UKC

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-appoint-new-ceo

...

In reply to Mark Kemball: Hopefully a positive move. I see that Paul Ratcliffe comes from British Canoeing, an organisation that has faced some criticism ( fairly or unfairly) for concentrating on competitive aspect of paddle sports at the expense of grass roots non competitive paddling and access etc. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

The BCU background is potentially very worrying, the BCU generate a huge amount of income by a combination of their ‘Governing Status’ and cascading personal competency and volunteer coaching awards, at the expense of members pockets and club office bearers time plus increased liability.

The temptation for a new CEO of a financially struggling organisation to introduce new but proven revenue streams will be strong. Other bodies such as the MLTB and instructors would also love for climbing to have individual star awards, as it would for them represent a huge business development opportunity as well.

Lets hope he understands the BMC is a representative body rather than governing.

In reply to kevin stephens:

That's the worrying bit - communications will be the vital bit to assuage that worry.

The good bit is that he should have the experience and ability to properly run an organisation like the BMC without (hopefully) any financial shenanigans.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Give the guy a chance to do something positive!

The BCU star system has been in place for at least 15 years so that probably predates him by a long way.

As tech committee chair I read through the announcement when the office sent it out to specialist committee chairs earlier and thought he sounded like someone we are very lucky to have as CEO (in fact I think we're pretty lucky to have staff given the way some members treat them...). I won't work directly with Paul in my role but I hope he gets settled in quickly, he has rather a lot to do!

In reply to spenser:

Agree, give him a chance. 

Clearly there are some deep philosophical differences between BCU and BMC, I hope he is well supported and encouraged to honour them by the wider BMC team.

In reply to kevin stephens:

The key difference been that British Canoeing was set up originally to send people to the Olympics and then grew into a representative body for paddlers. While the BMC seems to be going in the other direction. 

One of the main criticisms of British Canoeing was access for general public paddling, but they are up against the current access laws, so all they can really do is lobby government, or try and arrange voluntary access agreements.  

In reply to Mark Kemball:

In 1944, Winthrop-Young, then president of The Alpine Club, was successful in bringing about a motion to create The British Mountaineering Council. Membership was to be open to all "regardless of race, religion or political party", and the body was to represent and speak on behalf of all climbers in Britain. The BMC’s  concerns were:
· Protection of climbing areas; climbers to be consulted in any “new planning” for the countryside.
· Provision of accommodation, huts, hostels etc. in these areas, and raising funds towards this end.
· Collection of climbing information from "here and abroad" and to investigate scientifically the value of new equipment and how to procure it.
· Provision of instructors by clubs to assist with training, and to put interested individuals and associations seeking help in touch with their nearest club.
· To assist the Mountain Rescue Committee.
· To establish a system of regional committees.

Climbers' aspirations haven't changed  that much in the last 80 years.

I wonder how Paul Ratciffe's skill sets align.

In reply to biggianthead:

Arguing that climbing, climbers and their aspirations haven't changed in 80 years is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum. Those things are still relevant to varying degrees but climbing is bigger and better for it now. The world has changed beyond recognition from 1944 and climbing is no different. 

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Personally I think that Paul Ratcliffe’s appointment is a huge mistake and show’s the Board’s obsession with the Olympics and competition climbing instead of focusing on the core objectives which the majority of the members want. The Board have missed the opportunity to appoint someone who would reunite the BMC and get it back on track in favour of someone who is totally Olympics and competition focused and favoured by UK Sport.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

I totally agree with you that the world has changed dramatically.

I'm not sure that climbers' aspirations have changed that much.  I'm interested to understand why we have have a different views.

I believe that the core principles that the BMC sought to achieve are as relevant today as they were then.

In reply to Steve Woollard: Of course you do

Who was that then?

Did you apply?

In reply to wbo2:

There was some talk a couple of weeks ago about there being 2 excellent candidates who would do the job very differently that the BMC were choosing between. I don't think it's been said who the other candidate was though.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

What's he done on Grit though?

In reply to biggianthead:

They're relevant but they're not the only thing. I just think reaching for a founding charter written in 1944 as if it should still be the guiding document in the 21st century is nuts. It comes across as anachronistic, nostalgic and stuck in the past. I'm a historian, I appreciate the value of history but it's possible to do that whilst also looking to the future. The obvious ommission that is relevant to the modern world is indoor climbing. Whatever ones views on the precise nature of the BMC involvement it's a clear and obvious change from 1944!

The list is simply a document of its time, should be seen and respected as such, but no more. What possible relevance does eg point 3 have in the modern world where the Internet and guidebooks are a thing?! 

