UKC

The BMC has published the findings of a review into the management of its competition climbing program. The report identifies 'a number of issues with the processes, the culture and the approach within GB Climbing'. A list of recommendations to address these issues has also been released. 

Read more

Thanks Natalie / UKC

The linked BMC article* is worth checking out and the comps community dissecting it to see if the changes and actions go far enough.

The final paragraph jumped out for me: 

“We are, however, committed to working together with the community on this shared journey, to continue to develop our athlete-focussed performance infrastructure, to support our athletes”

The over arching criticism of GB Climbing from the comp community is that grant money is going to the BMC rather than athletes. I would like to understand why the strategy is to invest in the infrastructure first rather than paying travel and accommodation expenses for the athletes to attend comps. Paying expenses will enable them to get more vital comp experience especially for those who aren’t flush with cash or have well off parents. That would seem to me the way to put athletes and their performance first. If there is something I am missing here I would like to hear it. 

I am also conscious that athletes and their parents might be reluctant to voice criticism in case it jeopardises selection. That sort of dialogue has to be based on trust. It’s been said that parents were told that if they didn’t cough up extra travel expenses above and beyond what they were initially told then their children wouldn’t be put on the team next year. If that’s the case trust will be in short supply in the “listening sessions”.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ccpg-review-board-statement

I think they mean "We are fully committed to..." in the 21st century meaning of the now ubiquitous phrase i.e. "We won't be bothering with..."

This suggests that it has failed in pretty well every area it could possibly fail in. And the solution appears to involve deckchairs and rearranging. Depressing,

Ah yes. But what is the 'journey'?

Twice across Austria by taxi, if i've been reading the various threads correctly...........

It's a shared taxi journey, we pay, they ride.

A definition of 'a world leading climbing nation' would be nice. I am sure this has been watered down from 'the worlds leading climbing nation by 2032' It would be much better to concentrate on achievable goals rather than bland statements. To be the world's leading climbing nation we need some world class training facilities. How many routes are there on climbing walls in the UK 8c and above? Money does need spending on infrastructure eg facilities but it also needs to go to the athletes: The junior team sometime ago rewarded results : free trip for a podium, 50% of the cost of the trip for a final, 25% for a semi final in a WYCH. Transparent and fair based on performance. People who did well, did well out of the system but it was no surprise that they were also the ones who worked hardest too.

To be a World leading climbing nation we need to pass at least seven or eight other nations who are all much better equipped facility wise than the UK. Slovenia, France, Japan, Austria, USA, Switzerland, Germany and Korea. We need a plan and we need to work together towards it with transparency and focus. We all have the same goal to see British climbers excelling, we need some strong leadership to drive GB Climbing forward and it needs to take the climbing community with it.

You aren't suggesting the athletes should be front and centre of the program, are you?

Radical, but it might just work........

When I read that phrase in the statement from the BMC, all I can see in my mind is the gurning face of Boris Johnson. 'World leading'? 'World beating'? Just f-uck off.

Careful with that 'we.' I don't want to seem like a completely sour prick here - but I myself don't have that goal. I fully appreciate that other people might do - and I realise that you yourself have a very direct involvement in this - but, for me, I have no more interest in seeing British climbers winning competitions than I do seeing British pole-vaulters (say) winning competitions. I have been climbing and mountaineering all my life; I love the activity, and it has given me a great deal - but I have zero interest in climbing competitions.

Is this the underlying tension here? Confusion - and/or disagreement - about what the BMC exists for; what it should be involved with; and what it should be focusing on?

Better hope they don't get food poisoning or some other misfortune, else the cost of a f***ed up trip will knock them out of comps for a year. You'd also better hope that they've got rich parents.

That I'm not going to argue with.  But you need a better plan than just throwing money at whoever is doing well (by what measure?) that month, so you do need to get a plan and your infrastructure in order or you can very quickly splash the cash and have nothing to show for it. That sadly means you need to at least talk to other sports who've done it before, and figure out how you're going to do it in 'the context' of the BMC which is different to a lot of other sports.

Because......

TO paraphrase Rob Parsons -' I don't like comps. '  Well I don't much like Harrisons ROcks, and it's worth a ton of cash, but a lot of people do like it, so I don't think we should sell it.  Not everyone likes everything , so you need to all the above with enough transparency and at least a veneer of competency to minimise complaints.

To get to the point.  This isn't just as easy as throwing money at the flavour of the month on UKC or wherever

Warning mixed metaphors ahead.

Slightly hesitant to add more fuel to the fire but the report doesn’t reflect well on the comps setup. An open plea to the BMC governance: please sort things out and stop handing out loaded guns, whilst helpfully taking your shoes off and drawing a target on your foot. I know that’s what you, the members and other climbers want.

Do the things you do well, respect your members and communicate better. We’re lucky our sport is stacked to the brim with mad keen enthusiasts, passionate about what’s best for climbing. There’s a disconnect.

Better hope they don't get food poisoning or some other misfortune, else the cost of a f***ed up trip will knock them out of comps for a year. You'd also better hope that they've got rich parents.

That I'm not going to argue with.  But you need a better plan than just throwing money at whoever is doing well (by what measure?) that month, so you do need to get a plan and your infrastructure in order or you can very quickly splash the cash and have nothing to show for it. That sadly means you need to at least talk to other sports who've done it before, and figure out how you're going to do it in 'the context' of the BMC which is different to a lot of other sports.

Because......

TO paraphrase Rob Parsons -' I don't like comps. '  Well I don't much like Harrisons ROcks, and it's worth a ton of cash, but a lot of people do like it, so I don't think we should sell it.  Not everyone likes everything , so you need to all the above with enough transparency and at least a veneer of competency to minimise complaints.

To get to the point.  This isn't just as easy as throwing money at the flavour of the month on UKC or wherever

Re . what should the BMC focus on - well ignore this on your peril, or wait about 6 years for the next Olympic cycle, climbing is on the TV and the person on the TV, radio or advising the government culture and sport committee on how to start climbing and the future of the sport ISN'T from the BMC as they dumped comps in 2025.

Sorry, but we really don't.

Do they not have to complete the CPSU audit as part of their funding conditions from UK Sport/Sport England? All other national governing bodies do and the FIRST question they ask is whether the safeguarding policies have been updated in the past 3 years (or as required).

I also just cannot see how they meet the requirements for the Code for Sports Governance.

Last year the BMC took on a full time Safeguarding Manager with, I believe, Sport England support.

Irrelevant to me. I'd rather see more people enjoying more different sports across the uk, any sport, far far better than sitting at home watching 1 or 2 chase a podium, or building more and more indoor facilities. 

Actually, many people would like the BMC to focus on access and GB climbing/competitors to look after their own costs.  The "travel expenses" of taxis at a recent comp were pretty dimly viewed in the recent discussion on here

In the interest of balance I should say that the extra transport costs were added to the overall cost of the 'training/competition' trip and charged to the competitors (for 'competitors' read 'parents').

It's complicated; but there was an attempt to recoup that expenditure.

To summarise;

• The BMC is spending our money on things most climbers don't care about.
• They are doing so in a staggeringly incompetent fashion.

Did I miss anything?

And I can understand why that post got dislikes; but it is factual.

I would suggest "the BMC is spending more money than it said it would on a part of its remit that many climbers say they aren't interested in".

I would suggest this statement is highly accurate.

No, that about covers it.

When I said excelling I mean in all areas of climbing, competitions; lead bouldering and speed but also outdoor sport routes outdoor boulders, multi-pitch sport and trad, trad climbing etc etc. 

I didn’t say we should go back to the system we had in the GB Junior Lead Team I was saying that athletes need funding and that funding needs some performance review.

I also said we need infrastructure and we are miles behind what other countries have. Until we have walls with 30 routes of 8a and above how can we we compete with countries that have that, also our bouldering facilities are a million miles behind what the Japanese have, we need walls with many 8c and 9a routes as that’s what you are gong to face in competitions.

Which has zero to do with gb climbing, but everything to do with maintaining access, if only there were more people employed in this area. 

But most climbers want to climbers such as Will Bosi and Aiden Roberts climbing at the highest grades 

That's an utterly meaningless statement!

Most climbers want to go climbing, most climbers want access to nice crags, most climbers want a pint after a good day, most climbers want a bit of cake.   I expect most climbers want peace on earth and good will to all people.

I'm not sure most climbers want the current debacle ahead of the other things I've listed (or ahead of quite a lot if other stuff).

Personally I'd sacrifice all the podiums in the world for a good view and glaciers that are still here in another 20 years (ideally 2000+ years).

The fact you think that proves why the most bmc members and climb gb are worlds apart in their views. 

I honestly think most would be happy with a sun kissed 3star route anywhere between S and E2, good company etc...  than being stood on a podium after placing some indoor comp themselves. 

I feel that the overall tone of the report points not to a particular problem with GB Climbing, but an overall organisational malaise. The BMC seems unclear about what it is for.

Clear understanding of responsibilities and strong direction from the Board is required. I suggest that the BMC should focus on 3 priorities:

• Access Without crags we have no climbing
• Inclusion and Diversity. This means providing ways into climbing for those who want to try it, and pathways into the wide variety of climbing and mountaineering activities that BMC members enjoy. Walls are one area, as is competition climbing, and the excellent courses the BMC has run to help indoor climbers get outdoors, into trad, the Jonathan Conville alpine courses etc. I can't help but feel that support for clubs to help people move from indoors to outdoors is a key area - Uni clubs already do a great job here.
• Commercial the BMC should be looking to establish commercial relationships where they support the above two goals. These should include members and club insurance, and sponsorship for competitive activities 

Why do you say that? I suspect most climbers have no idea who those people are (I certainly don't) and have no more interest in them climbing the highest grades than tiddlywink champions winning. Can we please have a BMC that stops dicking about and actually provides a voice for climbing, not athletics?

Do you really believe this. It would be an interesting little experiment to go to a crag today and do a survey and ask the climbers present if they know who Will Bosi or Aiden Roberts are and what they know of them. I also suspect that if you went to a Bouldering "Gym", you may possibly find even less people have heard of them.

I have vaguely heard of Will Bosi, but if you told me Aiden Roberts was the star centre forward for Manchester City, I would believe you.

