UKC

UKC has received an open letter signed by 77 GB Climbing athletes, parents and coaches describing a 'loss of confidence' in the organisation's leadership due to 'continued failures to meet its obligations'. The letter was sent to the British Mountaineering Council - the National Governing Body that runs GB Climbing - and was signed by 73% of the current 2023 GB Climbing Team (Lead and Boulder) demanding 'immediate and urgent action.'

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Hopefully GB Climbing does genuinely listen, not just in the set aside sessions, but also the rest of the time.

In reply to UKC News:

Just been to get an extra portion of popcorn.......

In reply to spenser:

I think the time for listening has passed. It’s clear that the senior leadership need to step aside. And if they will not do that on their own the BMC leadership need to ensure it happens. You can’t have management of a national team which has completely lost its athletes (see Spanish women’s football). There has been continual ‘listening’ for the last 3 years - there comes a point where you just have to say people are not up to the job. 

In reply to UKC News:

What a mess. One glimmer of hope is that the newish Chair of the CCPG, Paul Ratcliffe, appears to have the support of the comps community. I hope the Board will give him the support and backing to do whatever is required to steer the way out. 

In reply to UKC News:

Finally had time to sit and read the article accompanying the letter and the response (driving back from northern Germany).

My thanks for a balanced and obviously well-researched piece. 👍

In reply to UKC News:

Nothing has changed for years, these issues have always been very prominent. I am glad people are finally getting together and tackling these deep set problems in the team management. Hopefully they will listen and actually make changes to better their athletes, but I'm not betting on it.

In reply to UKC News:

Interesting reading how focussed on the Olympics all the comp stuff is now. I was hoping that it would stay a bit of a side show as it is in road cycling for example, with the world cups and champs staying as the important events. Is this a funding thing again?

In reply to Arms Cliff:

UK Sport was set up as a medal funding machine for the Olympics and Paralympics, in their eyes the Olympics are the main event.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Sport

In reply to Ian W:

Make mine a large Pepsi too!!

In reply to Ian W:

Three words spring to mind here: chalice, poisoned & BMC!

If this isn't dealt with and managed effectively and immediately we could be seeing another OCEANGATE implosion here and the total demise of the BMC! So sad they have got themselves in to this mess!   

In reply to JIM KELLY:

Nick Colton.... next BMC CEO!!!!! He's a good man and understands the value of the organisation.

In reply to UKC News:

Reading the BMC response it sounds like they are in denial.

I would like to hear what Andy Syme the Members Champion has to say about it

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Denial of the problems would be the worst possible course of action. The sheer numbers say this isn’t a few whingers. In any case, how can you go on like this without the confidence of the most of the athletes? A few tweaks then more of the same will achieve nothing at all - it’ll just make it worse. The leadership needs to realise it has no mandate for its strategy, and must accept that they have to implement a strategy that serves athletes first and foremost, with the BMC ethos at its heart (access!!).

In reply to UKC News:

Is anyone here still buying the line about Paul Davies leaving due to personal reasons?

The BMC claim they are listening and changing, but in the meantime they still continue to feed their members their usual diet of absolute bull.

In reply to UKC News:

'My Mum's going to write you a nasty letter ...' 

Crumbs. 

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Maybe, maybe not.

The open letter is squarely aimed at the leadership of GB Climbing. It is restated many times:

 “For clarity, our loss of confidence is in the strategic and operational leadership of GB Climbing and not in the volunteers serving on the Competition Climbing Performance Group (CCPG). We acknowledge the efforts of Paul Ratcliffe, Chair of CCPG, and other volunteers to try to make up for the deficiencies in leadership within GB Climbing. However, it is also clear to us that relying on volunteers to deliver activity that leadership are proving themselves incapable of is ultimately unsustainable.

The failings of the current GB Climbing Leadership have been set out by the recent CCPG Review published on the BMC website.”

The BMC response is notable for what it doesn’t say ie it doesn’t make an immediate and robust defence of the leadership of GB Climbing saying the current leadership enjoys the full confidence of the Board. In fact it doesn’t make any reference to leadership at all.

The Board have two choices which is either to fully back the leadership and try to tough it out or make changes. They can’t sit on the fence for too long. Maybe they’ve already made their choice. I expect we will find out which one next week

In reply to JIM KELLY:

Surely you mean 'Brazilgate'? 

In reply to JIM KELLY:

Nick might not thank you for that suggestion! (Though I endorse your evaluation of him)

In reply to UKB Shark:

So who is the "leadership of GB Climbing" ?

GB Climbing is an internal department of the BMC and according to the organisation chart in the annual governance statement the staff report to the Senior Management Team who report to the Senior Leadership Team consisting of the CEO, CCO, CFO who then report to the CEO and the Board. So the buck stops with the Board.

Agreed, and when you read the Additional comments from the BMC on specific points raised in this article the BMC spokesperson appears to defend the actions or deny the significance of the issues raised.

I'm sure we'll all be waiting with interest

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Sounds complicated put like that. There currently is no CFO and I'd guess that essentially the CEO (as part of the SLT and also as a Director) is the person reporting to the Board.

