UKC

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

I’m delighted to report that the petition now has the support of enough members to have both resolutions included on the AGM agenda (but please, please still keep signing)

442 members have signed in support of the item compelling the Board to disclose the finances of GB Climbing and 392 members to separate GB Climbing by placing it in a wholly owned subsidiary of the BMC.

I should be elated but actually feel exhausted!

From the outset I was reasonably confident of getting the numbers for disclosure but very doubtful of the second resolution as it is a more complex issue and I wasn’t prepared to dumb down the case to harvest signatures by making a jingoistic and devisive ie pitting outdoor climbers against GB Climbing or getting celebrity endorsement. It was particularly gratifying to be contacted by comp climbers who could see the benefits of separation as well which was the angle I was initially coming from in identifying the advantages when working with the teams and comps committee whilst employed as Commercial Partnerships Manager.

It means a lot that signatories have therefore had to put more thought into signing up in support of this project and consequently there will be wider awareness and discussion of the issues by the time the resolutions are voted on at the AGM. 

To me this represents a very high level of engagement that demonstrates how much members care about the BMC and safeguarding its future after a calamitous year.

This is also a historic milestone for the BMC. These are the first member led resolutions to be put forward since the constitution was changed in 2018 raising the requirement from 30 signatories to a current 382. Hopefully it will give other members the confidence to flex their constitutional muscle if they’ve exhausted internal avenues.

Please keep voting to demonstrate the strength of support to have these resolutions debated at the AGM and to build in some contingency in case some signatories aren’t validatable (not a word).

Whilst much of the work has been done online here, on Facebook and UKBouldering not all of it. I’ve had two face to face meetings with our new CEO and another with our new Governance Officer (who also acts as the Company Secretary) presented at the Climbers Club AGM, presented to the BMC Peak Area and had extensive conversations with Members Council representatives, Board members. 

In particular I’d like to thank the following for their time, support and indulgence so far particularly as I can get quite animated at times!: Paul Ratcliffe, Thom Nixon, Hilary Lawrenson, Andy Reeve, Sean Milner, Stuart Holmes, Jonathan White, Neal Hockley and Andy Say.

It would be nice to think this was the end of the road but it is in fact just reaching a milestone, albeit a very important one. The next milestone is having the BMC organisation recognise the petition signatures being valid but I’m going to leave that till tomorrow now as I’m off climbing! 

Thank you

Simon
 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Well done Simon.

Your persistence, particularly in the face of those who were determined to close down this debate before it was properly aired, was admirable.

i think it’s a sad indictment on the state of the organisation that we won’t be able to debate your proposals face to face at the AGM. They certainly merit closer scrutiny than can be afforded in a Zoom meeting.

Let’s hope the chair is aware of the strength of feeling demonstrated by the results of your campaign, and gives it the time it merits even in this second rate AGM format.

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:

Given how much effort this was it seems that under the current rules the number of member promoted motions will be very low.  Perhaps we should seek an easing of the threshold?

I'm not after a super-low bar so we are beset by noise but maybe 1/2 of the current threshold?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I don't support the second proposal, but having this relatively high threshold does mean that a lot of members support the motion, so at the very least it's a worthwhile debate. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Well done Mr Shark, glad to see democratic values alive and kicking. I don’t have any skin in this particular game, but I signed both petitions out of principle to have members voices heard.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I also don’t support the second proposal (GBC needs to fixed to serve athletes first, not given a bigger opportunity to serve themselves) but I do congratulate Simon and hope the BMC learn that more they try to make things just go away, the more determined people become. I hope they learn from this when it comes to finally stopping the selfish blocking of international access to our dedicated athletes. That battle isn’t going away either.

In reply to Alphacker:

As one of the people who has firmly argued against the second motion I'll point out that it's not based on a simple desire for it to go away, but a strong belief that it's going to take resources (staff/ volunteer time and money) away from addressing the issues which yourself and many other people with an interest in elite competition climbing have rightly raised.

Simon, I congratulate you on garnering sufficient support for your motions to be discussed at the AGM, hopefully the need for the Finance Resolution is negated by the BMC releasing the financial info after the auditors are done with it and the BMC puts forward a proposal for how it intends to resolve the operational, governance and finance related issues prior to the AGM so that members can consider the structure proposed by your second motion on its own merits rather than as a knee jerk reaction to the ongoing issues with GB Climbing.

In reply to spenser:

"Auditors", yeah, of course. Because it's absolutely normal for that to take almost 12 months and run over multiple tax years. 

🚨Bullshit🚨

In reply to UKB Shark:

This is great news. 

But... what happens when, not if, the motion passes and the board still fobs us off with some more bullshit or half-arses it? What's the mechanism for making them comply fully? Because, and I've been careful to sound the right amount of cynical here, they won't.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The BMC published it's audited accounts for '22 at last year's AGM. You can view them in the AGM papers on the BMC website or at Companies House.

The auditors are currently finalising the accounts for '23. That wouldn't normally be completed before end of February of the succeeding year at the best of times.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I think this very very unlikely. (I assume you are talking about the financial disclosure resolution)

It would be a very serious matter and high profile matter for the Board to deliberately not to comply with a member led resolution in a membership organisation and in the unlikely event it happened I think an EGM with a motion to change the Board would happen or something similar. 