In a similar vein to the response I gave on this topic a while ago, be careful with statements that are generational: If you were to ask any climbers under 30 at the crag, *especially* boulderers, I suspect they would all know who Bosi is.

I climb with a lot of students, in their case nearly all of them, seeing as all three main uni climbing clubs in the area are BMC affiliated.

Edit: Besides, even if it were zero of them, the BMC needs to think about future members.

Upto a point yes. But most are not really interested or bothered as it’s difficult to relate to . Each side is in bubbles.The smallest bubble being the elite level.

On indoor facilites, they are privately owned ( even uni walls like at Warwick are money generating)and I really cannot see any justifiable commercial reason why you would build a wall for a few people. Everybody knows this. 

Presumably that is not commercially viable or else walls would be doing it anyway. So how is it going to be funded? Somehow pay walls to give over space to routes that will be largely unused? Even Ratho might typically have only about half a dozen routes at 7a and only a handful in the low 8's. Maybe an 8c once in a blue moon. There was once a 9a left over from the world cup. I think a few people tried the moves for a laugh. 

This is quite off topic but I can't help myself. Depends how you define 'climbers' I suppose, but if you quizzed a random selection of people at a climbing wall I'd be pretty shocked if Aidan Roberts and Will Bosi weren't two of the most well known British climbers at the moment. Maybe if you quizzed a group of grumpy UKCers you'd get a different response. Even then, they've both been featured in several UKC articles/need reports, so they're hardly under the radar!

For what it's worth I like the fact that they're out there climbing hard stuff and I'd be happy enough if it turned out that some of my BMC membership went to support them when they were younger comp climbers.

Agreed 100% .  But at what price, access to your local crags or not etc etc. 

In that respect you are on a hiding to nothing.

There's a certain irony there, isn't there, Ian?

Will Bosi has turned his back on, and walked away from the competition set-up; presumably because he felt happier just climbing?

If I ran UKC I'd certainly consider how much money they're wasting on the News page as they're constantly on that, yet noone here seems capable of putting a name to the scottish bloke with glasses.

A lot of climbers would tho',and claiming otherwise seems to be stretching credibility a bit-.

Well it's all guesswork, and would depend on what day/wall you went to, but FWIW I wouldn't be shocked at all; I think a small number would be really up on elite names and what they've been up to recently, quite a few might have vaguely heard of the names but not much beyond that, and quite a few not having heard of them at all. And that last category aren't necessarily less into climbing (or feeling grumpy, for that matter).

By way of analogy, I teach cello, and have a number of pupils who are doing very well and are really into it; however, none of them know the current top cellists, and most would probably struggle to name more than one famous cellist, past or present.

That's fine, it's up to you how you spend your money; but a lot of BMC members clearly don't feel the same way, and don't want to fund comps, but are trapped into it if they want to continue with their subscription to fund access, etc. Added to which, it seems impossible to get a clear idea of what proportion of subs go towards comps without getting embroiled in convoluted financial complications - and for some, maybe many, trust in the BMC has been in short supply since the rebrand and all the management issues since.

Good question. 15% has been bandied around a bit recently as a figure of contribution to GBClimbing.

(I'm not clear whether this 15% is a % of the BMCs income or is a % of the value of the grants given to GB climbing/BMC by UK Sport/Sport England. If someone knows enough to clarify that for me that would be really helpful.)

As a starting point, from someone who is at heart a hillwalker/trad climber/alpinist, but does watch the comps when convenient, I'd say I'd be happy for 20% of my BMC membership money to go towards GBClimbing to support comp climbers and GB comp climbing however appropriate (ignoring the fact that they don't really seem to be doing a good job of this at the moment). I think 80% for access and 20% for comps is pretty reasonable even if you don't like comps, because there are (or at least should be) benefits to outdoor climbers from keeping the BMC relevant to comps. Other people have outlined some benefits, but an example would be the BMC being able to promote responsible outdoor crag behaviours to comp/indoor climbers who will at some point probably venture outside.

As you say, it's all guess work, but I do think you're wrong on this There are at least a few sponsors out there who think they're well known enough to be worth sponsoring.

Apologies if the grumpy thing caused offence. UKC often comes across as quite a grumpy place to me, I know I'm grumpy about this whole BMC debacle anyway!

By way of a different analogy, when I was at school I knew the starting line-up of half the premier league teams and the star players at the others even though I didn't have any football coaching and so did loads of my friends! Certainly we all knew who Ronaldo was and when you're talking about Bosi/Roberts that's about the right level to compare to.

Yeah sure. The BMC is already a sort of broad church though, so to some extent everyone has to suck up supporting something they don't want. Lots of hillwalking members probably don't care about Wright's Rock access (neither do I tbh, but am happy to support it), people complain regularly on UKC that the BMC winter insurance does/doesn't cover you in a snow park (I can't remember which way round), probably some comp climbers (who are part of the BMC) don't care about hillwalking access, but they pay membership anyway.

I know that there was a survey (nit sure when) that indicated that BMC members want to prioritise access as the most important thing the BMC does. It seems pretty plausible to me that the BMC can do that, but still remain the governing body for comps. E.g. by taking 80% of membership income and putting it towards access type stuff and leaving 20% for comps.

I completely agree about trust and the lack of clarity about finances. If it turns out that a larger than expected % of BMC income is going on comps I'll be annoyed (more annoyed than I am already about the general state of BMC stuff).

I don’t think the issue is how much of the BMC subs are going to GB Climbing, be it £50k or £500k. The real issue is that the money is being wasted through incompetence. I don’t want ANY money wasted. Before any discussion about how much the BMC should reasonably be allocating to GB Climbing I want to see some assurance the money is being well spent and primarily benefitting the athletes not being used for administrative empire building. Nothing in the report or the actions from it gives me any confidence that is the case. Until that is ensured GB Climbing shouldn’t be getting any money at all from the BMC!

Fair enough. I think some people do have issues with the amount though. I know I would/will if it turns out if e.g. 90% of membership money goes to comps!

I almost entirely agree with this. Just not the bit about discussion.

I think this is unrealistic. Like it or not GBClimbing is part of the BMC and they will not be able to do anything to improve the situation if all finances suddenly disappear!

But what is the 20/80% based on. Wishful thinking with a nice fell  fuzziness to it. Reality is you have competing interests vying for a slice from a small pot. 

It's based on the idea that most BMC members want to prioritise access. So access pot should be bigger than comps pot. Also comps seems to be capable of getting quite a lot of money from UK Sport and Sport England, provided there is an amount (15%?) of initial funding available from the BMC. So given a smallish amount comps can get a lot from other sources.

The exact 80/20 is not something I've tried to write in stone. I'd be happy with 85/15, I'm sure others would want 60/40, there should be some informed debate on the issue. Regrettably the informed part of that is being made very difficult by the BMC not giving helpful financial information.

The BMC is committed, as far as I'm aware, to 'match-fund' UKS and SE funding: 85% from them, 15% from the BMC towards specific 'projects'. That 15% comes from subs and other income - largely insurance sales. It's hard to put a figure on just how much each member 'pays' towards that.

You're not willing to pay for the technical committee, support for clubs, inclusion work, training courses for members, Area meetings, support for walls, safeguarding, volunteer support then?

That's a bummer, the BMC actually does a lot of other things in a wide variety of areas...😉

Edit: I forgot the third party insurance provided to members; that costs!

That word again, most, are you using it because you have maybe some survey data, or because it's what you and your circle of friends believe.

For what it's worth, I would agree with you, but I have no way of knowing if my view is any more accurate, than Ian's is the most climbers want Will Bosi to do well.

Most of this boils down to conjecture and personal bias, and whilst everyone is arguing the toss, some people get in there and spaff the money on their pet projects, but then TBH that's the way the rest of our society works, so it's a bit naive to think the BMC should be different 🤷

Every membership survey that the BMC has conducted (as far as I can recall) has indicated that Access is the most highly prioritised work undertaken by the members that responded.

Can't give you figures; 'cos I don't know where to find them!

In 2010 (such a looong time ago...) the results showed 

"The highest priority work areas and services: 

• access, conservation and the environment

· equipment, technical and safety advice

· BMC travel and activity insurance

· £10million third party liability insurance

The lowest priority work areas and services:

· indoor climbing wall competitions and the British team

· supporting and advising indoor climbing walls

· BMC online shop

· discounted magazine subscriptions"

Thanks for that info.

I have fallen into the the trap here of labelling everything non-comp as access, which is obviously not true. I think I've done this because reading these various threads has seemed like a war between access and comps, which is sad and unfortunate that I've contributed to that. In the posts above where I say access I mostly really mean 'BMC activities that aren't comps".

Because I recall somewhere in these many threads that a survey or surveys have been linked to showing that access was the thing BMC members cared about the most. Hopefully I've not sure made that up.

Edit - Andy has provided a much better response.

So why do they persist with this competition thing, when in fact most BMC members are not interested. Its insane.

😂 'This competition thing'...

It IS an Olympic sport, Derek! And, believe it or not, it's a pretty big deal with some people. I used to drop into the Arco Rock Master most years and had a great time; I guess you had to be there.

That survey I quoted WAS in 2010. If a year is a long time in politics then, equally, a decade is a long time in climbing development; note the phrase 'indoor climbing wall competitions'. How quaint.

Competition climbing IS a 'thing'. The BMC IS the recognised National Governing Body' for that 'sport'. UKSport IS a funding body supporting Olympic sports through NGB's. The role of the BMC, currently, is to try to make sure that 'we' do the best 'we' can for those engaged in competition*; whilst balancing those demands with those of providing a 'service' to people who just climb and walk - the vast majority of the members.

P S. I don't know who Aidan Roberts is either. Toby Roberts now; he's a monster!

*Apologies. I'm an old git. I can't bring myself to refer to them as 'athletes': for me they are just talented climbers. You've only got to look at some of the stuff they do on rock when they're 'off-duty'!