In reply to spenser:

Pretty sure I started doing my BCU stars sometime around 1995 so a lot more than 15 years ago.

In reply to spenser:

Was it Shark and Lanceley?

In reply to whispering nic:

For once, this throw away one liner is actually essential  and completely relevant. A serious  question, what has he done on grit, slate, sandstone, ice, etc?  (Although passion for them rather than technical grade is possibly more important)

In reply to gethin_allen:

I remember doing them in 1990 or something?

In reply to biggianthead:

Bring back Winthrop Young!

In reply to CantClimbTom:

I've never interrogated him on what he's done, but I do know he's been a keen walker and runner for years  and in conversations it's come up he's done the Cullin Ridge Traverse, the Matterhorn and regularly walks in Lakes Alps etc.  

However what's clear in my dealings with him is his passion for the outdoors and for a member focussed approach.  The fact he understands performance is a huge plus at this time; we need to get this right and quickly.  

As to his focus.  His statement to me on a call a couple of weeks ago was "If I was appointed I need to get comps down to no more than 1 day a week" which sounds like a fair balance.

In reply to Andy Syme:

Sounds very interesting.. let's give him a fair start

In reply to spidermonkey09:

The obvious ommission that is relevant to the modern world is indoor climbing. 
 

Relevant to the modern world, yes. Relevant to an organisation called the British Mountaineering Council: doesn’t necessarily follow. The membership appears to be very much divided on this, especially when it comes to competitive indoor climbing. 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

I'd argue it's relevance as a constitutional statement is still very strong but some people get caught up on written style rather than the spirit behind the words.

The body was to represent and speak on behalf of all climbers in Britain, which is a core value to me. One of the reasons I first became involved in climbing politics was supporting Mark Vallance on individual votes in the BMC: club block votes were undemocratic making some climbers' views more important than others. On competitions, the motion of no confidence sought to split influence of competition climbing and divide us:  a huge majority of members voted we were stronger together. The option debate then looked at Sport England and UK Sport governance eligability,  to enable elite competition and wider grassroots funding: again a huge majority of members voted that we were stronger together (enough to avoid extensively debated potential pitfalls). Finally, in an inclusion sense, its why I strongly supported much improved emphasis on hill walking and equity under the our wide mountaineering label.

You could rewrite point 3 in modern semantics to precis the spirit behind the work of staff, volunteers and partners both to: ensure emphasis on equipment safety and information; and on the production and dissemination of climbing information to provide a wider context in guidebooks and related outputs.

On Paul, he seems qualified, enthusiastic and genuine, and he has already done important volunteer work in the CCPG on behalf of members, under some difficult circumstances. I look forward to continue volunteering to help the BMC under his operational leadership.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Saying the membership is divided is simplistic. I'd guess a huge majority of BMC members would group indoor climbing in the original inclusive "all climbers in Britain". Where there is more varied debate is on the detail of what form that takes and on the division of resources. The current format followed governance decisions after democratic debate and voting, and I'm sure it will continue to evolve democratically if required.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Hi,

Sorry for the long response but again you make good points

I'm also a historian and climber. Looking at your profile I've been doing both for both for 4-5 times longer than you. But that doesn't mean my opinion has more weight than yours.

I believe that the founding principles of the BMC were, and still are, sound For me climbing is essentially about a couple of mates having fun, adventure and shared memories on rock or ice. 

The BMC could not have anticipated the commercialisation of climbing in the UK. For example Outside Broadcasts (e.g. Old Man of Hoy), the expansion paid guides into the UK, the movement of climbing walls from public sector amenities to private sector, the arrival professional sports climbers and professional speed climbing on the Eiger. To a greater or lesser extent they have all broadened people's horizons and enhanced climbing. But that doesn't mean that the BMC principles were wrong.

I believe that the same is true for football. The FA was formed in 1863, but the commercialised game that we see on TV today has little resemblance to grass roots football. Every weekend a bunch of mates are having fun and creating shared memories out in the rain and mud.

In response to your comment on point 3, you make a really good point. The BMC's original aspirations about about climbing information (e.g locations, routes, conditions) has been been largely superseded; for example by this forum which has enabled me to climb in many places that I've would never have heard of.

Also you are correct that they have little, if any role, in the development of new climbing equipment. But they are still seen as a key, honest source of information relation to product recall (e.g. cams earlier this year)

You didn't mention point 4 about training I think the BMC involvement in training is weak. If I want to learn a new technique/approach I rarely get the best advice from the BMC; my my "go to" source is usually youtube. But I consider that to be a failure by the BMC who should be a the cutting edge of dissemination of advice or sources of information. They are supposed to be the lobbying and oversight body.

