UKC

The British Mountaineering Council has released a video and an accompanying article sharing updates on the progress of the organisation. President Andy Syme visited BMC HQ in Manchester to find out more.

Read more

What I can't fathom is why “President Andy Syme visited BMC HQ in Manchester to find out more” when he’s on the Board as the Members Champion and should know what’s going on already

A quick gloss over!

No mention of the CCPG report/findings/conclusions/action!

No mention of the financial management of GB Climbing and it's effect on the overall finances.

I expected more from this video. Come on Andy, you know what is troubling the membership, fill out more of the details in these and other contentious areas!

Live up to the promises of more openness and better communication. Not enough is being communicated to the membership. 

When GB climbing are at a venue there should be a prominent BMC 'table' with BMC information for the spectators, most of whom are climbers and /or outdoor enthusiasts. At the Paraclimbing training there was no indication that it was a BMC event. (Apparently this was so that the competitors etc were not distracted, was the response to the same comment on another thread.) (The BMC logo on the front of the tee shorts was tiny and mostly facing away from the spectators!). This and other events of it's type are excellent opportunities to interact with indoor climbers and others in the outdoor community who are, allegedly, the target for increasing the membership!

Comments for this video have been turned off on youtube.

Not a good look. 

They've got the video marked as "made for kids", so I suspect confusion rather than an attempt to stifle debate. That designation turns off comments, but they could have disabled comments without needing to label it for kids if that was the intention. Perhaps whoever was uploading it thought they were being asked whether there was any content in it that was actively unsuitable for kids, rather than whether it should be put into YouTube's special mode targeted at kids.

Am now more disappointed, not less.

Nobody asked for "more communication". Answer the question.

Yikes, what a clanger!

Going by the recent UKC atricle questioning BMC governance, an error of this type (whether intentional or not) really shouldn't be happening as it could be taken as a sprinkling of added doubt.

Should be a quick easy fix?  

British Mountaineering...Company?

Business Management Catastrophe?

As I posted during the last article here about the "sackings".... politely called "re-structuring", the BMC doesn't listen to external membership advice! It ploughs on regardless and all this emphasis on Team GB, Olympics and "elite" climbing is doing nothing to attract the grass roots hillwalker or the "once a month weekend climber". Competition climbing has its place but, it's now all media driven, photos for the sponsors and money & fame orientated. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BMC SHOULD BE ABOUT!

If they are going to go down that road then at least show off in BIG LETTERS and colors the BMC logo and its services at every opportunity...which takes me back to my rant about commercial partnerships last month! It appears even Simon Lee resigned from this post a few years back because of the "obstacles" (his words, not mine!) the organisation put in his way!

Surely, money is money and any chance to generate it should be applauded. Selling the BMC's services and increasing membership should of been the primary goal for that position. Not hindered by some "sales prevention officer" sat at a desk in Manchester musing "Hmmm? Nice idea but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's think about it!" There are so many people out there using the hills, mountains and crags right now. Since 'lockdown' that number has swelled. And here we are, at the BMC sending folk to get their UB40 because the coffers are empty. Like Gordon Brown said, "Money!? There is no more money!!"  

"Business Model Collapse" more like!

It's no longer designated as "made for kids" on YouTube, and they haven't chosen to disable comments as part of that update.

Nice one, cheers Luke.

I doubt many non-climbery people will stumble on there and leave a comment. So any comments should be of some use to them.

Constructive criticism aplenty!

😬😁

I prefer Braised Mutton Chops

Ha ha... yes! The crazy thing here is I actually like and value the BMC! It has a crucial role to play in the interests of everyone who enjoys being outdoors (and indoors!) partaking in "adventure activities".

But I just feel its lost its direction in recent years. It seems 'politics' have over-taken 'passion' with board-level decisions that have no relevance whatsoever to the 'ordinary Joe' going for a boggy walk over Kinder! The emphasis has shifted and this is plainly obvious when most of the media communication is either about Team GB or Para-Climbing! One only has to look here on UKC to see that's the case. I think Andy Syme needs to re-evaluate and "get the balance right" again, quoting the Depeche Mode song!!!  He needs to reunite the organisation with its members and robustly seek new ways to attract new members and get $$$$ back into its coffers!

Maybe there is a case of establishing a new, spin-off arm of the BMC that is solely devoted to the interests of indoor competition climbing and setting up a membership scheme that only caters for this facet of the sport. Everything separate...accounts, media, sponsorship, grant funding - the lot.

All ring-fenced, separate from the traditional "BMC" with a new "NAME" and board of governance that manages and oversees all of this (something that I think John Dunne tried to do with competition climbing back in the 1990's!? Correct me if I'm wrong here). The "CLIMB BRITAIN" REBRAND campaign also touched on this a few years ago, but was thrown out. 

I just think there has to be a better way. At the moment, there's a lot of mixed reactions and negativity. This has to change for the sake and morale of the BMC and its hard-working staff.    

British Union of Sport Climbers, wasn't it? 1988?