The ratio is irrelevant, as said by many it's the poor use of it that's the problem, if the funds were clearly directly supporting young aspirant and existing GB comp climbers I doubt there'd be any complaints. Remember where this all started, over spending mainly because of poor management, not on individuals climbers who have been self supporting, but primarily on logistics, despite several staff being full time employees who should be more than capable of organising things. Who employed them, who is keeping them employed whilst the hours of others are cut. Then the bilge from management about how it's too complicated for us to understand, so he won't bother explaining anything to the members who are paying his salary. 

I doubt we will ever become a sport climbing nation.I've seen climbing facilities become more and more dumbed down with commercially driven explosion of indoor climbing. The support for modern climbing facilities(eg klettercentrum Innsbrook) spread around the UK just has not happened.So in the absence of the sheer volume of comp level indoor climbing to try I agree with your notion that if we are going to have a team GB then financing trips for training as well as comps has to be done.Having said that the present team often do really well and reflects on their incredible talent and commitment.Perhaps there should be a split..as in Australia and the US where they have sport climbing associations with these being separate from the climbers associations that deal with access/legal issues ?

Looking around I think we are. Bolts going in everywhere....

Or do you mean 'competition climbing nation' 😉

I believe Austria also has a separation of bodies?

So is synchronised swimming (or "artistic swimming" as it's called these days, apparently).  And race walking.  That doesn't mean that they have a large following in the UK, or that they get large chunks of money from the DCMS via UK Sport (artistic swimming has £216,250 allocated between 2021 and 2025, for example, vs £1,562,813 for sport climbing over the same period - source https://www.uksport.gov.uk/sports ).

My point being that just because something is an Olympic sport, that doesn't mean that it has a large fanbase, even among people who participate in similar sports e.g. regular pool swimming, open water swimming etc in the case of artistic swimming - nor that it automatically gets big bucks spent on it.

"Some" in that sentence is being asked to do almost as much work as "most" in the posts from the naysayers...

I've climbed since a teen, almost 40 years, been an ML for 30, instructor for 20+, I reckon in all that time I've met less than 10 people who've ever talked about indoor comps unless prompted or ever deliberately gone to spectate. Again no figures, but to me high end indoor / comp climbing has very small percentage appeal. Someone saying have you seen that speed climb climbing route in a wall, doesn't mean they are actually interested in it personally or those who run up it. 

So I'd guess your grouch is with the government rather than the BMC?  UKSport is about 'buying medals' across all sports. Someone has to act as NGB for competition climbing....

Sure. Take your point. 'Some' is vague. But it's not 'none' and it's not 'all' so I guess ....?

I meant as in the walls that are being built don't reflect a strong aspirational national interest in sport climbing amongst most climbers.If there was building appropriate indoor facilities to match that demand would  have occurred.Sure bolting holes in the ground in say  the peak and other places reflects a desire for new crags but this is not the same as a desire to have facilities to train on  that get you prepared  for steeper routes abroad let alone comps.

Support towards Olympic achievement should be entirely lottery funded or through commercial sponsorship. I'm happy to buy a lottery ticket once a week. I'm not happy that my BMC subscription is used to the same end. Current international competition climbing holds zero interest to me. I enjoyed entering bouldering and even one speed climbing competition, entirely safe funded. 

No chance. The amount of sport routes will always be tiny compared to countries like Spain. We’ve got some quality crags and routes, but a lot of rubbish too.

If you ask people to rank things, something has to come last. It being among the lowest ranked on that survey doesn’t necessarily mean people aren’t interested. 

Like it or not, almost all the young climbers (ie 30 years old or less) I know of and a significant number of older climbers came into climbing via climbing walls, with many of them competing in the YCS comps. If the BMC is to remain relevant to this younger demographic, it needs to be involved.

To my mind there are two important issues. The money going to GB climbing needs to be well spent and this needs to be transparent to the members. Neither of these seem to be the case.

Another issue is the BMC publicising itself. There is almost no evidence of this at the climbing walls I have been to and very little even at competitions run by the BMC!

No, but if, as with have learnt in recent news and threads (and in fact several years ago with the MONC) that the things people assign lowest importance to are costing disproportionate amounts of time and money, destabilising the governance, and leading to things that are seen as important being downgraded, then the low priorities need to be abandoned.  "If everything is a priority, nothing is"

True, but it does mean they value access, insurance etc.. more. 

Which might be a compelling argument for spending less on comps, but it’s far from the slam dunk case for abandoning them wholesale that some seem to think it is. 

Is there actually a war between access and comps, though? As far as I can tell, the BMC is now meant to be structured in such a way that elite comp climbing is funded primarily through government grants and its own fundraising, and there's quite limited scope for it to divert funds away from the access / conservation / safety / clubs stuff that most of us are motivated by when we pay our subs. There's a discussion around how well that structure is working and perhaps more significantly around how well GB Climbing is functioning within its own bubble (which is what this report is basically about), but this narrative of evil comp climbers trying to hijack the BMC and steal all our subs by binning access work seems to be over-dramatizing things somewhat...

I think you have some catching up to do...

But if they don't get their act together soon, prove to be financially competent etc.. then they won't have as many paying members to please and it becomes a downward spiral. I think they have got a lot less time to do this than they believe, times are tight and people will be looking for subscriptions to chop. 

Maybe it is to you, but it isn't to me. There are plenty of posts in the various BMC threads suggesting that comps should be split off completely from the BMC. There are also several posts, including in this thread, where people express the view that they don't want any of their membership money to go towards comps, these people also clearly care about the ratio.

I completely agree that poor use of funds does appear to be a problem in the BMC/GBClimbing. However, as I said above, there are quite literally people saying that they don't want any of their membership money to go towards comps because they don't care about comps, that seems like a complaint that would still be the same even if BMC/GBClimbing was doing the best it possibly could with the money it has.

I do agree with the sentiment of this. I wish that the finance's were clearer and it seems clear that there are management problems and financial problems.

In theory I think this is correct. However, as you express below, not everyone is convinced that this structure/the implementation of this structure is working to get the desired outcome.

I agree that it seems to be over-dramatizing things somewhat, but it is definitely a sentiment I get reading the various BMC threads. There are several posts from people expressing the view that GBClimbing should be split off from the BMC so that the BMC can focus on the other stuff it does instead. Not a view I agree with, but a view that is being expressed quite strongly by others.

I think that if you don't watch the comps or engage with them much you probably won't know that they are quite popular with quite a lot of people. It would be good if this could be quantified in some way. The YouTube channels that I watch comp highlights on have thousands of views, I don't know how many from the UK.

It doesn't matter if they have 10 million youtube followers, it's what members wish to happen with their membership subscriptions, I don't think you quite grasp it organisationally. 

I think I grasp it quite well.

I am a member of the BMC, I have a view on what I would like it to do, that view includes the fact that I would like it to continue being the governing body for comp climbing. I think it's valuable to the BMC to continue being the governing body for comps. One reason I think this is because I believe comps are quite popular and it would be good for the BMC to continue to have influence there, to promote BMC stuff to people who are likely to at some point go climbing outside.

People on this thread (including you) have said words to the effect of "I don't think many people care about comps", if true that makes the above reason I think the BMC should be involved with comps invalid. However, I don't think it is true that not many people care about comps, I think quite a lot do. I expressed the view that it would be nice to have some data on the numbers, then gave a little bit of data that comp highlights on YouTube are pretty popular, to back up my point that I think quite a lot of people care about comps.

We have had data above on priorities. Comps were low, if not bottom. We also know the BMC is struggling for cash, comps are spending vast (but apparently unknown) amounts, and comps have led to an absurd , opaque organisational structure that isn't working. The BMC should be split to resolve all this. If people want to be involved in both, fine, just join two organisations. Basically the MONC proposers' analysis was correct, even if their solution wasn't 

People care about people.

Most members wouldn't object to funds going towards helping those without sufficient means to compete, junior squad development etc.. what has annoyed many is the fact funds have been wasted due to poor decisions, mismanagement and now more members funds are bailing out the competition climbing side of the bmc. The staff working on access have been reduced, contracts not renewed or whatever other fluffy management speak they choose to use. Plenty here know gb climbers, their parents, they've been let down as much as the members by bmc climb gb staff. 

I don't personally think member's confidence can be restored without a change of management, the last statement is still generally just fluff and denial. 

Absolutely, comps were low priority for members. The BMC is struggling for cash, comps seem to be spending a lot. It is extremely frustrating that the BMC / GB Climbing are not being clear about their financial situation. It is worth noting that comps bring in a lot of money to the BMC and it is not clear (to me anyway, would love it if someone can point me at clear figures) if comps are net costing the BMC money or not.

I can sympathise with this point of view. I would personally rather keep comps in the BMC for a few reasons. A couple: I think comps are a part of mountaineering (admittedly a pretty far removed part); I think being involved in comps is beneficial to the BMC/the BMCs other work. Also worth noting that the data you referenced above doesn't say members want to get rid of comps.

I think it's clear that changes in the BMC are required and really don't want to defend them, but I would like the end result of the changes to be a scenario where the BMC remains the governing body for comps or at least still involved with comps. I think it's possible that with the right organisational structure and people, for comps and other BMC activities to happily exist side by side.

I agree completely nice to be on the same page.

It is of course hard to know if "most members wouldn't object to funds going towards helping those without sufficient means to compete, junior squad development etc...". I like to think that most members wouldn't object to that, but it seems from the comments on this thread and others that at least some members would object.

From what I understand, this is further complicated by the way in which funding is structured, the BMC nominally puts 15% funding towards competitions as the National Governing Body (NGB), it then gets 85% of the necessary funding from UK Sport. Being the NGB subsequently enables it to apply for other pots of funding that directly impact grass roots participation, the clubs officer used to be funded from one of those pots before her salary was (I think) brought in house, last year funding was used to attempt to remove barriers to participation and widen participation in a more sustainable way:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sport-england-confirms-funding-bmc

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/partnership-success-thanks-to-sport-england

The information is of course not presented in a helpful format for people to see how much was spent on what without looking at the accounts (the format of stuff on the BMC website is a long standing gripe of mine).

So being the NGB costs 15% of what they believe is necessary for an effective competition set up, in return for that the BMC can also apply for funding in a similar format that supports grass roots participation in a way that the BMC would have wanted to fund anyway. 

Edit: Shark's figures below provide a better idea of the other of GB Climbing funding.

