UKC

I thought it was worth addressing this in a new thread as there is a natural instinct that we are all climbers and it’s generally good idea for climbers to stick together. 

This instinct may affect how many BMC members vote on my resolution* for a partial separation whereby GB Climbing (GBC) is ring fenced in a subsidiary.

Here’s my thinking on this:

It is often pointed out that most climbers climb both indoors and outdoors and it is usually the case with the growth of indoor walls that nowadays the first experience of climbing is almost certainly at an indoor wall. However, only a minority become involved in competitions and most recreational indoor climbers aren’t avid competition fans. 

It is also interesting the way that the style of setting at competitions has evolved away from the type of moves encountered outdoors. Some of the moves are closer to parkour than climbing. 

It is also the case that all climbers despite pitting themselves against the rock are commonly competitive with each other with regard to personal achievement  typically marked by grades which are a very human construct!.

I’m making the above the points as they are commonly the sort of thing drawn on in discussions and thinking about GBC in terms of what unites and separates us as climbers. However, in a debate about organisational separation I have come to think they are probably red herrings. 

IMO the real underlying reasons that drive the case for a partial separation (or not) at the BMC relate more to the differences between structured sport (competition climbing) and unstructured sport (all other climbing) which in turn drive different resources requirements in two principle ways.

Firstly the ‘rules’ in unstructured climbing are outside the BMC’s remit having been formed by the various climbing communities. However, within GBC rules are completely within its remit. GBC not only tell climbers what to do but enforces those rules with disciplinary procedures, selection policies and judge who has performed best and worst and is worthy to go on its teams.

Secondly, with unstructured climbing the BMC has no direct duty of care or responsibility for participants. Within GB Climbing the BMC has a high level of responsibility for the welfare (especially junior athletes) of the teams it’s manages in terms of training guidelines, monitoring individual health (notably weight / RED S) and chaperoning athletes at competitions and a contractual relationship with each individual member.

Therefore the application of rules and management of its climbers makes GBC very needy requiring intensive application of resources for a relatively small number of climbers. This is in stark contrast to the traditional representative side of the BMC. 

There is also cultural aspect to this between the BMC and GBC (and its staff) where the representative side is a soft authority mainly advising and guiding climbers what to do and the governing side is a hard authority commanding climbers what to do. 

A partial separation of the structured from the unstructured elements of our sport with its very different demands and responsibilities ( as demonstrated by all the issues that blew up last year) is a constructive move despite the fact that we are “all climbers”.

* https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

No responses in 24 hours makes me think I’ve left everyone nonplussed by what I’ve written???

I’ll have another stab at restating what I am trying to get across…

Why is the competitions department so different from the rest of the BMC ?

I think a useful way to frame this is to differentiate structured sport (competition climbing) from unstructured sport (all other climbing) and look at the impacts the two types of sport have on the BMC.

Firstly the ‘rules’ in unstructured climbing such as the difference between onsight and redpoint are outside the BMC’s remit. However, within GBC the rules are completely within its remit. GBC not only tell climbers what to do but enforces those rules with disciplinary procedures, selection policies and judge who has performed best and worst and is worthy to go on its teams.

Secondly, with unstructured climbing the BMC has no direct duty of care or responsibility for participants - hence the participation statement*. However, within GB Climbing the BMC has a high level of responsibility for the welfare (especially junior athletes) in the teams it manages in terms of training guidelines, monitoring individual physical health (notably weight / RED S), mental health, safeguarding against bullying and grooming, chaperoning athletes at competitions. GB climbing is also bound by a signed contract with each team member and I believe how this contract relates to employment law is still a grey area.

Therefore the application of rules and management of climbers in the teams makes GBC very needy requiring intensive application of resources for a relatively small number of climbers but with an incommensurately higher level of financial and reputational risk if things go wrong. This contrasts starkly with the traditional representative side of the BMC where the members require less management at a far lower cost per head to serve at little risk. 