I believe that climbers who wish we could go back to the "good old days" are mistaken. All the changes that have happened to climbing since the BMC can't be un-invented; they are are here to stay and there's more changes to come. But those changes don't have to be to the detriment of what is already in place.  We have more than enough capability to allow all these versions of climbing to co-exist and hopefully support each other. 

I hope that Paul Ratciffe has the capability to achieve this.

Sorry must stop rambling, I've got go and babysit a handful of grandchildren; while my all children go to the local bouldering wall. 

Have a good Christmas

In reply to biggianthead:

The UK representative for CEN and UIAA standards relating to mountaineering equipment is a voluntary post within the remit of Technical Committee, we have no involvement with equipment design (with good reason given that we need to be independent of the manufacturers and their designs), but the standards set a range of safety and functional requirements that designs must meet so the BMC does contribute to equipment design through this role and the rep is supported by the rest of the committee). We do other bits of work around equipment safety as well, although much of it isn't very visible to end users. I would like to address this issue of visibility, but haven't decided the best route and don't want to over promise from what I am able to support given that I have a full time day job and want to go climbing etc myself.

Spenser Gray

BMC Technical Committee Chair 

In reply to spidermonkey09:

We can quibble over wording and details, but if someone were to write this document today I think it would look very similar. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the BMC should behave is if it's still 1944, but I think that a strong case can me made that those core principles, when interpreted in a modern context, are still valid and still important to most climbers, even if the way we climb and the equipment we use has changed beyond all recognition.

I agree a modern re-write would probably expressly mention indoor climbing, especially as this seems to have become a discipline in its own right and not merely training for or a bad-weather alternative to outdoor climbing, and certainly competitions weren't a consideration then.  You are right that the internet and commercial publishers have largely superseded point 3, although the BMC still publishes guidebooks so it is not entirely irrelevant. But these are points of detail and emphasis and don't devalue the overall message.

In reply to spenser:

Spenser,

Thanks for clarifying this.

Like many Technical Committees your work is invisible and you do not get the credit you deserve.

Cheers

In reply to Offwidth:

Let's not indulge in pointless pendantry. "Divided opinion" is simply another way of saying that opinions differ. It could be 2 opinions, or many; it could be black-and-white, or highly nuanced.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I just think the issues need to be detailed properly.

In the case of the relevance of indoor climbing to the BMC,  I'd say those who think it has none seem deluded to me, given the decades and depth of BMC involvement alongside funded partners and potential risks of undoing that and the massively increased levels of community involvement. Also the numbers of members who think this are such a tiny fraction that raising it is really a false equivalence.

A significant minority clearly don't want BMC involvement in competitions but that has been true as long as I've been a BMC Peak area regular (about 30 years now); and individual opinions are often based on nuanced differences in reasoning. Plus some of those posting on forums against BMC involvement in comps seem naive on potential timelines, as the structure and funding is agreed through democratic BMC governance processes and involves contracts .....it would most likely take more than a year to change to any significantly different structure.

Some say their clubs should leave the BMC but I don't see that as sensible for many reasons, including club officers need insurance, sometimes support (as happened a lot during the pandemic) and the partnerships are in the main mutually beneficial.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Will he outlast a lettuce?

In reply to spenser:

20 plus years ago the committee had what you'd call a working weekend at PYB, with maybe 30-40 members of public who were interested in their work, current research. It was mid winter when most pyb operations are in Scotland, so we stayed on a B&B basis. There were a few presentations on current work. We did tests using the drop rig and on the wall.

MRT annual conferences are good for face time, plus maybe a stand at Kendal MFF etc.. 

In reply to spenser:

Does the committee publish an annual report on their work, if not it would be good if they did?

In reply to Steve Woollard:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/technical-reports

In reply to Steve Woollard:

There is already a specialist committee review which is presented to the board, I won't have access to the slide deck I prepared for this year's review until after new year as the final version is on my desktop at home. The slide decks from those could possibly be released? Commercial issues might limit how widely these can be shared so possibly an issue for the office to decide (I can only think of one for Tech Committee since 2018), it may be more difficult for other committees to report to the membership in this way.

In reply to Offwidth:

Detailing of issues properly would be great! However, in my opinion, you are underestimating the negative feeling among the membership about BMC funding of comps, in terms of both numbers and strength of feeling - and you're not alone in this. To what degree this is just wishful thinking as opposed to deliberate deception I wouldn't like to say.

