In reply to stp:
I think you can forgive them for trying to create a PR buzz over what they perceived was a good deal at the time, a letter of intent or other similar could have been in place.
Ultimately this is eclipsed by the alleged lack of tender process so they were protecting the IFSC from a rubbish deal, the subcontractor service didn't sound appropriate (£££/per month) for the audience, lack of any stakeholder engagement (no one was consulted), rule changes to fit with the subcontractor's requirements (4 min rule).
Sitting with my vendor management hat on for a moment this sounds like a team who lack the necessary experience and given the IFSC probably doesn't have much money and is based on voluntary work to keep it going is understandable although a very public error of judgement.
On the flipside, FLO will have been exposed to a huge amount of bad press over this which they didn't need or were expecting, hopefully in the future FLO or similar will come along with a price we all happy to pay (knowing some will go to the IFSC) that promotes climbing and reaches new audiences without excluding people.
Flo press release is out on Friday, however all reference to IFSC has been deleted from their twitter and webpages.
Post edited at 13:42