Finally there is also cultural aspect where the unstructured (representative) side is a soft authority mainly advising and guiding climbers what to do and the structured (governing) side is a hard authority commanding climbers what to do. This is quite a different outlook that affects the ways and manner the staff and the organisation relates with its members. 

A partial separation of the structured from the unstructured elements of our sport with its very different cultures, demands, risks and responsibilities will I believe provide more clarity and order to the running of the organisation. 
 

* The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

I think the dividing lines you're trying to accentuate are a lot less significant than what binds us all together, namely that we're all climbers simply wanting to look after the many and diverse aspects of climbing. I'd also suggest that hardly any comp climbers either do not also climb outdoors or aren't likely to go on to climb outdoors, and that should be encouraged by seeking to maintain a unified approach to the sport's management.

The point I’m trying to make (badly)) is that is that it is the game that is very different not the players.

With comp climbing the BMC is required to completely manage and control that game whilst for the majority of members they get on and play their own games. 
 

You're basically talking about the difference between a representative body and a governing body. And do the differences inevitably mean that separated will be better than conjoined.

I know what point you're making. But if you tried, you could find wedges of similar magnitude to drive between other elements of the sport. Outdoor/indoor, free/aid, winter/summer, roped/unroped, etc.

I expect you'll argue that the competitive/non-competitive division is somehow more significant than others, and you've presented your case for that. But I don't buy that it should be seen as a special case, when fundamentally the objective of comp climbing, as with any other climbing, is to start at the bottom and to do your damnedest to reach the top according to whatever 'rules' you're seeking to follow.

Are comp rules agreed by a governing body of climbers really that different to style rules agreed by a community of climbers?

Yes. 

Why would I ? 

It is only more significant and a special case because of the strain it places on the resources and capabilities of the BMC 

No, not really

Then I would extend that question to also include comps.

If the BMC is thought to be not managing one aspect of our sport well, why would the answer not be to seek to improve the management of it, rather than to somehow pretend that comps have somehow become a completely different sport needing a completely separate management?

None of the others require their activity to be taken in house by the BMC where their game has the rules enforced by the BMC to judge whether they have succeeded or not and also to be ranked by the BMC who then selects that the best, signs employment style contracts with them and has responsibility for their safety and welfare while they travel to events and perform.

Absolutely they should seek to manage it well but they have manifestly failed to do so. Some of the issues can be corrected internally but the structure is not as good as it could be.

Last year in particular has seen a disproportionate amount of time, money and attention spent on badly managing a small part (in terms of its members) of the BMC.

The demands and risks of it being an Olympic sport have grown and will continue to grow. Other dedicated National Governing Bodies which are purely NGB’s struggle to manage their sport well. It’s an even bigger ask of a volunteer Board who are mainly hillwalkers and outdoor climbers who have no experience of a grant funded Olympic sport to manage and direct a demanding NGB which is only one part of the organisation. The solution of outsourcing to a sub Board (the CCPG) was judged to have completely failed by an internal review.

Placing it in a subsidiary with a Board of comp experienced Directors creates a framework for improved decision making, financial discipline and accountability. Yet it remains 100% part of the BMC.

What’s not to like?

99% of my climbing is bouldering indoors or outdoors.  I’ve never entered a competition and don’t plan to.  Maybe I would, if I were younger.

I’m more than happy for some of my membership money to go to supporting those that compete for Team GB.   I do enjoy watching the odd comp and want the Brits to do well.

I’m also happy for money to go to protecting a trad or sport venue, despite the fact that I’m not a trad or sport climber and it may be a venue I’ll never climb at.

I have the impression the BMC could be better run but I’m not close enough to know all of the detail. But breaking it up is not what I want to happen.  I believe we have more power together.

For me the key difference is that elite competition climbing - like all pro sport - is ultimately designed to be watched rather than done: That's what drives structural changes, particularly when they become Olympic sports.

In what sense do you think that power is diminished by GBClimbing being ringfenced in a subsidiary where the BMC is the only shareholder?