Yes it is. As things stand the disclosed figures for 2022 are that GB Climbing spent £960,000 and received £780,000 in grants and income so the cost to the BMC was £180,000 with a further costs for shared overheads (no detail on how this is calculated) of £80,000 giving a total of £260,000 cost to the BMC to support GBClimbing. On top of this £90,000 was spent to host the World Cup at Ratho which was squirrelled away in the accounts as an investment and not allocated to GBClimbing. Personally I would attribute that to GBC to make a total cost £350k for 2022.

Whether that accounts for everything I don’t know as disclosure has been limited. My gut instinct is that it is higher. A former Director put the figure at £500k on social media. I have emailed the CEO (he offered at the Peak Area meet that I could so) for a proper detailed breakdown. It hasn’t been forthcoming. 

No. It is a powerful narrative for the old boys who feel they have been marginalised by a BMC keen to ensure it’s for for the future to use against the organisation they claim to love. Look at the stories spread about all the redundancies in an access and the actual facts! The access team seems as big as it has ever been?

In reality, GB Climbing does appear to be pretty poorly managed financially and the CCPG and Board have not done their jobs to hold them to account.* In ‘22, this led to the BMC having to spend some reserves to cover the over spend.** In ‘23, in order to avoid having to dip into the reserves again, there is a belt tightening exercise going on (e.g. the I’ll-conceived announcement of no funding for in person area meetings etc). This is not solely due to GB Climbing over spend, there is certainly a shortfall of income due to over optimistic membership numbers, and until the annual report comes out it is difficult to know exactly what is going on.

* There also appear to be other issues with GB Climbing but until I’ve read the reports and digested them, I will keep the I’ll informed comments to my self.
 

** Pre Covid the BMC seem to sit on a pot of £1million year on year, it is now half that and an over spend of £200k/£250k will erode it in no time!

Most of them would be BMC members as they have to be to enter competitions 

Exactly Andy, Will has climbed 9b+ routes and  9a boulders and so has Aiden, they don't do competitions, but they have, and they are just as inspirational to young climbers as competition heroes. The fact that this might inspire young climbers outside to enjoy bouldering, trad or sport climbing is fantastic for their long term athlete development, the fact they have a life long sport, that it is good for your mental health and you will make friends worldwide 

I think you have a tin ear on the fundamental arguments here, Ian.

I’m somewhat surprised that you use a characterisation like that given your comments about sensationalisation on UKB. 

The annual report for 2022 doesn’t provide the information to know exactly what’s going on so I very much doubt the 2023 report will either. The itemisation of costs is a joke when 30%/£1.3m is labelled “Administration Costs”. When further information for a breakdown is requested it isn’t provided. So much for openness and transparency. 

The issue with the insurance underwriter did quite a bit of harm to the BMC's finances as well I think.

Thanks for those numbers.

GBC generated income £780k.

GBC expenditures £960k + £80k + £90k = £1130k.

Net negative £350k. This is the bit that the BMC has to 'pick up'.

780/1130 = 69%

350/1130 = 31%

So GB Climbing is roughly 70% self funded, 30% BMC funded. Notable that 30% BMC funded is quite a bit higher than the 15% BMC funded / the rest grant funded figures being thrown around (first time I heard the 15% figure was from the CEO at the peak area meeting).

Membership subscriptions was £2,396k.

Total income £4,142k (just here for context).

So as a percentage of subs 350/2396 = 14.6%.

So in this very simplistic analysis (ignoring all other income streams, so a sort of 'worst case') 14.6% of my membership is going towards comps and the rest towards "other BMC stuff". I'm personally not massively unhappy with that*.

Agree that the level of detail provided in the report is totally inadequate and incredibly frustrating.

It's very poor that you haven't heard back from the CEO on the detailed breakdown. For those who weren't there, the impression that Paul gave was that the figures were available/nearly available and that you'd get a prompt reply. He said several times that he was prioritising being at the meeting rather than sitting at home with a spreadsheet sorting out numbers. This was used as a reason for not being able to answer financial questions during the meeting, still not having the answers months later after promising they'd be available on request is really not a good look.

*I am unhappy that the BMC as a whole is losing money and is very disorganised and unable to communicate effectively with members etc.

A spot on analysis and reaction to what is being published here Rob! But, as I keep saying, the BMC fails to listen to this argument and yet, this is the way the majority' of members think, I'm sure!

Like I said last week ref. Andy Syme going to head office to "find out" what's going on (!), I think there's a case for having the competition arm of the BMC separate from the traditional core role.... i.e. access to crags and footpaths, reciprocal rights, huts, insurance and guide book services etc. I don't think anyone here is 100% 'against' competition climbing, it's just that the BMC appear to have gotton themselves into a corner and all one hears about is Euro comps, Olympic comps, world rankings etc. blah, blah, blah.... !! Like you say who feckin' cares!? The trouble is this is stopping new members joining and, worse, existing members not renewing their subscriptions. Hence, falling membership and overall revenue. And, let's be fair, JOB CLUB is not a great place to be after working in a nice, cosy Manchester office!!!

Have they thought? I’m not being cheeky here, this is a genuine question. How many positions, full time and a part time, was the BMC supporting in access before it took on this role, and after? It’s perfectly possible I’ve been deceived by management speak but it looked like their answer was that the number of position increased even after this debacle?

Hi Ian... long time no hear!

You are quite correct here.... except I don't think the BMC is good at wearing two hats!  Aside from the financial commitments, there isn't the skills required to manage such a large task of organising junior and senior climbers on a world stage, ensuring adequate training facilities, managing climbers' own individual performances, liasing with sponsors, international transportation, entry fees, hotel and accommodation costs, media interviews etc! They're just not geared up for this gig! 

"CLIMB BRITAIN" should have been the competition arm and steps should have been taken several years ago to set up a separate committee with people such as yourself, Graham Alderson and John Dunne/Ben Moon etc. People who have direct experience of that "game", experts in their field!!! With all due respect to those now involved in the BMC's GB CLIMBING, sorry, but who are these people!? Have they been at the cutting edge of wall design, route-setting or excellence outdoors?

And, like several posters here have said, if this is using subscriptions revenue then I can see why people are angry with this current strategy. Another couple of years of this S#@T and there won't be a BMC left for anyone. The Maggie Thatcher - "this lady is not for turning" approach has to be ditched and total over-haul and rethink is required!          

Have you considered that the competition format has changed significantly since Ben and John were involved, they may be experts in the field of comps in the 80s, 90s and 00s, but that is a long time ago. I would also suggest that the salaries available were probably insufficient to cover the reduction in time they would have available for their own businesses? It would have been much better to offer roles to the people who had been doing a good job on a voluntary basis with a comparative shoe string of a budget and then set it up from there.

If an organisation is not " geared up for" something it doesn't have to leave that role on the table if someone else taking on the role will do harm to its core activities. That can be fixed, the BMC changed its governance structures to support this and is trying to build up people with the necessary expertise to run an effective competition team. Unfortunately it seems they haven't yet got the right people in the right roles to ensure that GB Climbing runs like a well oiled machine and supports athletes at junior, senior levels appropriately but they are doing rather a lot to be "geared up for it", certainly more than anyone else...

Point taken ref. formats changing and commitments to their own businesses now.

However, staff on a "voluntary basis" and operating on a "shoestring budget" raises concerns. You pay peanuts and you get monkeys! Maybe trying to examine the models and replicate best practice used by the top nations (France, Japan, Slovenia etc.,) would provide the BMC with the necessary information it needs in order to fight its way through the current chaos we are seeing. 

This also has to have an effect on the morale of the current staff at GB Climbing. It can't be good reading all this stuff. 

My point was that they achieved a lot with very little before GB Climbing was set up, how much could those people have done if they were fully funded and could dedicate more time to it? I am in no way advocating paying peanuts.

I can't imagine it would feel great as a member of GB Climbing staff reading this thread, I am not criticising individuals, just making the point that some things that should be running smoothly aren't so clearly there are skills needed that aren't available in sufficient amounts to do what they want to do (I.E. too much going on, or they need to train mofe of the existing staff how to do things), or the staff are not being pointed at tasks with the right priority (ref: Innsbruck hire cars).

So, look at the ways the "super nations" do it? I'm not saying replicate, but poach any new ideas or methods. It's obviously successful because it works for them and their athletes. Or maybe it's a case of "3 Lions on the shirt. Jules Remet still gleaming. All those years ago!" Like footie, the UK boasted the best climbers in the world in the 80's and 90's. Sadly, this is no longer the case and the competition stage is dominated by our foreign rivals. It's clear far more has to be done (Ian Dunn tried to explain this earlier I think). 

Re: the proportion of BMC subs that should go to GB Climbing - why not make it the same as the proportion of BMC members who competed in the last 12 months? (As opposed to guessing what the numerical value of "some" or "most" is)

I don't think the objection is completely about apportionment %-wise. It's more about the way that sum of money is handled and used in the most effective way in order to satisfy the requirements of Team GB. It's like, Boris Johnson having parties at No.10! Great fun for those involved but, is that a good way to spend, hard working taxpayer's money!? Reading the comments here shows there is a definite lack of confidence in the whole of GB Climbing and the way it is managed. 

Whatever the reactions of the BMC Board, they cannot ignore this level of dis-satisfaction and need to address publicly a revised strategy...or, this is just going to go on and on and on!!! The alternative is to hit Home Bargains, invest in some colorful plastic buckets, fill with sharp sand and insert BMC Board of Governance heads! 

Yes - that’s a good summary. He either didn’t know the figures or didn’t want to disclose. Neither reflects well. Also when someone said GBC spent about £1m he said it was nowhere near that amount when obviously it is as even in the annual report it is reported at 960k for 2022 without the add ons. 

His reply to my email 6 weeks ago after the meeting when I requested a full breakdown of GBC finances was:

”I'm just off on A/L at the moment.

Off the back of the various questions at the Area Meetings and on the forums, I'll be doing another Q&A with the MarComms when I get back.

I suspect that this will not only discuss the costs related to the various aspects of competition climbing that are delivered or supported by the BMC, but we will also, I'm sure, focus on the benefits of the BMC playing visible and active role within competition, not just in Speed, Lead & Boulder, but also Ice, SkiMo and Para.