In reality you have a few people at the top of GB Climbing who have/had the CEO as their line manager. He reports directly to the Board. The Board are legally responsible for the actions of the BMC. Unfortunately we do have a recent history of Director resignations; the latest by the Director most closely involved with GB Climbing because of his disquiet.

It's going to take some sorting, lad.

In reply to Andy Say:

It was a rhetorical question because people keep referring to GB Climbing as if it’s a separate entity from the BMC, but it’s an internal department and the leadership begins and ends with the Board

In reply to JIM KELLY:

I Would suggest strongly that this is a serious consideration. No CEO, No CFO, the FC off sick (get well soon, Alan, if indeed you are poorly), and the biggest part of the organisation in staff and spending terms now in crisis (other words could be more appropriate, but I doubt it....). With these two very senior vacancies, someone needs to take the helm before a creditor does, or before SE /UKS does.

If Paul resigned on Thursday, that's 48 hours + ago. Enough time for the board to have at least named temporary placeholders for the two jobs. The optics of this to the outside stakeholders and funders are "rather important". Christ only knows what UKS /SE think of this if they read UKC /FB.....

In reply to Iamgregp:

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr? NO! Commuting issues my bottom! And how can 11 people (so far) put a thumbs down to Nick Colton!? He is one of the longest serving members of the BMC and has all the credentials to do the job. He is in touch with every facet of the organisation but in a fairway with no bias! 11 THUMBS DOWN... HEY! DO ONE!   

In reply to JIM KELLY:

Mine was because I suspect Nick might be in his current role as he wanted more time to himself (given he is part time) and that is the last thing a new CEO is going to get. It's entirely unreasonable to put pressure on people to step into what is going to be an incredibly demanding job if they aren't up for it. If someone who cares about the organisation and has the skills (like Nick Colton) can line up their ducks to support it that is great. If Nick volunteers and is announced as the interim CEO on Monday or Today (Sunday) that's great, if someone else competent and trustworthy is announced instead that is also great and I would hope that they will be given the support of the membership to sort this whole mess out.

In reply to spenser:

If the Board goes down the route of appointing an internal interim CEO it is almost certainly going to be Gavin Finch the Chief Commercial Officer as he is the only member of left of the Senior Leadership team. There maybe other professional external options available to them or co-opting from the volunteer community or a Board member might step in. Dave Musgrove did just that following the Rheged financial crisis when the BMC was facing bankruptcy. 

In reply to spenser:
The CEO’s role is going to be very demanding, more so if continuing to reconcile conflicting needs and constraints in a structure not fit for purpose. However a crucial role for Nick and similar with a good knowledge and passion for all the BMC’s scope in a Council of the Wise could be to set out some clear structures, parameters and goals for an effective CEO to implement and progress.

In reply to Ian W:

The resignation statement doesn't make it clear whether Davies has gone with immediate effect, or whether he is now working a period of (paid) notice.

After all, a realisation that the burdens of the commute have become too onerous wouldn't normally result in a senior employee just dropping everything and leaving - a departure under those circumstances would generally be a more considered and planned process.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Are you being mischievous? The thread doesn’t allow us to name names.

This isn’t entirely correct as you have missed out the governing role of the relatively newly formed Climbing Competitions Performance Group CCPG which was set up and mandated by the Board to oversee GB Climbing.

The CCPG hasn’t had the best of starts to say the very least as it has wholly failed in it is role to exercise proper oversight of GB Climbing and hold it to account which was laid bare in a review that was eventually published and put in the public domain*

However, that’s not to say the Board has abdicated responsibility here as it has a duty to ensure the CCPG was operating properly. It could be argued that the duty was exercised in the commissioning of the review. However, it would have been better if they had their ear to the ground and acted sooner. 

As a side note I never understood why the very long-standing Climbing Competitions Committee (with highly experienced members like Ian Dunn, Graeme Alderson and Ian Walton) didn’t morph into the role taken on by the CCPG. Instead it was disbanded, incredibly without the members of the committee being told, let alone thanked. 
 

*https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/CCPGReview2022FinalReport_v1_b.pdf
 

In reply to UKC News:

Please can't we just disaggregate the BMC and the comp/GB climbing bit?

The latter can be grant funded and get on with flying athletes around to compete (shorthand)

The former can be member funded and look after access (shorthand)

Neither has to spend there existence untangling governance spaghetti.  It really doesn't need to be complicated 

In reply to UKC News:

Moacs, that is entirely my thinking. On one hand you have the BMC whose mantra is access and participation and on the other hand you have GB climbing (UK Sport) whose aim it is to filter out the chaff to find the one or two climbers who might win an Olympic medal. It does not seem to me that these two can be reconciled.

Personally, I think the BMC should have a role in grass routes competition (the youth climbing series) but the focus should be on participation, fun and fairness and much less on competition. 