For example the Access and Conservation Trust (ACT) and the Land and Property Trust (that owns BMC crags) are separate bodies that are similarly 100% part of the BMC.

I believe that we (the BMC) are stronger together.

The BMC may not be perfect, but any deficiencies can be corrected.

Assuming that your motions are presented at the AGM, I plan to vote against them.

Unity is strength.

Ian

I’m sure you know the nuances of the current and potential structure more than I do and I’m in no position to suggest what is best for the future.

But the tone of your original post and previous threads comes across as you not wanting to contribute to comp climbing and to split it away from the BMC.  You’re entitled your views, of course.

I have had experience of governing bodies in other sports/pastimes in the past and division was always to the detriment of all parties.  The threats and opportunities to climbing are ever changing and my feeling is that they’re best faced by a unified organisation.

There's a really good post already which states that it can be both as long as BMC is properly run and that GBClimbing is a ringfenced subsidiary. 

But to add my two thoughts...

Indoor climbing is the fastest growing UK sport. It is on an absolute upward curve which is only going to grow and grow. BMC need to make sure they are part of it and also make the most of it. 

As climbing develops so does the interest in the sport, this means that the good climbers become known and their skills more widely appreciated. It's no different to the names of the past, moffatt, moon etc but in the near future these are going to be much more widely known. 

This brings with it something that climbing has had little of in the past, and these famous faces will be wanted for PR, endorsements, sponsorship unlike before.

The athletes need supporting as you've pointed out but this shouldn't be seen as a one way benefit.

There's an opportunity for BMC to nurture the competitive side for the betterment of the whole of climbing, but it can't be that it is ringfenced where it suits and not otherwise. 

Climbing, to me, is very much a community and as such it should encompass all aspects of climbing. 

The competition side of BMC should be included but run as a subsidiary so that the funds are controlled in a way which doesn't detriment the whole, and it needs strong leadership with good management. 

First they came for the competiton climbers

And I did not speak out, because I was not a competition climber.

A management team with experience in and a focus on competition climbing can be put in place with or without a separate subsidiary. 

I am unclear how you expect your proposed subsidiary will operate. How independent do you envisage this subsidiary will be? As sole shareholder the BMC could choose to remain distant and leave everything to the subsidiary's directors (which it would appoint), or it could involve itself closely in the day to day management. In the former case, could it then exercise its responsibilities as NGB? In the latter case, having it as a subsidiary would not shield it from reputational damage if things were to go wrong.

On the financial side, being a separate subsidiary is no guarantee in itself that the finances will be managed effectively. Equally, it is possible for there to be good financial controls over an internal department. The previous failures were failures of management rather than structural. 

The chief benefit to the BMC of a separate subsidiary is that it could allow allow GBC to go bust.  But would it? It appears to me that as the NGB the BMC would have little option but to pick up the pieces and carry on managing competition climbing, either in house or through a new subsidiary.  In the short term the losses might then be borne by GBC's creditors rather than the BMC itself, but many of those creditors are likely to be from within the climbing community, and in the longer term this is likely to be damaging. One way or another any problems with GBC are likely to come back to the BMC.

What do you envisage would happen in that situation?

"In the short term the losses might then be borne by GBC's creditors rather than the BMC itself"

Any sensible commercial organisation would ask for a Parent Company Guarantee (ie that the BMC would guarantee payments to creditors) - especially in light of the very public discussion that is currently going on about losses at GBC.

So realistically, a wholly owned subsidiary will not shield the BMC from any losses.
 

In haste as I’m off out. 
- I’m expecting a planned phase down of the BMC subsidy as GBC builds up its income

- Medium term guarantees are to be expected whilst GBC establishes its financial record

- If a GBC bailout was so large that the BMC couldn’t pay for it then the subsidiary set up would prevent the BMC from going under

- As per resolution: “ It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles”

I’m currently working on a paper that provides more detail which I will circulate in advance of a BMC zoom meeting/open forum which was suggested by Paul Ratcliffe the new CEO. Date TBC