I will be sure to let you know once the article goes live”

This was an ambiguous response so I replied asking whether this did, or did not, mean he would be providing the detailed breakdown I asked for but received no reply. 

I should add that I wasn’t expecting him to devote any of his personal time to working out  this info but just give me permission to obtsin it. To make things easy I offered in my email to work directly with Alan the accountant who I know from my stint working at the BMC. He was brilliant at quickly drilling into the accounts and extracting information on request. 

All very disappointing and as you say it’s not a good look.

Another good point (and something that was poorly communicated).

What other country can the BMC go out to, to get some advice as to how to thread the needle a bit better ? 
The GBclimbing logo isn’t great. We’ve had to get rid of our GB stickers off the back of our cars for UK ones. Maybe we should change GBClimbing to….oh wait a minute…..

Turns out I'm more of a hypocrite than I realized! I guess my frustration at the few, but very vocal, "bad faith actors" who seem to be driving this narrative have managed to get to take hold and the actual scrutiny that is required get lost in the hyperbole.

I'm no accountant/business expert but what level of detail would you expect the BMC to publish? Having looked though the annual reports in the new format, the admin costs have always all been lumped in, is this not normal? Did the BMC itemize them in times gone by? (Genuine question by the way).

I’m not too interested in comps, but I get that many people are. It’s not that I resent 15% (or whatever, if only we knew) of subs heading that way. It’s that the poor management has lead to ‘course corrections’ meaning good work elsewhere isn’t getting done. The comps tail has had an undue influence on the BMC dog. That’s the issue, compounded by lack of clear comms from a distant top table.

And meanwhile all this noise and fury online means interested non members paying attention are thinking “nah, not for me”. And the thing that the BMC needs most is new and enthusiastic members. And if they don’t recruit, we’re in the same funding hole in 12 months. Remember all this came from unrealistic growth targets.

You do some brilliant work BMC, but it’s getting shaded by these shenanigans. 
 

Do you really think this is being driven by "bad faith"??  Is so to what end?  Perhaps  just accept people are genuinely unhappy with the direction of the BMC, its focus and its governance.

People who hate the idea of competition climbing?

People who dislike the BMC?

There is a whole spectrum of arguments including out and out abuse/ bad faith arguments (like the comments David Lanceley posts on the BMC Watch Facebook group), people giving the BMC a kick because they already disliked it for some other reason, people who are giving genuine criticism/ frustration and people attempting to defend the wider BMC (I fall somewhere between the latter two camps as chair of tech Committee and a reasonably long standing volunteer, I suspect Galpinos does as well as another tech committee member). I think people deliberately posting in bad faith, or just to give the BMC a kick are relatively few, there are certainly a lot expressing frustration though.

Fair enough, I'm not seeing that but remember some of his comments last time round were questionable.

I think there are some people pursuing things in bad faith due to them repeatedly driving narratives that are known/proven to be untrue. To what end, I don't know.

However, I think this is a very small (but very vocal!) minority who are souring the water. I think the majority of concern is genuine, as we all benefit from an effective, efficient and well run BMC. I also accept some people are genuinely unhappy with the direction of the BMC, its focus and its governance, I'm not overly happy with the governance and financial issues myself! My concern is than we lose focus on what does need to be addressed (and there seems to be quite a lot) due to the rumour and hyperbole.

I don’t care if the detail is in the report, the accounts or provided on request when some scrutiny is required. The one figure I would like is the true cost of GBClimbing which the report purports to tell us but doesn’t. 

It was you that said that you would know exactly what was going on when the next annual report was published. I don’t see how you could based on the information provided.

Yes - re the admin costs lumped together it was always thus. 

Ah, my " and until the annual report comes out it is difficult to know exactly what is going on." was that previously they had made up the shortfall though dipping into the reserves, we don't know if that is the plan again this year and the "course corrections" imply that a different approach is being taken. I would hope that the annual report would expand on this in more detail as these are "extraordinary measures" but I would agree that could well by my optimistic bent as such detail has not been forthcoming so far, despite the promises.

Is this "industry standard" or a BMC thing? I would hope, after this year, that the funding and costs associated with GB Climbing would be more transparent and appropriate for an "arms length" business unit.

I don't know about 'industry standard' but, for sure, if you were costing up work for an external agency then you would certainly include an element for 'rental and servicing'. If, for example, ABC asked for office space and admin support at Burton Road you can be sure that a figure would be arrived at for the 'cost' of those desks, space and servicing.

As far as I'm aware the BMC has 'always' simply paid for the office without bothering exactly how much is being 'consumed' by it's departments. But life was a bit simpler back then....

It is normal for the admin expenses to be a single line in most accounts.

It is perfectly allowable for a business to disclose more detailed info about different division but it is not actually required to unless it is listed iirc.

Financial statements are ultimately intended to be useful to the members/shareholders of an organisation and (to a lesser extent perhaps) other interested parties like creditors and HMRC. If the members are not finding them I would suggest asking the board to change the presentation of the accounts....

That would be pretty sloppy even for an organisation smaller than the BMC. You always have to balance the time cost of getting the information with the benefit but simply not bothering to think about it is a recipe for losing control of costs and wasting money.

My hope here is that Andy Syme takes control of these issues immediately and acknowledges publicly all the concerns expressed here over the last few days. Apart from a few committee members like Spenser et.al., there is a deafening silence coming out of the BMC office.

In addition, these remarks should be taken positively and I don't for one minute believe there are people out there deliberately having a "pop" at the organisation when it's down.  It's just genuine concern and frustration.

Whether you like it or not, the BMC has been a part of the "BRITISH" climbing scene since 1944, with the Alpine Club way before that! This "heritage" needs to be preserved and the young climbers entering the sport need to be educated that the BMC is there to support and represent ALL facets of hill, mountain and crag activities... not just sport and competition climbing. Team GB "Managers" also have a great responsibility in ensuring this message is communicated effectively to those pursuing the sport at competition level (and the parents of "junior" athletes!).

Yet again, it's all about communication and setting out your "shop window!" The BMC needs to start capitalising more on the PR opportunities presented by events such as bouldering & leading competitions, robust advertising around the UK's major climbing walls, crag clean-up days, exchange meets, reinstate 'area meetings' etc. People like Alex Messenger need to "up their game" and understand the principles of "selling" services and benefits of BMC membership to a new generation of boys & girls and men & women entering the sport. Those "obstacles" that Simon Lee mentioned need to GO! A fresh new wave of ideas need to be introduced and tested without fear of failure. I just hope Andy Syme takes this by the scruff of the neck and turns things around.... and SOON!

I'm sure Alex is willing to help the BMC for a price.  Some of those consistent critics on BMC Watch (some of whom seem to have gone a bit 'hillbilly' to me) alledgedly just expressing concern and frustration (as opposed to those who normally supported the BMC in posts, like Spenser, who do look genuine) often took pot shots at Alex when he still worked for the BMC.

As for silence, this thread is because the BMC published the report and their recommendations. I'd add that there is nothing much new there in 'what needs fixing' terms for those genuinely interested, as it's been on Facebook for ages from parents and it was the main topic of debate at the AGM.

Speaking as someone else supportive but frustrated I actually agree the BMC needs to massively improve GB Climbing's managerial response to stakeholder issues.

Still, given member focus, it's good we have significantly more ACES staff FTEs now than pre pandemic, despite a lower membership total now.  Plus a pre-pandemic role for volunteer support and club/hut support is also now split into two roles.

I agree with galpinos.above. I'd go further and say 'playing loose' with information in a crisis looks like dirty tricks. Certainly the BMC 30 taught us that vast experience in the organisation didn't prevent such behaviour. There is enough to fix in the BMC right now without overblowing problems.

If the bmc is applying for different funding from different agencies for climbing, access etc then each department really needs to be aaccountable for their own hours and costs. Even if one person wears two hats, they should have a good idea exactly how their weekly work divides up between various enterprises. 

It should be clear what the admin costs of managing the book sales are and climb gb as they are distinctly different divisions. Lumping them in together is just sloppy, lazy and arguably financially incompetence as they aren't a private enterprise only responsible to their owner, but the membership at large (plus those who fund it  independently). They should be able to tell sport england precisely what the previous and projected admin costs of climb gb are and how much funding then goes towards the athlete's ventures.

Knowing such information for internal use is not the same as publishing it in accounts. The original foolish claim posted elsewhere for GB Climbing 'office' costs was based on taking the total of such costs across the BMC and multiplying that by the fraction of the FTEs in the unit. This was foolish as much of those cost were fixed for the organisation, so recent growth in GB Climbing staffing made no difference to those. The approximate number given to Simon seemed reasonable to me but Simon wanted more detail (and as the CEO promised the Peak area meeting, then he, or someone on his behalf, should deliver). Sensitivities on this area (GB Climbing vs say ACES total spend) are well known in BMC management and to make sure it's not forgotten I always bring it up regularly.

In the BMC things are further complicated by it being a pretty small company in employee terms with huge quantities of work done by volunteers (way more than work from paid staff). That probably applies even within the GClimbing remit: be it from parents, free coaching, or whatever. Volunteers need admin/office support as well at times.

Of course. But given that this whole debate has centred primarily around the over spend, lack of financial scrutiny, maybe now is a good time for the management to publish as much data to members as possible and try to prove they are competent to keep on receiving member's subscriptions. The over spend isn't great, but the attitude, tone and wording in their statements since has been far worse, that's what has annoyed many much more. 

I'd agree with your view on some recent comms,  but one might think at times from posts here that the BMC lives in some kind of a bubble. A large number of other membership organisations have had a torrid 2023, in particular the Guides and YHA selling major assets; as member and other income vs increased expenditure (in a cost of living crisis) hit hard despite formally agreed sensible looking plans, pre pandemic. The risk situation in the BMC is potentially worse, as they are tiny in comparative employee terms as a membership organisation and are still in a period of huge planned change relating to the newish governance structures working through.

I'm not excusing everything (especially not the mess with stakeholders in GB Climbing which to me is unacceptable in a sport governing body), but the lack of awareness of external context is more than odd. The BMC has an incredibly complex governance structure compared to anything of it's size, precisely to ensure the company structure doesn't cause too high risks of drifting from broad membership wishes. GB Climbing issues aside (where Council sadly relied on external sources) everything planned went through the Board and Council.