In reply to Removed User:

As I understand it (and I’m probably wrong, if so would be pleased to be corrected) Gov’t funding for competition with the specific aim of “medaling” (and maybe some other bits too?) is dependant on some match funding from the BMC, ie members subs. Therefore any disaggregation would pull the rug from under those members who joined to compete. Whether youngsters competing is a gateway into broader aspects of climbing and mountaineering and promoting “inclusivity” seems open to debate. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

It was a rhetorical question because people keep referring to GB Climbing as if it’s a separate entity from the BMC, but it’s an internal department and the leadership begins and ends with the Board

I think it is correct, the line management is shown in the BMC annual governance statement. This statement also states "All committees of the BMC are Board committees, their authority is derived from the Board and they act on behalf of, not instead of, the Board." Also it is not the role of the CCPG to govern GB Climbing but to have oversight which is very different.

One of the major drivers of the reorganistion was to establish primacy because before then there was no clear line of responsibilty. Primacy is now with the Board and they are responsibly and have to act.

In reply to UKB Shark:

I do hope the Board doesn't appoint Gavin Finch as the new CEO. He was part of the Senior Leadership Team responsible for not providing leadership and proper control of GB Climbing.

I'm also very concerned about his commercial strategy; 100,000 members and a new tiered membership in place by January 2024, which doesn't seem to have been publicised to members

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I really don’t get what your point or beef is here. GB Climbing even as an internal department does operate as a separate entity. If you hadn’t noticed it even has its own name!

The history is that the ORG recommended it being set up as an independent subsidiary. The Board commissioned Rab to look into it. He prepared and presented a report of the pros and cons of doing this vs a new set up with the CCPG as an internal option run by volunteers thus saving on the expense of paid Director or Directors in a subsidiary. They went with the latter but Rab always stressed that it must be an independent department and operate as a discrete “business unit” as he described it.

As far as I can see there has never been the will or effort to follow through with this “business unit” level of independence despite Rab Chairing the CCPG to begin with. However, the intent was there at the outset. 

Yes, the Board is ultimately responsible for anything that happens in the BMC including GBClimbing but that doesn’t mean that nobody else is in the organisation has leadership roles or isn’t accountable and responsible for doing their jobs properly.

In reply to UKB Shark:

My beef is that you are misrepresenting the facts. GB Climbing is an internal department of the BMC and the BMC says so. The staff working on GB Climbing stuff are listed as BMC employees, and therefore they report through the Senior Management Team to the Board. The GB Climbing name is only that.

Have you heard the story of everybody, somebody, anybody and nobody? The Board has primacy and with this comes responsibility and accountability.

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I get what you are saying and agree that you are technically correct (i.e. that the ultimate 'leadership' come from the BMC Board). But I think everyone close to this knows exactly what/who is being referred to through the phrase "GB Climbings Leadership". So if, for example, the entire BMC Board now resigned en masse that would not address the issues in GB Climbing. The BMC Board do have a duty and a responsibility to now ensure that the issues identified are addressed urgently given the strength of feeling expressed.

In reply to UKC News:

What is so sad about all of this is that what is being requested is really not difficult and could (I think) be achieved at a basic level by a couple of volunteers with a minimal budget. To achieve a bare minimum and do it well (and therefore much better than the current situation) all you would need to do would be:

Publish a selection policy that is simple and easy to understand and ideally doesn't change year on year

Run a selection event (or just declare well in advance that eg the BBC/BLCC are the selection events)

Select a team

Register for IFSC licenses and enter competitors to events

What has led to the letter and the degree of dissatisfaction amongst athletes/parents/coachs is that GB Climbing have not even managed to do this bare minimum in a competent fashion. Each one of those four basic things has been messed up by GB Climbing within the last year.

When you then add in the fact that this is not being done by two volunteers but by an organisation with a £1.2 million budget and 19 paid staff members its easy to see why things have ended up where they are.

In reply to Pushing50:

A lot of people will tell you “it’s not that simple”. As someone who’s seen these comps first hand, let me say it is (almost) that simple. Yes, you need some coaches at the events - especially for younger team obviously, and also for recording and appeals. But everything else should involve far less controversy if they keep it simple. Attend the comps and field a full team, other than in exceptional circumstances. The athletes pay for themselves in almost every case, so this shouldn’t be a cost issue. I know many parents who’d even contribute to help pay for coaches if that’s what it took - in fact this year that’s exactly what was offered in order to get another event on the list. The idea that they’re not sending athletes out of a duty of care to not expose them to stuff that’s too hard is just rubbish IMO. If an athlete is good enough to make a semifinal one year then they’re not suddenly so useless the following year! In any case, the actual selection event had blocks much harder than a youngster would meet in an international, so the logic of “duty of care” just falls apart. GB make life so difficult for themselves when they don’t need to. It’s their obsession with only attending a few comps and to leave unfilled places that leads to the selection policy being too aggressive, and thus leaving very talented climbers shortchanged. There’ll always be somebody at the margin of selected/not selected but if GB keeps it simple and picks a decent-sized team, then those marginal cases will be just that - people who maybe need another year. At the moment, extremely capable athletes are getting either no chance at all or way fewer comps than their international rivals.

All that’s just a long way of writing Keep It Simple!

