The search is ongoing! - the GB Climbing Team does give a good "in" to a very good market; we just need to find the organisation that is looking for the marketing exposure we can offer.........

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


That seems to be done fairly well nowadays. The Hardmoves comp tomorrow will be streamed live as will the CWIF the weekend after. And of course all the IFSC events too.

But admittedly the British national bouldering comp would have been completely forgotten were it not for Liam Lonsdale and his mobile phone to film, stream and commentate all by himself. Quite a stark contrast to say the US nationals which was very professionally done. I don't why but Britain often seems to be behind with everything.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:



I'm just saying how your comments come across to me. Referring to the team as 'kids' is one example. You surely know that a good proportion of the team are adults. So it sounds like a put down.

In reply to stp:


That's your best example. Just a mistake in something I posted. I respect your opinion and I've tried my best to explain mine. We just have a different view of things. I haven't tried to undermine your opinion by insinuating anything negative about you have I?

My view is pretty simple. If funding comes from sponsors, and the BMC acts in the best interests of the competitors in negotiating that deal, I'm happy with that. Nobody seems to have any evidence that hasn't happened, but some seem to have fabricated information about only getting free t-shirts when that doesn't seem to be the case. Neither does the exclusivity that was mentioned. I think I'm correct on that, can't be bothered trawling the whole thread again. I'm sure somebody will though!

If the BMC want to provide direct funding, I'd rather that was spread around better, provide people of all abilities with the chance to compete. And I'm not sure how much should be spent on comps anyway, depends to some extent on how big a proportion of members are keen to see it funded.

I don't see any special reason to fund the dreams of a highly talented climber, over a less talented one, I see them as equals (obviously not in a pure climbing ability sense). You want a GB team to represent you, and so do others, but not everybody wants that and we should all be free to have our say shouldn't we?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Sorry but that really is a bizarre statement. So Sports England or whatever they are called these days should just stop funding top athletes and just start handing out money to punters down the local chippie? Money is invested in the grassroots in many sports, but money is also spent on the elite.

In reply to stp:



Because we recognise that climbing, especially indoor climbing, is really boring to watch.

Also, I climb because I enjoy it, not because I am funded to do it, why should I think it should be any different for anyone else?

In reply to jonnie3430:


I always find this statement a bit weird. I'd rather be outdoors climbing than indoors watching other people climb, but then, I'd rather be outdoors climbing than watching people play tennis or football or whatever, too. On the other hand as spectator sports go, competition climbing (and particularly bouldering) is pretty watchable - you've got people trying to do something which is obviously difficult and impressive looking, and unlike with a lot of gymnastic type sports, the criteria for success are obvious to a casual observer (do they get to the top or do they fall off). Generally if you show a non-climber a clip from a bouldering comp their response is more "that looks cool" than "this is boring".

In reply to jsmcfarland:

Why, because I disagree with what seems to be the status quo, i.e. the rest of us fund the elite? Can you explain why my view is bizarre?

I don't know anything about Sports England BTW.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I'm curious why you think that climbing is somehow different from virtually any other sport. All established popular sports typically have some form of national governing body. If there are international competitions in that sport then governing bodies fund the athletes most likely to win medals for that country. GB funds 'our' swimming and cycling teams, among many others. Why should the BMC be any different?

In reply to jsmcfarland:


I don't really care whether it different or the same, I'm just stating what I think about climbing. If all other sports are different, so what? And I suspect a lot of BMC members don't even see it as a sport anyway, and certainly not a competitive one.

In reply to jsmcfarland:

Competition climbing is a tiny sector within climbing, whereas in virtually ant other sport, competition is fundamental.


Do you see the BMC as representing the interests of only competition climbing, or do you think it has a wider remit?

I think the difference is absolutely obvious.

In reply to Jon Stewart:




Er what? I'm sure the vast majority of people that go running, cycling, swimming, skiing, snowboarding, surfing, (insert sport here) aren't doing it to compete at any kind of level. I love climbing more than anything but I'm not drinking the 'climbing is special' Kool-Aid, sorry.

In reply to jsmcfarland:

The point is about the remit of the BMC. Look at the other governing bodies and what they do, then look at the BMC and what it does. Spot the difference.