For the sake of clarity anything I say is not coming out of BMC head office, I haven't been to West Didsbury since early 2020, or more likely 2019.

I am a specialist committee chair, but governance/ finance wise I have the same information that any ordinary member can get hold of + knowledge of governance requirements placed on the committee (having less ordinary members than the board + 1 CEN/ UIAA rep, 1 technical officer (Dan M's role), 1 chair and 1 board member supporting the committee).

It is worth noting that the teams whose work was brought up last night are being worked very hard at the moment and I have never heard Dan say things are quiet on his end, quite the opposite!

The report is pretty underwhelming but reading between the lines GB Climbing was basically not doing anything well. The recommendations don't give me any confidence that things will significantly change. This is particularly the case because the review was done end of 2022 and yet in 2023, when you think they would have tried to improve, GB Climbing has performed even worse than previously. Surely at some point you just need to say that things are so bad a change in leadership is required. 

What happens if/when Sports Council funding is curtailed after disappointing team performance in the next Olympics, as has been the case with other sports? 

Yes. There are so many deep problems highlighted in the report and elsewhere with GB climbing. Off the top of my head the governance, culture, financial management, operational management, partnership relations, athlete safeguarding have all been found wanting. Whilst these have largely been accepted and are being addressed you have to question if the outlined changes being made are fundamental and radical enough including changing personnel.

Fundamental and speedy change isn’t in the BMC’s makeup unless backs are against the wall. National Council is pressing the Board to act quicker but based on the communications and decisions made lately I don’t have confidence in the Board to grapple with the issues, act decisively and deliver. I hope to be proved wrong.

After the Rheged financial crisis Dave Musgrove as President had the authority and capability to make fast and drastic changes because bankruptcy was a genuine threat. Fortunately we are not there yet. Currently the BMC is protected by what’s left of the reserve and value of the office freehold but I’m worried by the direction of travel of GBClimbing commitments in particular and the decision not to replace the Head of Finance. 

I was Head of Marketing and led a fantastic marketing team at the BMC who were all very up on their game. However, I left in 2021.

It wouldn't make much difference as the vast majority of the funding comes from Sport England for increasing participation and providing a talent pathway. The elite funding that goes directly towards Olympic and world level medal chasing is administered generally via English Institute of Sport, not the BMC.

It is possible (if unlikely) that SE funding could cease, in which case the workstreams and roles funded by this income stream would cease.

I’d have thought it highly likely that UK Sport funding would be cut if GB Climbing was failing to produce decent Olympic prospects. If things have been thought through, all GB Climbing contracts will have been written to coincide with funding cycles but this has never been explicitly confirmed. 

Worth noting that UK Sport probably don’t differentiate between Bouldering, Sport and Speed so if we can recruit a couple of athletes from other sports (like bobsleigh did) and send them up a wall at speed instead of across a track the BMC could continue to receive the same grant funding and concentrate on that…. It’s what the membership want

It's worth clarifying that UK Sport (Elite level sport who seem to allocate funding via the EIS) and Sport England (grassroots participation, formerly the Sports Council) are different entities with different goals as a few people seem to be getting the wires crossed (noting that you replied to a comment concerning the loss of Sport England/ Sports Council funding with a comment about losing UK Sport funding).

Hey Ian, that was true during the past Olympic cycle with Shauna under the Medal Support Plan which was administered by the EIS (now the UK Sports Institute) but UK Sport have an agreement with the BMC directly for the Paris cycle:

https://www.uksport.gov.uk/sports/olympic/sport-climbing

The marketing of the value of BMC membership is woeful, eg the only representative of the BMC officially at Wilton Fest was part time Nick Colton who didn’t have a stand or a Gazebo selling memberships and merchandise. There were 500 climbers there what a missed opportunity. Will there be anything at the BLCC’s where there will be a smaller audience! If you visit a climbing wall the only likely message you will see is a 15 year old warm up poster and a holds might spin sign! 99 % of BMC members don’t know that included in their membership is public liability insurance so if the drop something (including their partner) the have insurance cover to protect them and their assets. To grow the membership it is the walls that are where new members would be coming from and as such it is them that need the benefits of BMC membership selling too them, and some new benefits need working on with The ABC, NICAS and others. 

Good info - thanks for that - I was around for the Tokyo cycle but no longer involved ......

They should ask the GB Nordic Ski Team, Andrew Musgrave, regularly top 10 placed internationally, often beating all the skiers from nations you'd more normally associate with winter sports. They had all their funding cut last year less than 3 months before the first event started with all their accommodation, transport, flights, staff etc already booked up for the whole winter. 

There is a podium obsession in gb level sport, you have to be regularly on the podium, or very near, to guarantee you'll have funding in even a few months time. 

As above, that will have been UK Sport funding, not Sport England (former Sports Council).

The medal obsession is essentially UK Sport trying to spend the least amount of money for the greatest amount of medals, I understand it but am not convinced that it works well for all sports, or that it is a good solution in terms of building up capability in a niche sport.

As Kevin’s question was about competition funding and referred to a defunct/rebranded organisation I assumed his question was about the funding in general, including UK Sport. Ian assumed Kevin was referring to Sport England funding exclusively. Whichever he meant my point remains, the vast majority GB Climbing is funded by UK Sport, that funding will be reduced based on Olympic performance but it’s not clear whether the infrastructure and costs can be reduced at the same rate or whether the BMC will be left holding the baby

Sorry, I had misinterpreted Kevin's post as asking what would happen to Grassroots funding if the UK performed poorly at the next olympics (given that he was referring to Sports Council funding), this underlines my point that people are getting UK Sport and Sport England confused!

He probably was, I just wanted to make the point that poor Olympic performance could have significant consequences for the BMC (and therefore it’s grassroots activities) if not managed properly 

The BMC is not a private company, but if it were the board would probably be voted off and the company fighting for its fiscal life. This type of executive behaviour is typical of charities, NGO,s etc with minimal financial scrutiny empire building and autocratic decision making. All of what has happened was predicted at the previous schism and attempted name change. If you want to know where climbing is currently going wrong, read John Porters excellent article on this site “ climbing has succumbed to numbers” Members instead of procrastinating and complaining on UKC need to get organised and decide what path the BMC should take and enforce the same at the AGM or EGM. One person one vote!

Yes I did get the funding organisations muddled but I think the general approach stands: no medals = no funding.

This is completely at odds with the outward bound ethos behind a lot of British climbing and mountaineering. Many of us were drawn to the outdoor adventure and challenge of climbing and mountains promoting self reliance rather than the competitive sports that we weren’t so successful at, and we are a lot better for it. Defunding of LEA outdoor centres has removed these opportunities from so many young people. It is this that the BMC should be fighting rather than using members’ subscriptions to subsidise the small minority whose main (only?) interest is competitive indoor climbing.

Utter nonsense. Private companies, charities, governments, quangos, multinational corporate behemoths... they're all run by fallible people, and the oversight in its various forms is also designed and run by fallible people. Even those magical market forces aren't immune from groupthink, mass poor decisions or prolonging the success of a fundamentally poorly run organisation because it has an entrenched position in a market or such a strong brand that it takes ages to be dragged down.

So many people hold up private companies in general as paragons of super-rational efficiency, and yet it's bloody hard to find anyone who can't give you chapter and verse on all the ludicrous and ineffective things the particular companies they've worked for do.

John's article started in important fashion but was spoilt in my view by including the Olympics (where Alpinism medals were awarded from 1922 to 1936). If we had to go back that period it also neglected the darker links of alpinism to nationalistic ambitions back then.

Unlike you I see the point on current BMC travails as just disappointingly muddled and trite, especially given the context of the coverage in UKC articles and in some of the less angry user posts.

I think that is highly unlikely and is clearly demonstrated in other sports that get SE funding for participation but no UKS funding for potential medalists.

Even more recently Messner and Kukuczka got Olympic medals in '88.

And of those older medals they were given to Brits, Germans ('32 - a year before Hitler came to power) and then Swiss. 

For reference John Porter’s “disappointingly muddled and trite” point was:

”In competition climbing, athletes perform on manmade structures and try to win results, as in any other sport. The BMC management have become so enthralled with the possibility of medals that, without the knowledge of the membership, they have for the past two years drained the reserves to pay for massive overspends by GB Climbing, including their decision to host the IFSC World Cup in Ratho last year. The BMC CEO Paul Davies subsequently said that he thought this was 'good value' because it only cost each member - many of whom have no interest in competition climbing - less than £3 each. It was a strange 'business' decision to plan to make a loss of many tens of thousands of pounds—ending in a £90K loss in total; another small deception driven by the tyranny of numbers.”

I don’t sense an appetite to go nuclear. At least not yet.

People would need to consider the cost in staff and volunteer time/ morale as well as the financial cost of an EGM along with settling on the text of a well defined motion for people to vote on. Incurring that cost without a clear objective would be incredibly wasteful and counterproductive to what everyone seems to want (more effective governance of GBClimbing and oversight of its expenditure).

I have to concur with Luke90. I have seen this happen once before but in that case it had been a cool hundred million that was wasted. You may be surprised at the size of the financial errors that are made and learned from without heads rolling in companies.

Also, a private company is exactly what the BMC is. It is just a not-for-profit.

I sympathise somewhat with the head of finance thing, but at the end of the day, the BMC is a pretty tiny organisation to be paying for a CFO.

A portfolio CFO may be a more viable option if some directional / budget oversight is needed.

I too worry about staff morale. When people rail against 'the bloody BMC' I totally get that they are having a pop at the 'entity' rather than the, essentially, hard-working and dedicated staff that get stuff done. But it's hard to make that differentiation when you actually work within that 'entity'.

After the AGM I tried to reassure a staff member who had been in tears that NONE of the vitriol had been directed their way. But that couldn't expunge the emotion behind the tears. It's a tragedy that staff feel that they are, blamelessly, under attack.

Looking at my current professional role as an engineer and any role I can think of at the BMC I'll freely say that there isn't any contest given the expectations that some people seem to have of the staff (although I am aware that I have got it very good with my current job right now as it's a good company).