A fit of pique when the Malham competition got 'cancelled' by the combined efforts of the BMC and the Malham Parish Council I seem to recall.

But we digress....  

Yes, that was it! Well maybe we should resurrect that idea and apply a new model to what's going on at the BMC... They are trying to wear two hats and it's not working!  

As the CEO of PARTHIAN CLIMBING, John carries enough weight (no pun intended John!!) to work alongside the BMC and re-establish a new model based on an old idea!! 

Jim, I think that ship may have sailed.

When the Organisational Review Group reported to the BMC with their recommendations 6/7 years ago there was much I agreed with. I especially supported their suggestion of an arms-length 'competition body' with majority control in the hands of the three Mountaineering Councils.

That was not to be for a variety of reasons. An internal BMC Department was created. I think disentangling the current situation would be extremely complex and create a further web of problems down the line.

We are where we are; and need to deal with what we have. I think that what, initially, needs to be done is actually getting that Department functioning efficiently and economically: acting truly for the benefit of squad members (and coaches, walls etc).

See you at Wiltstock - happy to chat 😉

What's going on with your caps lock key?

Yes, valid points Andy. I just hope the board and council members consider what is being said on open forums like this. Sometimes Area Meetings don't include debate on wider issues like this. I did think one idea would be to invite all the past BMC Presidents to a special meeting to debate and suggest a new road map for the organisation. We need some creativity and passion back! Not just politics. 

And.... to Longsufferingbelaybunny...MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS FUNCTIONING PERFECTLY THANK YOU   

 🤣 Deciding on a road map is definitely  politics!

You make a fair general point though. I have been involved with the BMC for 10 years and not seen what I would describe as proper strategic thinking and planning by the BMC Board during that time. Any attempt at a strategic plan with specific goals and resource allocation has ended up being a worthy but nebulous and aspirational mish mash. The phrase that a camel is a horse designed by a committee springs to mind.

The perceived (maybe actual) need for consensus agreement in a diversely representative body inevitably waters things down. The growth of allocation of resources to GB Climbing wasn’t announced and planned for in advance - it just happened.

The best piece of strategic thinking I’ve seen was the ORG report and that was independent of the BMC. 

Here is the current BMC 2020-24 Strategic Plan

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1902#:~:text=Summ...

Maybe we need a "Braveheart" instead of "Robert the Bruce" in that case. Someone who is willing to be decisive, and  who isn't afraid to take on consensus debates and lead from the front. Another year or two of "nebulous and aspirational mish mash" will exacerbate the BMC's current issues and membership numbers will continue to decline. Thus, threatening more job losses and weakening the whole organisation even further... maybe to the point where its purpose and relevance is also under threat! 

Thanks for that link. Reading the strategic plan, it's a laudable list, looking forward to seeing how the details play out. 

Is the strategy ending in 2024 because it co-incides with the olympics? I hope competitions don't distort things too much. One of the notable outcomes of the London 2012 was how little they were able to deliver on the ambition to increase partcipation, which had been a major part of what London 2012 thought it was going to bring. Elite competitive sport and participation seem hard to reconcile: the BMC leadership team have a challenge ahead with that alone.

I was interested in this as well. We do hear a lot about the 'Olympic effect'.

All the studies I came across suggested that elite performance (Olympics, Tour de France, World Cup etc) has almost no impact upon general levels of physical activity. Whilst there is some evidence that already active people may shift activity (a runner might try their hand at cycling inspired by a big event) it seems that for the 'non-active' watching elite performance produces a 'bloody hell, that's fantastic....I could never do that' reaction.

A good article : https://www.mmu.ac.uk/sport-and-exercise-sciences/news/story/?id=14307

Totally agree... elite sporting events do very little to bolster participation in sport. One only has to look at all the now defunct Olympic stadiums across the globe (great homes for nesting birds and other vermin!). Ponds Forge in Sheffield is unique in that it survived as a national centre of excellence. But the London Dome did not! 

I think the BMC's Olympic aspirations are .... just that..."aspirations". But they need to realise, lots of money, lots of time with a very unquantifiable end product which only affects a very small number of climbers/athletes. And, once it's all over, it will disappear as a distant memory.... apart from the figures showing on the organisation's end of year accounts report!    

Yes, professional sport is principally entertainment. Which is not well understood by some climbing competition organisers and better by others. Having seen it done well, it can be thrilling, but a million miles away from school groups getting their first experience of the outdoors or negotiating with reluctant landowners! I’m struggling to reconcile the two in my mind  - seems to work on this site !

In the BMC remit does this matter? Participation is huge and growing fast for a representative body area. Plus BMC membership growth is lagging that increase, especially since covid.

A lot of current Sport England planning seems to me based on fantasy 'economics', not a great surprise given the government behind  them. Yet they are the biggest source of grants for good work in participation in sporting organisations. 

Viewing figures for climbing comps are not bad for a minority sport, especially given they are mostly paywalled.  Too many on UKC are out of touch with the priorities and interests of young climbers: the surveys show much greater interest in comps in the young, as Alkis regularly points out here anecdotally.