Should also have added re. selection policy being too aggressive:  The additional problem is that measuring ability is an inexact science, especially if you reduce a sport as complex as climbing to a score on a single day, where a foot slip could see you out for at least a year. To borrow someone else’s words, it’s not swimming. If you look at the top athletes, results can be all over the place across a season. Nobody’s arguing you shouldn’t measure performance at all but the point is that if your policy is hyper-aggressive it’s absolutely inevitable that this “noise” in the measurements will lead to awful decisions. Everything gets so much easier if they focused on offering maximum opportunities.

In reply to UKC News: surely more fuel to the argument that this should be nothing to do with the BMC and its work . Two separate organisations with two  new names , completely separate , including the physical offices . 

In reply to mike123:

Sorry but have to disagree. For many of the 'comp climbers' their involvement in competitions is hopefully just part of a lifelong involvement with all things climbing and potentially mountaineering. From a lifetime perspective the competition part is actually quite short. So connection with the BMC makes sense in uniting all those different facets.

I'd also draw the opposite conclusion because much of what is being criticised is the attempt to impose an approach from other sports onto competition climbing. If GB Climbing separated the likeliest scenario is that it would end up housed by eg UK Sport. Which would be likely to make this even worse. Separation could only work if it were run by climbers and ideally volunteers with deep knowledge and enthusiasm. Which kind of sounds like the BMC! What does seem to have been proved is that bringing in 'professional' sports administrators has cost a lot of money and caused a lot of dissatisfaction.

In reply to mike123:

This seems to me to be the crux of the problem.  Eligibility for Government funding requires match funding from the bidding organisation. In the BMC's case this currently comes largely (as I understand it) from the membership subscriptions of recreational climbers and hill-walkers the majority of whom (I suspect) have no interest in financially supporting elite competition climbing. 

In this respect mountaineering/climbing differs from the majority of sports where grass-roots participation is much more closely aligned to the pathway to excellence and elite competition. As an erstwhile competitive orienteer, I feel much greater affinity with the GB orienteering team. I'm listed on the same ranking list as our top stars and occasionally run in the same forests. Our club supports juniors progressing along the pathway towards elite status. 

Personally, I would be happy to see a complete split as mike123 suggests, but it's not obvious where a separate NGB for competition climbing would raise its match funding, unless the apparently substantial financial contributions of athletes and their parents can be included in the calculation - can they? 

Martin

In reply to UKC News:

Serious question: What is the point in saying "Please keep discussion civil and refrain from identifying/naming individuals".

The whole point of the letter from the athletes is to say there is a significant loss of confidence in the leader of GB Climbing & by definition the leaders above her who oversee her strategy & delivery.  If we don't name those whom others have significant concerns about, are we not then tarring everyone with the same brush?

We talk about the actions of coaches & leaders in many other sports, esp. when they do a bad job. The back pages of every paper are covered in comment & opinion, why not here for GBC?

To the leadership of the BMC:

There is demonstrably no confidence in the leader of GB Climbing.  What more do you need from the membership you are supposed to represent? Is it really necessary to force a Motion of No Confidence out of the athletes & possibly others too, before you take decisive action to deal with a problem you are fully aware has existed for over 2 years?

In reply to OlderBoulder:

I interpreted this as a warning regarding speculation about the signatories of the letter, who have made the active decision to remain anonymous. Hence the use of the word "identifying".

But if that's not the case, then I agree with you that prominent figures in the organisation shouldn't be immune from criticism.

In reply to Martin Hore:

The USA seem to manage to raise 4.5 million to run their team with no help from the government or the AAC.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

I think it is intended to prevent people from making harassing/ abusive remarks towards the remaining volunteers and staff that are not part of the problem and are attempting to rectify the problems cited in the letter.

There has been at least one post deleted from the thread due to abusive remarks and looking at the BMC threads on here I suspect that they require a lot more moderation effort than any other type of thread.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Employees have rights and the BMC will have to follow their disciplinary processes or end up in a tribunal defending an unfair or constructive dismissal claim would prove very costly

Naming people here could end up jeopardising the BMC disciplinary processes. Also making the letter of no confidence public will not help the BMC in this regard.

In reply to jimtitt:

Wow! Definitely something to be learnt from there

In reply to Steve Woollard:

The athlete letter is in the public domain. It's at the top of this thread

What the BMC do in terms of investigating the statement of no confidence shouldn't have any bearing on others discussing who within the BMC the athletes have no confidence in or why, should it? UKC is nothing to do with The BMC

Any jeopardy to the BMC process starts with the assumption that they are undertaking any such process, which seems unlikely, given that the GBC Head of Performance (and indeed its does seem quite some "performance") has countersigned the BMC response & the other 2 signatories are those who are in the position to implement an investigation

?

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Is the BMC response countersigned by specific staff in the public domain? The response in the article doesn't appear to be from a named individual unless I am missing something.

In reply to spenser:

As far as I am aware it's in the public domain. It just looks like UKC haven't copied & paste it all?