Not sure if I should like or dislike your post as I clearly agree with your sentiment, but feel awful that a staff member was reduced to tears. 

Careful with being too narrow; effective governance and oversight of GB climbing is ok, but imho, what is needed is effective governance and oversight, and financial control, of the BMC as a whole. As an entire entity. My opinion hasnt changed since 2012, when I became comp chair and got really interested in the finances and funding. I could go into the organisational reasons, bu tthat starts to get into personal stuff which is unfair if i cant a) speak personally, and listen to the people involved, and b) take into account the circumstances in which they operate.

The answer involves a big change, and requires a large and careful step backwards from a lot of interested parties, myself included.

The upside is that there are a lot of people, from all sided of the argument that really, genuinely, care. So there is always hope.

As we sail through this sea of opinion, comments and criticism, it would be nice to hear from Andy Syme and communicate to everyone his and the board's reactions to this thread.

We are at 150 comments already! These concerns cannot be ignored and some sort of acknowledgment needs to be made.

As an aside, and referring to staff "morale", it's interesting to note that both Simon Lee and Alex Messenger (partnerships and marketing/PR Depts.) left the organisation a couple of years back. Why have all the "good" people left? Surely. it's essential to retain good staff and maintain cohesiveness!? Not keep "starting again!" That's what the Tory Party do and look at the mess the UK is in at present!!    

Do you genuinely feel it is appropriate to state "all the "good" people have left" when responding to concerns about staff morale in the face of attacks on the organisation? Particularly given what Andy Say's post said?

I am not going to debate which staff members are "good" or "bad" because there is a lot of stuff that quietly happens in the background that people don't see as many roles are not publicly facing. More importantly, there is no way in which it is appropriate to discuss people's individual performance in public.

In reply to Ian W's post:

I agree that I was being too narrow about what people wanted, but this underlines my point that anything being voted on at an AGM/ EGM needs to be really clear in its goals so that members can decide if they support the motion. Calling an EGM only for the motion to be voted down narrowly would be a disaster for everyone. I am not quite clear what you mean about interested people taking a step back? Institutional knowledge from long standing volunteers can contribute a lot of value in some cases, are you concerned about too many chefs spoiling the broth?

Yes, apologies... maybe I should have said, "why have these 'valuable' staff left the organisation and not been retained?" Continuity can never be achieved if any organisation keeps flip-flopping it's staff. That's what I meant...not 'be-littling' the work done by other office/ volunteer staff. 

And, now the term "EGM" has been bantered around, surely it's time for an official statement from Andy or the Board of Governance? We're going round in circles here and just can't keep debating what should be done. We need a response that points to "what WILL be done!" Leadership needs to demonstrated so members' confidence in the organisation doesn't dwindle any further.   

The literal buck has to stop somewhere whatever the arrangement might be as the existing arrangement is without clear responsibility and accountability. It might be tiny but the finance, operations and administration are complex.

As things stands ownership and responsibility for finance doesn’t lie with any one person. It’s dissipated. Alan crunches the books and prepares reports but the CEO isn’t on top of the numbers based on his (lack of) responses at the Peak Area meeting.

I don’t think anyone on the Board is a qualified chartered accountant taking responsibility for finance and the Finance Committee only meets once every three months but has no executive power.

Even without the current financial issues such an arrangement makes me extremely nervous. At the very least I’d like a clear statement on what the arrangement is following the departure of the CFO. 

Are minutes of the AGM available anywhere? What were the vitriolic discussions about?

All I meant by stepping back was to stop focusing on GB Climbing as the problem, and look at the organisation as a whole. GBC's issues are the most obvious symptom of the problem, but not the cause it. Get rid of GBC and you still have weak financial controls.

AGM minutes have only ever been published prior to next AGM along with all the other AGM notices. It’s a bad tradition.

But you then have an organisation that is far simpler and more controllable.

I suspect GBC is the problem with the financial stability of the BMC.

Something like this?

Motion: That on balance it is in the best interests of the BMC that it’s elite competitive arm (GB Climbing) should no longer be part of the BMC and is to be separated off as an independent National Governing Body to pursue its own objectives but hopefully remain a friend and partner of the BMC. 

I can agree that any organisation with a high staff turnover is not setting itself up for success.

My points about a possible EGM were intended to discourage that course of action, I can't see it being worth the cost (financial and none financial).

The article this thread is about covers what the organisation intends to do, raising a motion for an AGM/ EGM would slow this plan down so I don't think it's a good course of action.

This is what I was hinting at a few days back... yes, a separate arm with "affiliation" to the BMC.

But, could this exist without its "BMC parent" propping it up with additional funding? Maybe not. So, that revenue could be sought elsewhere...i.e. athlete's own sponsors? But then, what happens if the "team" fails to deliver with podium appearances?!! Withdrawal of funding I think... yes! Sponsors are fickle and, with UK competition climbing NOT being a mainstream spectator attraction, I can't see the open cheque book being open for long. 

My sympathies do go out to the male & female climbers who want to excel on the world competition stage and trying their best to score highly against our foreign rivals. However, I can't help thinking the UK is in the rear view mirror when we are up against the likes of Japan and France. A bit like Eddie Jordan's F1 team up against the likes of Sauber-Mercedes in the 1990's! 

It would be interesting to find out the exact views of those competitors currently working with GB Climbing and asking them to express their views (without fear of any recrimination or rejection for voicing their opinions!!). Let's hear what they have to say and how they feel things should be managed!      

Yet Toby is a serious contender for a Paris medal and in the recent World Championship combined format, using the same system being used in Paris, he came 4th despite being a bit unlucky, and Mollie made the combined final for women.

But, in the eyes of those allocating funds, would 4th place be good enough for them? I don't know. I'm just asking. It's not about individual performances. It's trying to convince "someone" with money to invest and believe in the GB Team and put funding in place that eases the pressure on the BMC and criticism from members who, with respect, don't give "two F#@%s" who Toby is.     

They haven't. There are a lot of 'good people' still working for the BMC!

I do wonder, however, as the BMC has transitioned from a situation where most staff were first and foremost climbers/walkers with other talents and skills to one where we recruit professional administrators/managers from other fields whether there will inevitably be more 'churn' in BMC staff due to their personal career paths? (If you see what I mean?).

Minutes of the AGM are just 'draft' minutes until approved as a 'true and accurate record' at the following AGM. There is the possibility that an objection could lead to their re-drafting at that moment.  Albeit a vague possibility.

There was a Q/A session/forum both before and after the formal AGM this year (it had to start late as it wasn't originally quorate). Amongst issues raised were concerns about finances and competition climbing.

It's maybe the nature of the beast; at an AGM almost no one sticks their hand up to say that they think the whole thing is really going jolly well, most speakers from the floor have something to get off their chests.

N.B. 'vitriol' was probably the wrong word as it implies personal attacks; this was more 'organisational concern/disquiet'.

It's long been known many members don’t care, to a few who actively despise the BMC Olympic involvement. However the BMC is the structure it was voted to be (well over 90% of member AGM votes, following the governance option compromises that strengthened the powers of Council).  The BMC has the UKS Olympic funding in place, alongside a lot of SE participation funding inside GB Climbing and a lot in other sections of the BMC. As you seem constructive and engaged on these threads, I'm disappointed you don't realise things like this (or, say, that Alex left in 2021).

I do realise it... However, as many posters are saying here, funding tends to be reduced or dry up altogether when results don't go to plan... especially with International sports. 

How long did "Eddie the Eagle'" or Conrad Bartelski get their ski-ing funding? Not for very long if I recall because they couldn't deliver!  

Very unfair: in particular who defines "first and foremost". I can only think of one newish current manager who has no obvious background in BMC activities. Even if it were true it would be irrelevant as the Board sets strategy with Council approval.

If you realise, why do you keep stating things that are clearly wrong, (and not apologise).

Funding systems are the government's fault, not that of the BMC. We have a pretty parsimonious sport performance funding system, despite the massive benefit of lottery funding and all those promises post 2012 Olympics.

OOoooooo! That's harsh! The BMC has 'heritage' and I think what Andy was saying is that previously, most personnel were climbers, walkers or mountaineers. It's an added advantage I guess if staff have the "feel" for what's involved in our great sport. An empathy. Ordinary "civilians" struggle at the best of times to understand why people climb and risk their lives. I think this was the point Andy was trying to make here.

So it's okay for the BMC to trust the government, go ahead, spend lots of money and NOT think about the "Oh S#@t moment!!", when the results don't stack up and those government quangos direct their funds elsewhere... leaving the organisation and it's competitors in a super-massive black financial hole! 

I tend to agree to here: cherry picking GB Climbing for financial blame in the governance structure that the BMC has is dumb. It's everyone's fault in that structure....but....

Here I'm more with Ian Whitehouse:  we set the BMC up in a structure to chase opportunities as well as trying to avoid risks. Some mistakes will always be made but overall I'm more concerned with if they were made in good faith, under the governance rules  (mostly, yes), were there unusual unpredicted factors (yes: covid, the cost of living crisis, an IFSC venue dropping out) but above all, what happens to finances next: something where I see Council is keenly involved in doing its part on behalf of the members they represent.

I wasn't criticising anyone, climbers aren't necessarily'better people'

I'm just wondering whether we will see more staff movement if working for the BMC becomes less of a 'vocation' and more part of a 'career trajectory'?

There is no prospective black hole, just a potential end for that particular funding source. The BMC's UKS funded Olympic/Worlds medal performance related plans are made with contracts tied to the funding period. If UKS pull out based on poor results, most likely the related contracts just wouldn't be renewed. If the BMC wanted to continue such funding they would need to find other income (like sponsorship).  No one here is saying members would accept the BMC spending significant funds to fully fund Olympic or World Championships aims.

I think it is possible to recognise Toby and Molly's achievements at Bern and also acknowledge that as a national team we are far behind the best climbing nations in the world. 

For example, in the national team rankings for Boulder, Japan has 19130 points. The UK has 5236.5. 2710.0 of those points are Toby alone.

https://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/world-competition/ranking

Next season, we are currently set to lose allocated spaces for registering athletes at World Cup's for bouldering and lead across the men's and women's side of the draw due to performances this season, so you could argue the GB Climbing's world standing is going backwards instead of forwards as we will have fewer spots for athletes to accrue points to move us up the overall team rankings.