The Board has already been changing composition most notably the CEO who has already disclosed more information at Members Council and at the Open Forum than we’ve ever been used to. Further changes are happening so the Board will be comprised of different individuals who are hopefully more part of the solution than part of the problem as the saying goes.

In reply to Andy Say:

As a recently appointed director of the BMC you should do better Andy. The whole point of the motion is to expand on the barest of financial information included in small company accounts.

In reply to sandrow:

Yes I’ve discussed this directly with our CEO about expanding what goes in the annual accounts and he is receptive to it. I pointed him in the direction of British Skateboarding who have a detailed income and expenditure page (page 10)* as an example of the sort of openness and transparency I’d hope for from the BMC and could be a model for a breakdown in the accounts. Obviously they are a simpler smaller body and for example don’t need to breakdown how the grant income is subdivided but hopefully gave an idea how the BMC accounts could be improved with a separate page giving a breakdown. 

*https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a79d837aeb625f12ad4e9b2/t/624b076fc...

In reply to UKB Shark:

Blimey Simon, good work. Whether anyone agrees with your proposal or not I think we can all agree that this is probably up there as an achievement as your grade shift from HVS (was it?) to E4 in about a year or so. Hats off dude. 

In reply to sandrow:

My point was that it is incorrect to cry 'bullshit' on the basis that the audit process has taken 'almost twelve months'. That is simply not true.

In reply to pencilled in:

Thank you. In the interests of openness and transparency it was E3.

On my first day out leading at Uni I led a route that was then graded Mild VS that is now given HVS and over the next 12 months really went for it and climbed the Troll Wall and an E3 (The Mercenary). Probably should have quit whilst I was ahead. 

In reply to All:

A request.

I would like start pooling ideas on what this subsidiary might look like so I can present a well thought through solution for the Membership to consider. 

I’ve already set down some initial thoughts on this* but would like to investigate it in more depth with a view to putting together a paper for the AGM that supports the resolution. 

If passed we should all want a subsidiary that works for everyone with the aim of creating a body that at some point will not require a BMC subsidy and is a home that supports competition climbers to achieve their potential. However, how things are structured from the outset and implemented will be vital to its success. 

There is an opportunity here to launch something fresh and new that seeks to learn from the mistakes of the last couple of years and take the Sport forward in a positive direction. 

Therefore if you are keen to get behind this project and have knowledge of relevant areas such as corporate law, corporate structures, corporate culture, articles of association, grant funding and how other sporting bodies work then please message me. 
 

Simon

*https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/what_would_gb_climbing_look_l...

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

My tax papers are due in August for 2022.

In reply to UKB Shark:

In the previous thread it was assumed that the BMC would retain the NGB status. Can we assume this would actually be the case? If the management of GC Climbing were hived off to to a separate independent subsidiary, could the BMC continue to perform its NGB obligations if it were not in day-to-day control? Would not the funding bodies look at where the responsibility actually lay, and which body the athletes looked to? Are we actually talking about removing competition climbing from the BMC?

If the subsidiary were not actually independent and the BMC remained closely involved on a day to day basis then what advantages does a subsidiary offer over a (properly managed) department of the BMC itself?

Some BMC subsidy is unavoidable, as it is a condition of the UK Sport and Sport England funding that the BMC contributes a proportion of the cost. The real concern is that the BMC might again have to pick up the tab for GBC's overspending. But what if the subsidiary were to overspend and run out of money? Legally the BMC could let it go bust and start again with a new company, which let's face it is common enough in the commercial world.  But in the small world of climbing, where GBC's insolvency would affect not only the athletes but also suppliers who may not be very financially robust themselves, would it be possible for them to do so or would it cause too much damage to the entire climbing infrastructure which supports competitions and indoor climbing generally?

I think this is a question which has to be addressed. It appears to me that whatever legal structure is adopted, in practice it might be very difficult for the BMC to walk away from having some financial responsibility for any failings by GBC.

In reply to Howard J:

Arguments well laid out. But just to correct one misapprehension - GBC becoming insolvent would have very minimal effect on athletes. They could still be entered for IFSC events (there are clauses to address this scenario in the IFSC statutes) and could be accompanied by their own coaches. As things currently stand this may actually be seen as a preferable position by many athletes. 

In reply to CS:

You may well be right. I don't know how these things work. However I find it hard to imagine that the collapse of an NGB on the eve, or actually during, a major international competition would not have significant repercussions for the athletes.

In reply to Howard J:

The BMC would be a 100% shareholder of the subsidiary and so control is maintained so no we are not talking about removing competition climbing from the BMC in the same way that the Access and Conservation Trust is 'owned' by the BMC and undertakes a lot of the work in this area. I am interested to get the sporting body perspective. Paul Ratcliffe is looking to line things up so I can talk to with the BMC's contact at UKSport. Also I will be looking into the Sport Governance code and take advice where I can.     