On a related note, check out the "Where does your fee go?" panel near the front of the latest issue of Summit. Surely here, if anywhere, would be the place to see issues "detailed properly". Why is there no mention of the funding of comps? Was the omission deliberate?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Sorry about the delayed reply. I really don't think I am underestimating the level of negative feeling amongst those who are active in the BMC. What I'm questioning is how much of that is due to those who never wanted BMC involvement in comps (I think a small minority) and how much is down to active members who have been recently worried on news of costs and stakeholder issues around comps. I always felt comps should be under the BMC remit but I also think finances need to be accountable to members and stakeholder communications have to be good. 

I agree that improved breakdowns of membership expenditure should be in summit and in annual reports. Typically around 15% of GB climbing budget is from BMC income (where membership fees are the largest contribution) and the rest from goverment grants from Sport England and UK Sport (but don't forget Sport England grants also support BMC work outside GB Climbing). The annual report for 2022:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2243

One the key areas of detail raised by various concerned members (that is not indicated in the annual report) was how much overhead spend on grant funded work isn’t allocated in grants (both in GB Climbing and other departments with grant income).

In reply to Offwidth:

In these discussions it is always stated or implied that Sport England grants for work outside GB Climbing are contingent on BMC being the governing body for competition climbing and is never questioned but:

1. The value of these grants is always less than the amount BMC puts in to GB Climbing so the net monetary effect would be in the BMC’s favour (NB: this is not an argument for splitting, I’m just questioning the narrative).

2. Sport England give grants of nearly a million pounds to the Ramblers Association. In the event of a split there’s no reason to assume the BMC would lose any grants, if anything I’d be more concerned for GB Climbing representing as it does a couple of hundred participants as against the rest of the BMC which represents thousands of active participants. 

In reply to Offwidth:

No problem - it is Christmas after all!

I really don't think I am underestimating the level of negative feeling amongst those who are active in the BMC.

I'm not sure who you count in that category. Just those with official positions? I was talking about the whole membership.

What I'm questioning is how much of that is due to those who never wanted BMC involvement in comps (I think a small minority) and how much is down to active members who have been recently worried on news of costs and stakeholder issues around comps.

Probably a mixture of both. There are a significant number of members who don't see the relevance of BMC involvement in comps, some of whom never did, as a point of general principle, while some have come to that position more recently, because of worry about mismanagement of funds. Many (including myself) are in the former category, but have been prepared to put up with it because the percentage of subs going towards this has been assumed to be relatively low. This is now in question, of course.

This is exactly the sort of spin which so alienates members. To say that the "Where does your fee go?" breakdown in Summit "needs improvement" is a gross understatement. What I pointed out is a glaring omission, which merits an immediate explanation and apology, because it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the omission was deliberate - that knowing the comp funding issue to be contentious, it was simply left out.

In reply to bpmclimb:

I know plenty of members who just don't care, most of whom are oblivious to any contention. I know more pro competition member activists than totally anti (ie like Bob P) but then again I've volunteered at local and national junior comps.

I'm not so sure most members want more detail in Summit but I would prefer more. It's a tricky balance. The IET (my professional body) get round this by having a glossy magazine and an occasional cheaper printed seperate members' supplement. 

Grant funding income was 19% of the BMC in 2022 and GB Climbing expediture was 22%... however what the competion sceptical activists want to know is how much members' money is spent in GB Climbing, including full overhead costs. I've been pushing this point on Council ever since I was elected in 2021.

In reply to Tyler:

It is questioned but I'm not sure there is any easy answer. I've always appreciated the points you raised on the subject even though I have a different opinion. I think a smaller BMC without comps insurance and sponsorship would certainly be less influential and might even wither, in times when we need influence more than ever.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think you're still missing the point. It's not the level of detail that's the problem; in fact, it could be further reduced to (say) half a dozen words per item. It's that a bullet-point style breakdown of expenditure provided for members in the official magazine is missing a very important item. This is either a terrible mistake, or a downright deception. I want to know which.

In reply to Offwidth:

What’s “comps insurance” or do you mean “comps, insurance and sponsorship”?

In reply to bpmclimb:

I’d add the caveat that the figures provided should be an accurate and fair reflection which sadly isn’t something that can be taken for granted 😞

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I've no idea how he expects to be able to handle this and Man U.

In reply to Tyler:

While your argument may prove true for 2023, once the numbers are finalised, it is not historically correct.

See 2022 Annual Report https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2243

Grant Income: UKS £421k: SE (Comp £166k Other £198k) £364k

BMC expenditure on GBC - circa £181k was actual cash (from membership, sponsorship or trading income)

Net deficit with no SE funding - £183k, incl comps, £17k excluding comps (in 2022) 

Notes:

1.  The actual effect would be worse as SE & UKS part fund some roles, such as CEO, as overhead payments which we would no longer get  so membership cash would also need to cover that gap.  