Well at least Andy is present and contributing to this debate. Since the MoNC and Captain Bob debacle, the ‘members’ champion’ seems to have been characterised by a very low profile. I think Andy’s engagement is at least a step in the right direction

The other side of that argument would that the BMC people used to employ people because they climbed, not because of their ability to do their job, and they didn't move on because it was a cushy number that allowed then to climb lots. I don't think arguing either point is helpful.

Fundamentally, I would like to see people who are good that their jobs at the BMC. I would also hope that their interest in the activities that the BMC is the NRB/NGB for is what caused them to bring those skills to the BMC.

Also, staff turnover is not necessarily a bad thing for either the employer or employee but maintaining the balance between new blood and experienced hands is always tricky (I have been on teams that have swung to far in both directions).

Japan has more points than anyone else in the world, they are the best in the world and in a hugely dominant way.

I watched that event and with all due respect to Toby his beta was different on the boulders and that knocked him back quite a lot, until he changed it to something close to what everyone else did and got up stuff. He's very young and that's definitely an area improvement can be made, and at the athletic business of climbing he's one of the best 3 men at comps in the world really. He's won golds in the world Cup in multiple disciplines. He's the real deal and he could definitely podium at the Olympics, even take gold. I think that UK Sport would be foolish not to see that.

100 percent agree. Only Sorato had a better breakout season from juniors IMHO and hopefully the momentum can be sustained right through to next Summer.

Completely agree with your points.

I think I was 'speculating' rather than 'arguing'

I'd agree with that and others have pointed out that much of the development for the current batch of athlete success predates recent GB Climbing structure changes.

Toby is young and currently meets the current medal calculation very well, so he alone (subject to staying fit etc) would justify continuing UKS funding if the next LA Olympics has the same combined scoring system. 

I'd add the now public CCPG report shows clear issues that require resolution in GB Climbing management (including their oversight by BMC leadership ).

I'm the parent of a competition climber. Their love for climbing is much the same as mine - we just do it in quite different ways and at very different standards. But fundamentally we are doing the same thing and I think it would be a massive shame if GB Climbing were not part of BMC.

Most European Federations (I think) are part of their Alpine/climbing/mountaineering bodies. The essential thing is that (while part of the BMC) GB Climbing should be doing a good job! And in terms of funding, accepting the requirement of BMC part funding to access the much bigger pot, spending should be adjusted to ensure its within budget. Given that none of it gets spent on athletes travel/accomodation etc I can't see any reason why it would ever be acceptable to overspend. That is simply poor management. I'm still completely puzzled what the £1.2 million a year actually gets spent on...

Andy Syme is absent (and it was he to whom Jim Kelly referred.)

The 'Andy' who has been present and contributing here is Andy Say.

That really say a lot doesn’t it Rob?😂😂

Having read these threads, it appears to be jollys for the management and organisers.

BMC, British Mountaineering Conservatives 🫤

All it says to me is Andy Say and I are retired folk on Council with time on our hands .... who are experienced enough to push back against some of the sillier stuff on these threads.

Unsurprisingly, everyone in BMC leadership positions are very busy and our President has a day job as well.  He has posted key information several times over the last few troubled months.

I rather think that both the President and the Board Chair have got a lot on their plate at the moment! And I don't envy them one teeny-weeny bit...

Me? I've got little to do at the moment apart from pack the van for a trip away....if people ask questions and I can answer then I'm happy to.

Members'Council is supposed to be an interface between members and 'T'BMC'. And a 'critical friend' to the Board....😉

I value your contributions, and I wasn't trying to make any point other than that I thought paul_in_cumbria had gotten his various 'Andy's mixed up.

Staff it would seem. 

https://gbclimbing.uk/new-page-3

Lots of nice titles, performance this, development that, pathway... not sure how many are full time employed, volunteers etc.. 

F-ucking hell. Love that amateur-hour URL ...

Whatever they're spending their 1.2 million on, let's hope it's not website maintenance fees ...

Page 3 was traditionally popular with roughly 50% of the population. 

For its size BMC ops are complex, but I am not sure the finances are actually very complex in the grand scheme of things. We're not talking complex derivatives here or banking liquidity rules.

Here I absolutely agree with you that somebody on the board should be on top of the finances and take ultimate responsibility for them. That could be the CEO without any real problem IMO if the will is there.

I share your concern, but have also seen businesses go wrong by trying to buy in talent that was out of proportion to their needs. At a very rough guess you'd need to spend £80k a year to get a young, inexperienced CFO. That's a lot of cash to splash.

Then again, pro-rate that down to 3 days a week and promise a belayer on the other two and I might be able to find an old, inexperienced CFO that would do it...

19 paid staff! 

I hadn't seen that list in all its glory before.....

The first one in the list has the incorrect surname as it's (Max) Ayrton and not (Max) Aryton.  Hardly confidence building if you're trying to judge their professionalism...
 

It would be very interesting (and entertaining!!) to see what Bob Pettigrew's (MBE) take is on all of this shenanigans!!!

They don't need a CFO, the over spend appears to come from incompetent management of logistics and over hiring of staff. They have staff for every flavour of training, route setting, performance, development etc.. but no one seems capable of planning the logistics of how do I take a team of people to a competition in Europe for a few days, despite the international association website actually listing all the logistics options for them. No money is going to assist the climbers directly, just wasted internal through bad planning. 

I think this is part of the new build website that appears to be going live is segments, hence the dubious URL! Hopefully once the entire site is transferred it'll all be hunky dory!

After the embarrassing MONC rant I think that's one "take" I'd be happy not to hear. 

Would be interesting to know how many FTEs are spread across the 19.

Whenever the name 'Pettigrew' pops up I can't help thinking about Harry Potter! If my memory is correct Peter Pettigrew (no relations to persons living or dead!) was AKA "Wormtail", Voldemort's little helper!!

Off topic I know... but funny all the same. Maybe there is a correlation going on somewhere here!?   

It's Max Verstappan. Ayrton Senna died many years ago at Imola! 

Despite disagreeing very firmly with Bob on how to address the BMC's issues I would also say that comparing him to a children's book villain is a bit unfair, get him talking about mountaineering and not about governance stuff and it's possible to have a pretty enjoyable chat with him.

I'd compare it to orienteering 

https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/staff

Another niche sport, but still with quite high uk participation. The difference is in their job titles and they must on average be 20 years older than climb gb. I expected climb gb staff to be several 40 and 50 somethings with decades of experience in that area to pass on to the gb competitors. Yeah you need some young blood,  new ideas, a different newer sport science take on it, but you can't beat an old hand to steady the ship. 

We need to smile more I think. Sat here in my South East Asian outpost I recall, when rebranding was been hinted at, John Redhead drew a "sketch" of a possible new organisation 'logo'!! It featured a naked man bending over with is ass cheeks apart and the caption: "BMC: I like these!"

At the time, it brought tears to my eyes!  

13 or 14 I think.

I had no idea as it’s certainly not apparent from the staff list*. 

Given the fudging of the figures and now this it’s hard not to conclude that the extent of the growth of GB Climbing is being deliberately hidden from the membership. 
 

*https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-staff-list

"Posted by Kate Anwyl on 31/01/2020"

Its been updated many times since then as you know full well

I actually have no real idea about the history of the website staff list updates. A lot of the website is out of date and to view it I have to enter incognito mode to stop the cookies bouncing me to RAD. The sections I mainly use are governance related (AGM pages etc), that do work.

I do see BMC news items from time to time through email and social media and I try to keep up with social media and area meeting comments, from members and outside critics, questioning rapid growth in GB Climbing staff numbers. I've raised the membership concerns on that subject to Council from when I started my term over two years ago (partly following on from a past AGM question of yours on comparative expenditure on GB Climbing vs ACES).

I see no evidence of hiding staff, only faulty comms.

If you are on Android go into settings> apps> BMC RAD> Open by Default> Don't allow to open links

This should prevent the app from redirecting your browser when you try to visit a BMC webpage.

Thanks for trying to help (it may be useful for others). I did something similar to that before (my tablet Ap defaults are slightly different), but somehow it reset.

No worries, it is definitely frustrating!

That was the point I was making (badly it seems). Or at least that they shouldn't need one.

I think now we have to sit back and see what the Board decide and their action plan etc. I'm certain after all this debate, they know the situation the organisation is in. We have to give them the time, space and support to trust they will formulate a way forward that satisfies everyone concerned, rectifies the finances and demonstrates a new plan to reach out and increase subscriptions.

This will not happen overnight...there are no instant fixes. In some ways, this has been a "wake up call" and we should look at it positively, hoping there are better days on the horizon. 

Hopefully they will focus on the two main concerns which can be distilled from these threads and those on other media, (If their communications department etc have bothered to take any interest in the published views.).

1/ The financial management, organisation and running of GB Climbing needs to be taken under firm control.

2/ Communication with and respect for the members needs to be great improved.

Sorting out these two areas will almost certainly remove most of the worries of the paying members.

(I am unqualified on paper but have considerable management experience, and  could offer some good ideas, in private, not on a public forum, if anyone deigned asked a mere member!)

This is my only fear... that the Board chooses not to listen to the wide variety of ideas and suggestions because it just sees them as having a "pop" at the organisation, for the sake of it! Sometimes, holding your hands up to say, "Sorry, we got it wrong!" is often viewed as showing weakness. In this instance, I think almost everyone would view that as signs of strength, humility and leadership here.

C'mon Andy Syme! Get in there man! Get it sorted and carve a name for yourself in the rock as the "President that turned the BMC around!"

Spot on  and for both things they need to DO something which clearly demonstrates seriousness and intent. Otherwise this will rumble on and eventually go somewhere bad.

A start would be for Paul Davies to provide the detailed financial breakdown he promised for GB Climbing. Looking back at the UKC questions for him (and checking on the UK sport website) it does appear that the BMC have not been drawing down UK sport funding  Paul said this was incorrect but that either means UK sports open data is wrong, which isn’t great but could be true, or something is wrong at BMC end