In reply to OlderBoulder:

It's not showing on the BMC, or GBClimbing websites as far as I can tell so that may have something to do with people not knowing that the staff members you cited have signed/ countersigned it.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

As Spenser says the BMC response to the letter is (unusually) not attributed to any named person in the BMC and the response was at the request of UKC. I’m assuming it is from the BMC Chair Roger Murray and if not it would have been approved by him. Surely? If there are other signatories it is not obvious. How do you know?

The collective parent’s and athlete’s letter isn’t specific about who is considered to be the GBC leadership (presumably to mitigate the risk of being accused of defamation) so it seems a bit rich to rail against UKC for not allowing individuals to be named especially when the letter is also unsigned so is without individual responsibility. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Excuse my - I'm not "railing against UKC" - please don't purport to have an understanding of my emotions.

My question is a simple & honest one. I just would like to know why UKC have asked for no naming of individuals on this thread?  On other threads there is no embargo. It's a very simple question supported by an example where naming occurs in sport media.if it's worry of defamation claim then let UKC say so.  I'm not emotionally negative about this, just curious, & also being careful as you suggest might need to be the way.

My copy of the letter does have names on it. So both BMC Watch & UKC appear to have taken them off.

In reply to spenser:

I think it's unlikely to say who on GBC website, don't you? That would be self-harming. I'm actually surprised it's on there at all, I can't find it on the BMC website.

GB CLIMBING website - that's the one that refers to The BMC as a partner - which the President of the BMC has categorically confirmed it is not, it is a department of the BMC.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Sorry. Questioning their policy would have been better worded on my part.

The BMC Watch thread I started very obviously just links the UKC article. Nothing taken off by me.

So who signed it?

Edit: If none of the signatories are Board members then that would mean there hasn’t yet been an official Board response 

In reply to OlderBoulder:

I would guess that UKC may be conscious of impacts on the morale of BMC staff? The vast majority of whom do an absolutely outstanding job: hard-working, knowledgeable, skilled.

Where people are allowed to name names there could be the possibility of 'collateral damage'; especially when you get people with a specific grudge.

The letter of concern is clear enough; it expresses lack of confidence in, specifically, the leadership of GBClimbing. Do we need to go further?

In reply to Andy Say:

It is reasonable to understand whether the response is from GB Climbing staff or the BMC Board.

I assumed it was from the Board but from what OlderBoulder says it wasn’t. 

In reply to OlderBoulder:

The decision was based on defamation concerns and to protect BMC/GBC staff from being singled out (there have been cases in this thread and related ones).

The version of the letter that UKC received included no names of signatories.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Just to clarify - the BMC letter or the athletes/parents letter or indeed both? 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Both. No names on the letter from the athletes/parents and in the email from the BMC. Response was attributed to 'the BMC'.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

And that's completely appropriate. It's a difficult situation which the BMC Board are having to deal with here, especially given the resignation of the CEO.

Thanks for your reporting, Nat.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Thank you Natalie

In reply to UKB Shark:

I didn't say that, that's how you interpreted what I said

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Seems so. Confirmed on BMC Watch as signed off by Chair and President too.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Getting 4 people to the Olympics and winning a medal would be a good start

In reply to Martin Hore:

For info, an awful lot of people who take part in athletics - and specifically including competition - are rather unhappy at the way very little of the money that goes to UKAthletics finds its way back down to grassroots athletics. Too much goes, not just to the elite - who in many cases already have personal sponsors - but far worse, also to the ever-growing army of bureaucrats which this money has attracted.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that this is not also the case with just about every other sport that "receives" money from such sources in order to collect gold medals.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Smiley aside it would be an unprecedentedly exceptionally excellent start for Paris (with comparative funding levels and current results and the tight limits on places). Getting one person there and a medal would be a good start.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection between my comment & yours?
Aren't you a part owner of The Works in Sheffield where the high level/ Olympic training facility is currently located?

In reply to fred99:

True, and even amongst the elite, it's only the very few star athletes that get private sponsorship money that is of any note. The NGO money for the few elites who get it has to be managed very frugally too.

There's maybe only a hand full of GB climbers who receive money commensurate with the cost of sustaining themselves at elite level.  The rest, almost all that is, are reliant on the bank of mum & dad & getting into debt to keep going.  Getting shoe sponsorship is ok, but they taste awful & you can't take a flight in or ride on one...

In reply to Offwidth:

'getting one person there and a medal would be a good start'

I would suggest that it is the athlete/athletes with the team they choose around them that would get themselves to the Olympics and within a shot of a medal.

I don't think we are quite at the stage where GBC can take large portions of credit for on field successes of any climber just yet.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

if one develops a system which is aimed solely at achieving podium places at the Olympics one must recognise that one is creating a system which has so many risks within it that you ultimately have to accept that it could be considered phenomenally expensive for the amount of medal winners it creates and seen as only serving an elite minority.

The Olympics runs on a 4 year cycle. A lot of aspiring Olympian athletes can't even get through one cycle, let alone be on peak form at exactly the right time an Olympic Games is held.

As such it is probably not unreasonable to view with distain a system that myopically supports Olympic success at the expense of many other great athletes participating in healthy competition at all the other levels; whether that be grass roots, national, European or World Championships?