- To legally ringfence GB Climbing and it’s finances to help protect the BMC’s traditional activities such as Access

- To create a structure and route whereby GBClimbing is no longer subsidised by the BMC

- To introduce full legal accountability for the governance, operations and finances with the subsidiary GB Climbing Board

- To facilitate better and faster decision making within GBClimbing by a Board comprised of members who are knowledgable about competition climbing 

- To instil the financial discipline within GBClimbing of operating within the constraints of its own bank account encouraging it to develop ways of generating third party income 

- To create a divide between the representational and governing aspects of the BMC 

This is no longer correct. The elite performance areas can be fully funded (management of able bodied national teams and the development programmes). The Para, SkiMo and Ice teams are self funded and the BMC competitions and other events are not grant funded but we choose to fund them. Sponsorship could potentially pick up the slack here   

The inflows and outflows would be more obvious and the BMC would have representation on  the subsidiary Board and be able to monitor budgets, spend and commitments.  

In the long run it may be that this is a staging post to full independence once the subsid is fully established and has a track record. Or not.

In reply to UKB Shark:

As I’m sure you’re already aware, having worked in commercial partnerships yourself, it’s a difficult market right now.

My partner works in partnerships for a large NGO and they, along with many other similar organisations, are having to make considerable and painful cuts right now.

Ad revenue across the media has fallen off a cliff. Things are tough.

Whilst I’m absolutely in agreement that GBC being an independent subsidiary would allow it to be more agile, and form commercial partnerships independent of the BMC, which will make up a great deal of the shortfall. Do you know what other kinds of revenue generation activities are being looked at?  

I think given the market right now, it would be prudent to have a robust and diversified revenue generation plan.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I don’t 

Yes agreed. It’s the competitions that need to be funded or as has been demonstrated recently can be pulled. Comps are watched by climbers so climbing brands are the first port of call for individual comp sponsorship. Ticketing and entries fees provide income too of course. Also some sort of membership arrangement with the BMC whereby a cut of the fees (ie after costs deductions for indemnity insurance etc) for those members who join through GB Climbing or express an affiliation toward GB Climbing vould and should be sorted out. I don’t know to what extent those combined revenue streams would be able to cover the costs of running comps. Obviously the goodwill of walls hosting comps and volunteers who judge, belay etc can and have reduced costs. 

An overarching large sponsor is the ideal  to form a relationship with who would be excited to work with and support a sport that has the potential to go mainstream. Like you say hard to identify and secure. I set the BMC up with a specialist sport sponsorship agency to look for a sponsor like that on a no win, no fee basis when employed there but unfortunately they haven’t delivered a sponsor of that sort. I’m not sure whether they are still working with the BMC.

There maybe coaching or instruction schemes or awards that could generate additional income?. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Maybe sponsorship/support would be easier to locate of the BMC/GBC got themselves into a more stable position with regard to all the problems which have occurred over the last few years! Who would want to sponsor a shambles?

In reply to UKB Shark:

Another thing. The BMC only gets partial VAT reclaim in an arrangement whereby it doesn’t have to charge VAT on membership fees. As a subsidiary GB Climbing could potentially claim full VAT relief which could be particularly useful with regard to sponsorship income 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Congratulations on this, you have put an awful lot of effort in. I fully support the thought that the BMC needs a sort out.
However, I am surprised it has taken you so long to get the required signatures, 442, sounds a lot, but in todays age of social media and emails, it is not really such a huge target. I suspect that the vast majority of BMC members just could not give a toss, one way or the other, and that is why the leadership have been able to cruise along, possibly thinking that everyone thought every one was okay with things, except for a few bother causers. Possibly this is the biggest problem the BMC and Clubs for that matter have, most people just are not interested.
Best of luck with your motions (can I say that).
Not sure why anyone will sponsor a climbing comp, as watching people climbing without the possibility of them falling and injuring themselves*, is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

*Thats what made Honolds soloing film so good, he might have fallen and died, if it was a boulder move 2 feet up, no one would have watched, sad, but true.

In reply to Godwin:

This was a such a strangely persistent attitude in the climbing world. "I'm not interested, therefore noone else is either". Hundreds of thousands of climbers watch comps, follow competition climbers on social media and attend the events. And the brands sponsor them, even organising their own events.

Except it's not true. Will Bosi doing Burden of Dreams alone has been viewed nearly 400 thousand times on YouTube, there are entire channels devoted to nothing but bouldering that have a great audience. They might not have a National Geographic - backed cinematic release, but the interest is there.

It all actually points to supporting Simon's argument, that GB Climbing should be able to sustain itself if it's managed well.

In reply to Godwin:

i disagree, by the time the film was released we all knew he had survived, he was at the UK premier.  If he had died it is highly unlikely that the film would have seen the light of day. It was still a brilliant movie.

In reply to Wil Treasure:

Fair play, I was applying my perspective. I just asked my wife who has little interest in climbing but loves watching sport, and she says she may watch it, and pointed out that I watch absolutely no sport, so my opinion on the matter has little value.

In reply to Pedro50:

IIRC all the people on my row at the cinema seemed to be rubbing their  hands on their pants as the tension built up, they were sweating so much, which was odd as we all knew he lived.