I don't have any view at all on funding for competition climbing, I'm just saying that the equivalence of the BMC to British Cycling or British Swimming, whose purpose is deliver competition success for the UK, is false. Perhaps the skiing body is more similar to the BMC - which puts skiiing (as an outdoor pursuit generally pursued without any competitive element) in a set of things similar to climbing and dissimilar to the vast majority of sports.

The argument isn't that climbing is special. It's that climbing is nothing like athletics so expecting the same funding model is stupid.

To illustrate the difference further, what do most climbers consider to be the pinnacle of climbing achievement? Winning a competition, or putting up hard new routes? Should we have a governing body that funds and regulates the putting up of hard new routes? God no!

In reply to jsmcfarland:


Sometimes it doesn't seem to be possible to have any sort of disagreement without people resorting to comments like this. Where has anybody said this?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

it's implied.

In reply to jsmcfarland:


By who? I don't think it, so I wouldn't imply it would I?

Strange how you won't say where it's implied...

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


I don't think you are right about that. You need to look at the numbers for what fraction of BMC money comes from government as opposed to members and what fraction of BMC comps funding is coming from entrance fees.

You also need to think about the demographics. Maybe among older climbers and present BMC members there's less interest in comps and indoor climbing in general but among younger climbers the gateway into the sport is climbing and bouldering walls. If the BMC want's to stay relevant it needs to be involved with indoor and if it wants to give young people that climb indoors a reason to join it needs to be involved with comps. There are larger factors at play which will change the balance between indoor and outdoor over time such as the cost of running a car to get to outdoor climbing where indoor can be accessed by public transport and the greater accessibility of a low risk sport.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Whether or not the BMC's remit is competition climbing is moot. The point is that they have made it their remit and are now the body in the UK responsible for the British climbing team. Had they not taken charge of this I'm pretty sure after 3 decades of competition climbing another body or bodies would most likely have emerged. Having taken on this role it's their responsibility to do a good job now. Doing a half arsed job, and trying to do it on the cheap is a let down the team and comp climbing in the UK generally.





We have several bodies that fund bolting and I think most people (who aren't antibolt) see them as a very good thing. In France and Europe such organizations are vital for the development of the crags.

In reply to jonnie3430:


Oh we do, do we? Personally I really enjoy watching indoor competition climbing as do many other climbers I know.

That German Hardmoves comp had 1600 seats priced at about £20 each. The event was sold out within 8 minutes of the tickets going on sale. So I don't think everyone shares your point of view.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Not right about what? The bit you quote is just an opinion, because I'm not interested in funding comps. It's like saying my vote for Labour was wrong because the Tories got in.

If it was a vote on funding, I know what I'd vote for. I'm not trying to force my views on anyone, I've already said it depends on the demographic, or words to that effect.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Not right about 'the rest of us funding comps'. My guess is that the BMC comes out ahead financially on the comps.

I'm guessing this for several reasons:
a. The BMC would likely lose a big chunk of its government grant if it wasn't the national body for a sport and if it couldn't use the demographics of indoor climbing participants to help its case.
b. The comps don't cost that much because there are entrance fees and a lot of the work is done for free by volunteers.
c. There are people who are only members of the BMC because of the comps.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


So you want to declare I'm not right based on a guess? Keep guessing away then.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

It’s a bit tricky to calculate but to eliniate the guesswork:

For 2014 (latest annual report available), the net cost of specialist programmes was £778k. Of this:

9% was on National and International representation
11% was on Competitions

The “Specialist Programmes” budget is about 20% of the BMC’s annual expenditure.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1279

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


If you look at the numbers in the 2014 report which is the latest one that Google finds it is an educated guess: £531K or about 1/3 of the BMC's income is coming from a Sport England grant.

The guess is that if BMC stopped the competitions and supporting the climbing team a new organisation would be started which would affiliate to IFSC, be recognised as the UK representative body for indoor climbing and with the demographics of indoor climbing tick a lot of Sport England's boxes and grab a lot of that funding.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


I've no problem with that.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

OK. But the Sport England grant is the crux of the argument about whether 'the rest of us' BMC members who don't care about comps are 'funding' comps/climbing team or whether comps/climbing team bring in more than they cost.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


If comp climbing is going down the road of other elite sports, then good luck to them, they can fund themselves and leave the rest of us to it. I must admit, I do prefer the less commerical, climbing community funded BMC, even if that means less money. The more money is involved in sport, the worse it seems to get. It'd be a pity if comp climbing went that way, but it seems to be trying to do it.