The GB Climbing system appears to be such a system.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Yes, and it's questionable anyway whether identifying a small number of 'best bets' and focusing all your efforts on them is even going to achieve Olympic success. Building the grassroots, developing athletes, and taking a full team to all the comps would build experience and strength in depth, and in turn give us the best chance of medals both now and in the long term.

It would also align GB Climbing much more closely with the BMC's mission to promote access for all, at the levels that are right for them. (Instead of actively preventing access to comps for climbers who are perfectly well qualified.)  

In reply to RedGeranium:

👏👏👏👏

In reply to RedGeranium:

Focusing on a tiny number won’t work. So many apparent World-beaters don’t quite make it and some talent suddenly accelerates unexpectedly. You can’t really target a set number of medals because most of it is outside our control (ie how well other people do). All you can do is build strength in depth and hope the medals come. Depth is key. 

There’s another massive problem with a tiny team - aspiration. Getting in the GB team should look like a big challenge to a 14 year old aspiring athlete. But it shouldn’t look totally and utterly impossible. If the only people they ever see representing GB are Olympic medal-ready then it just doesn’t look even worth trying for many. 

In reply to OlderBoulder:

Is this not the whole purpose of UK Sport? Look at who has the best chance of winning a medal and giving them the most funding. If they got funding last time that isn't important as long as they can get another medal.

I'm not saying that it is a sustainable, or effective, way of building a competitive group within a pre-existing community, just that it seems that UK Sport funding is specifically intended to be allocated in that way.

In reply to spenser:

The athletes pay for themselves anyway so there’s really no trade off between funding one or two elite athletes and having everyone else still attend all the IFSC comps. It should be perfectly possible to do both. In fact most athletes and their own coaches/parents would be quite happy to organize the entire thing themselves if GB couldn’t afford to send a few coaches for some reason (but there is no reason). If GB can’t get to the comps they just need to get out of the way and at least let athletes go.

In reply to spenser:

Yes, that is exactly what UKS funding is for. The trouble is that currently some of it is given under match funding conditions and currently GBC costs are higher than the directly attributable to them.  As such money from elsewhere within the BMC is being spent to support the Olympic pathway.  (It is worth noting here that the BMC leadership is currently unwilling / unable to say exactly what the imbalance is).  The BMC needs to develop a way of increasing GBC aligned income to a) support the top-up required by the match funding & b) support a grass roots to elite selection pathway so that there is a way for talent to be developed.  Without that the Olympic dream - driven by UKS funding & imposed operating processes the current overall system will simply continue to suck money from elsewhere in the BMC.

The other issue is that the athletes have made it quite clear that the system being imposed by the leader of GBC - and I use the word imposed deliberately because there has been a long history of attempts to try & work with the current head of GBC to develop a more equitable system - simply does not work fairly or sustainably. The issue isn't whether the BMC should bid for UKS funding, it's that the process for using it is simply unfair & despite best endeavours she is simply refusing to listen to over 70% of the athletes.  They write a letter, a week later & there has been only one email in response. The BMC is a members organisation, what should they do if the leadership just carries on as nothing is wrong, ignoring a majority statement of no confidence?

In reply to Alphacker:

I agree that it should be possible to do both.

In reply to spenser:

Yep, I agree too, it should be, but the current Head of GBC insists on imposing a system the makes both not possible, in truth the current system is actually increasing the imbalance, it's not even a static imbalance.  Less athletes competed internationally this year that last, and the international system works in such a way that if a team doesn't use allocated places at comps they loose them.  Response from Head of GBC - "there wasn't enough athletes good enough" - but if you don't give an aspiring climber the exposure to the next level up how don't they develop?Despite best endeavours there is no indication of any change to this rather farcical situation.  Dog...tail...wag...?

In reply to OlderBoulder:

This is going to sound harsh but do you honestly think that there are people not being selected for comps that stand a reasonable chance of medaling at the Olympics?

You get stronger through training, you get better at competing through competing. If fundamentally you are not climbing at a high enough level, no amount of competing will help.

In reply to Removed User:

Firstly, yes. Or at least how would they know w.r.t. to say a 15 year old?

Secondly, when did the community of British comp climbing suddenly agree that Olympic medals was the only point of competing internationally? The Olympics are a tiny event (by number of attendees) that happen once every four years. In the meantime there’s an entire series of IFSC European and World Cup competitions. What would give the BMC the right to forget about this and focus only on an Olympic medal? Which frankly they’ve got very little chance of achieving without strength in depth, and if they do it’ll be thanks to the efforts of a one-off athlete (and that athlete’s own non-GB coaches) who’s had virtually nothing to do with GBC over their development.

There are probably ten athletes per category in the entire world with a realistic chance of an Olympic medal. Should everyone else just forget about international competition?

In reply to Removed User:

An interesting slant. The only people that should enter climbing competitions are those who might get an Olympic medal? That probably accounts for 90%* of all competitors at International if not National level. Should they all just give up....

You have hit the nail on the head: "you get better at competing through competing". What are you supposed to do if you don't get entered for competitions?

