UKC

BMC said they had two great but very different candidates as the final pair...and made their choice.

It would be wonderful if the other person 'fessed up.  Or even a thumbnail sketch.  It'd really throw light on the current priorities.

Also, I'm slightly concerned we might have "done a Milliband"

In reply to Moacs:you think they post on here? ( to fest up?, and join in panto time) 

Or the BMC should name them and explain the reasons?

Does that look at all remotely reasonable?

In reply to Moacs:

I am Spartacus.

In reply to Moacs:

Hardly right to name someone who may have given no indication to their current employer that they are considering other jobs. I suspect this would be covered by GDPR, even if not I reckon an organisation could leave itself open to legal damages if such were incurred as a result of their disclosure.

The interest is in how the 2 strong candidates were different and what qualities were favoured over other qualities - very difficult to anonymise.

In reply to Moacs:

I for one will accept nothing less than the resurrected corpse of Ken Wilson.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Don't like the sound of that. A resurrected Ken Wilson maybe, but resurrecting his corpse sounds like a zombie apocalypse with ground zero at the BMC.

In reply to beardy mike:

Would that be a 'Ground Up Ascent' then? 

In reply to Moacs:

I think it was The Donald. It's going to be the only job he's allowed to apply for soon.

In reply to Lankyman:

What has he ever done on grit? Or an I not allowed to ask due to his "heel spurs"

In reply to CantClimbTom:

It is well known (as you imply) that Trump got a draft exemption for heel spurs. Trump also said he didn't like John McCain (spelling?) because he was imprisoned in North Vietnam (his plane was shot down on a military mission). Words fail me 

In reply to Moacs:

I'm guessing she was a climber.

In reply to wbo2:

God I hope it was the resident top BMC-whiner

In reply to Moacs:

I think the key question is was the other strong candidate a climber?

In reply to FactorXXX:

"I'm Brian and so's my wife.."

In reply to Steve Woollard:

I’m not convinced that it is. I’ve had awful CEOs and senior managers who are specialists and experts in the relevant field, and I’ve had fantastic ones who aren’t but are passionate, skilled in their job, know when to delegate/go to others for specialist knowledge and advice, and are sincerely motivated to understand and develop the organisation they are working in. 

One of the best directors I’ve worked with in healthcare came from a freight haulage background and had no previous healthcare experience! I’ve had more than a few who are awful and seemed to have got the job because of their clinical experience and expertise rather than having the necessary skills to be a good director.

A climber as CEO might be more relatable/superficially instill more confidence, but I’m not sure they are necessarily more effective. I think a main interest in another sport that has similar issues to contend with is fine if they are good at being a CEO, know the limitation of their knowledge, and listen to others who have more climbing/mountaineering experience. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I fully agree with you on this and while I really hope that Paul is successful for the BMC's sake I am concerned he's been appointed because of his expertise in elite competition and UK Sport which should be the job of the Head of Competitions and the finance team, and that what the BMC needs right now is someone who has the respect of all members and can start to rebuild trust.