*A made-up number. But since only 40 people will be allowed to compete at the Paris Olympics in Lead/Boulder and just 28 in Speed I'm sure you get my drift.

In reply to Andy Say:

That is not my view on how comp climbing should be. However, UK Sport funding is very contingent on success at Olympics.

You can track the people who are doing well at an International level and almost without exception they have been outstanding from a young age (often all the way back to 7 or 8 years old). There are obviously lots of climbers who have been outstanding at a young age who have not gone on to well Internationally. But it is almost unheard of these days for a top level comp climber to come out of nowhere.

The current system requires a huge amount of parental funding to reach the top levels in comp climbing. Another system might be for means tested grants to be given to outstanding athletes who do not have access to the means to progress. This could widen the selection pool from which Olympians could be fished. 

Personally, I would much rather see youth competitions being far less elitist and focused on fairness and developing life long climbers. However, If the BMC accept UK sport money they have also to accept that it is going to be brutally selective.   

Whatever route we go down. There need to be a clear objective of what the GBC/BMC are aiming to achieve. The current system seems to be a compromise that is suiting no one.

In reply to Removed User:

But no matter how brutally selective the process is for athletes to access UK sport money, absolutely nothing justifies the BMC (GBC) denying access to IFSC events to athletes who require absolutely no support from the BMC or UK Sport to attend. Somewhere between one and three people appear to have taken it upon themselves to decide they’re going to close off access. They have absolutely no moral right to do this and it’s a complete disgrace that this is allowed. The BMC is founded on access, not blocking access.

In reply to Alphacker:

That's a critical point. Aside from the realisation that competition is pretty much restricted to those with deep pockets, GBC and by extension the BMC is acting as a gatekeeper to International competition .

They don't fund athletes but effectively block athletes that would otherwise travel. Perhaps if GBC were to come under Diversity this streaming of athletes by wealth could be addressed? 

In reply to Alphacker:

I expect that GBC feel that their selection policy for comps can be justified as they are giving a significant amount of support to their athletes at comps. It is clear that GBC value this support vastly more than the athletes and therefore the policy seems unjustifiable. If GBC was functional and providing valuable support than perhaps it would be justifiable. I guess it is a Catch 22.

In reply to Removed User:

Hey,

The latest UK Sport funding cycle attempts to address the ultra elitist approach which you point out above (there was an excellent BBC documentary about this called going for gold which may exist on the internet somewhere). Under the current strategic approach, their view is 'keep winning and win well'.

https://www.uksport.gov.uk/about-us/strategic-plan

'New Sports' which climbing has been included were judged to be 'Progression Sports' and the new approach was to support building the capacity and capability of the national federation (in our case, the BMC who deliver through GB Climbing).

Through this funding you have a 'progression' element which goes straight to the organisation to build infrastructure - read coaches, facilities, coach presence at comps and coach l&d so that when we come to the LA Olympic cycle, hey presto, we have a high functioning national federation ready to propel young talent through clearly defined talent pathways and coaches who can unlock potential of our brightest stars...

However, what we are getting at the moment is neither 'all the money going to our best' (very little money has gone directly to support our best performing athletes at present) or a department which delivers high performance support for British athletes (I am saying this as the department as a whole as there are clearly talented and committed staff in their). Now we have a sport department that does not seemingly have any mandate from the athletes or families of athletes who via this letter have not bought into the vision set out by GB Climbing but seemingly actively reject it.

Add an undercurrent of concern about the actual expenditure of public money alongside members contributions, an unfortunate loss of the CEO due to commuting pressures and very low levels of communication from the national federation and the situation is looking increasingly more difficult to resolve.

Finally, ​​the notion of spotting the best and brightest early on who go on to have great success is quite difficult in Climbing. At a Youth level, BMC/ GB Climbing have seen a lot of recent success but that has struggled to exactly translate into senior success bar a few exceptions. It would be interesting to see if this reflects across other nations as well or if this is a British issue.

In reply to birddog:

Thanks for the excellent and informed reply.

In reply to birddog:

It will be interesting to see how many GB squad members have been registered for the European Qualifier competition in Laval (I believe registrations have now closed?); whether they will have to pay themselves for travel and accommodation, and how many staff will be paid to attend in 'support'.

In reply to Andy Say:

Registration deadline is normally 15 days before the event.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Maybe I'm thinking of this : "The deadline for the use of such ranking [to enter] will be the 26th of September 2023"

In reply to Removed User:

yes, I have it from reliable source that this is the case. The trouble is that the current selection system has too much "face fits" bias in it.

If this wasn't in part true why do you think 70% plus of the athletes are complaining about the selection process?

As someone who's competed internationally myself & have family members who have likewise,  I would say that while there is clearly a threshold for "good enough" it's not a precise science. Some people thrive in the competition environment, producing results they just don't show in training, & visa versa. You just don't know which way it's going to be for you until you go out there for real.  It's too late to expose an athlete to that when the competition really counts. It has be done in advance, so you have to start fielding athletes at the "not (quite) good enough" level so they can learn.  Loads of sports operate this way, gradually acclimatising the up & coming to the live arena.

In reply to OlderBoulder:

I’m not sure this is correct. I think a lot has been done to remove any ‘face fits’ biases. The real problem is adherence to ‘standards’ in a sport which is by its nature on a unique playing field for every event. For eg sprinting you can set a time and say that is the standard and it makes some sense. But for climbing any standard eg 60% up a lead route is flawed as it all depends on exactly how the route was set. And we all know that route setting consistently is really hard. The outcome of this is seen in the fact that U20 athletes were only entered into 20% of events (and that only after much parental pressure). A U20 team was basically not selected as it was declared that people hadn’t met the standard. In fact there were some amazing U20 but they went straight into senior events. A dedicated U20 team should have been selected so more athletes could compete and gain experience. Especially given that they would be paying for it themselves!

In reply to all:

Whatever happened to “the best climber is the one having the most fun”?

In reply to Pushing50:

If there is no "face fits" bias, why have the competition climbers & their families been afraid to speak out? - for fear of reprisals? - isn't that "face fits"?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Some climbers have the most fun by competing, and that's fine, isn't it?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I am pretty sure Janja was having lots of fun absolutely crushing all the boulders and lead route at Bern so that is why they gave her the gold medal 😂.

How are the ‘listening sessions’ going? 

In reply to UKB Shark:

The first listening session with the senior athletes took place before the letter was sent so think that speaks for itself. I suspect (have no knowledge) that the sessions are constructive but the concern is that nothing will fundamentally change with current leadership team. Unfortunately not seeing a lot of "immediate and urgent action". If BMC think the listening sessions themselves count as "action" they really haven't grasped the depth of feeling

In reply to Pushing50:

Absolutely. The BMC needs to realise that the sending of an open letter was an act of desperation. If meaningful action isn't taken then the danger is that individuals will start going public with their experiences. My impression is that athletes/parents have bent over backwards to be discreet and work with the BMC but ultimately it looks as if the organisation's reputation is more important than athletes' careers.

In reply to Pushing50:

Thanks. Are the sessions just conducted by the CCPG Chair? and when will they conclude?

In reply to UKC News:

I believe the BMC management has lost the confidence of 99% of the membership.

Its about time GB climbing set up their own club and funding.

Don't expect the outdoor membership to pay for your losses.

The BMC in my opinion exists to provide access for outdoor climbing areas, General information, Safety updates and "wait for it" CHEAP insurance for the UK or overseas climbing. However insurance issues is where its gone wrong in the past!

If the insurance people cant provide cover get rid of them.

Its about time the indoor walls did their own thing.

Don't expect the entire membership to fund climbing for a lucky few.

Lets get back to grass roots mountaineering, traditional climbing and sport climbing or I urge you to cancel your membership. I will not be funding commercial financial interests.

The BMC need kicking up the a*se or kicking into touch.

The BMC cost increases are contributing to the demise of climbing clubs!

Its about time we spoke about club bothy's as well seen as the YHA has recently been semi-privatised for "commercial financial interest".

In reply to Soul Climber 42:

Your gripes don't belong in this thread, there are multiple other places where you can make them and people can refute it agree with the points you make, but this thread is about GBC athletes being let down and addressing that, NOT for a moan about everything you think is wrong with the BMC.

In reply to spenser:

Hang on. Are you the Thread Cop?

(It would always be better to address the substance of any comment, rather than just say 'bugger off'.')

In reply to Rob Parsons:

No, I am a member who cares about addressing the problems the athletes are experiencing AND the financial problems the BMC is experiencing. Attempting to address Neil's assertions here would have derailed this thread...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

But where would you start?

99% of the membership haven't lost confidence in the management. 90%* just aren't that engaged!

GB Climbing need to set up their own club?

There's no such thing as outdoor membership. All members pay for the BMC.

I won't go on; it's hard to deal with something so disconnected from reality.

*Made up number. But out of 84,000 members do you really think that more than 8000 get wound up by this stuff?

In reply to Soul Climber 42:

Club? They have their own funding.

Dont expect the indoor membership to pay for your outdoor stuff......alternatively, dont forget its all climbing and we are all climbers.

Provide access? you mean help negotiate and improve / secure access to climbing areas.....Cheap? You mean appropriate insurance at a reasonable cost, surely?

What, you mean like the ABC?

Nobody does........

Which commercial financial interests do you think you are funding?

The kick in the arse received a few years ago seems to have has little long term effect. Hopefully this current one will be more effective.

Er......what?

Isnt that a matter for the club?

In reply to Soul Climber 42:

What a ridiculous rant, disconnected as it is from any practical reality and seemingly harking back to some rose-tinted past that a) never really existed, and b) could never exist in future because, guess what? - the world has moved on!

Latest update:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/october-update?s=5

Listening sessions

The Volunteers have now completed the listening sessions with stakeholders and we would like to thank the staff, coaches, volunteers, climbers and parents for their positive engagement and honest feedback.  An initial summary has been provided to the Board on 23 Oct and the team will feedback the headlines on what they heard to those involved in sessions over the next couple of weeks.

The Board will be considering the options available for addressing issues that have been raised at the next meeting on 1 Nov.