2.  SE funding for comps is predominantly YCS level so if we lost that funding we would either need to give up YCS or fund that from members money.

The Ramblers are the NGB for rambling (https://www.sportengland.org/guidance-and-support/national-governing-bodies...).  BMC are NGB for climbing and mountaineering.  If we gave up the NGB status for climbing then all grants related to climbing would be removed from the BMC (which is the majority at the moment).  If we just stopped doing comp climbing and allowed someone else to register as the NGB jointly then we would have to compete with the other body for the SE funding so it is reasonable to assume we would get less that £198k but what that figure might be is dependant on many factors. 

So there are scenarios where we would have a net benefit, and scenarios we would have a net loss.  But in all cases our influence and representation of indoor climbers would diminish; as the new NGB would need members to show they were a credible NGB they would, I assume, focus on indoor climbers as their natural audience.  As most people start their climbing journey indoors these days, then; as I have argued since 2018; this would mean long term the decline of BMC climbing membership and hence the BMC as a body for climbers.  We could focus our attention on hillwalkers (ramblers as SE calls them), and compete with the other 2 NGBs or we could do something else but that is not without it's own problems.

In reply to Steve Woollard: I agree wholeheartedly in your comments and I am sad to say that the BMChas become too big for itself and so divided on what represents; climbing, walking competition climbing and I worry about its future and with Summit magazine which I never read but I am a member for my public liability insurance but having done significant voluntary work on access and writing numerous, around 60 guidebooks for which I have never had a thank you for, not that I do it for that, I will resign at the end of my membership but I wish him good luck for the future as it continues to not understand its own purpose 

In reply to Andy Syme:

LOL do they have competitions? 🤣🤣🤣

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Think some of the announcements from the BMC would win the rambling award...

In reply to Andy Syme:

I don’t want to write in favour of a model I don’t really support (a split of GBC from BMC) but it bothers me that the benefits of GB Climbing are continually overstated whilst the costs are underplayed. Even here you do it when you say:

The Report you link to shows that the SE funding for comps as GB Climbing income so would be unaffected by some hypothetical split because, as the governing body, it would still receive its SE funding (unless you are saying the money should be going to ‘other’ BMC to support YCS….?)

Similarly you are correct to say that in 2022 SE grants exceeded BMC contribution to GBC but that ignores the £90k overspend hosting a round of the World Cup at Ratho. Go back a year and BMC contribution to GBC is £160k more than the SE grants to non-GBC activities. After that the reports are a bit more opaque.

Some maybe but not all. It seems inconceivable that SE would drop entirely an organisation representing ~80,000 active members, and with which SE has had a long and successful relationship, in favour of a new organisation with a few hundred members.

I chose the Ramblers as they are noncompetitive in a similar area but there are plenty of non-NGBs getting 10 times the amount the BMC does. The question isn’t whether the BMC would lose a portion of its meagre hand out but why, as the governing body, we are getting so little! I mean, Archery GB has 32k members and gets £1.6 million! Bowls Development Alliance (not the NGB for Bowls but has a relationship with Bowls England analogous to that between GB Climbing and BMC) £1.9 million, etc. etc.

https://www.sportengland.org/funds-and-campaigns/long-term-partnerships

In reply to Tyler:

Tyler,  the issue is the assumptions made on the statements.  So your assumption is that we remain an NGB (with all the governance requirements that entails), SE will allow us to cherry pick what we do and don't do and the new NGB for comps will not want to compete for funding in those areas.  I think that is very unlikely.

SE money is based on bids from the NGB for money which is ringfenced to deliver SE objectives.  It is not just a pot for NGBs to do what they want.  SE basic objective is around increasing participation and particularly in diverse groups.  So I guess those NGBs are bidding for money which goes out and finds people who have never thought of those activities and encourages them to take it up.  Historically the BMC has waited for people to start climbing or hillwalking before trying to recruit them (primarily based on the idea that you should not 'encourage people to do something that is dangerous'); which is a less good fit for SE.

I haven't looked back at 20 or 21 so you may be right but in 24 and 25 we will get more from SE than GBC will cost, and over the life of SE contract it will be more income than we spend on comps.  That said fundementally I also think we should be doing comps because comp climbers are part of the community we represent.  Yes it is difficult at the moment and we haven't got the balance right but that is a reason to improve and adapt, not just give up.  

For the record Ratho was not an overspend, it was a conscious decision by the board to run the event at a cost.  I personally still think that decision was right for the benefits it gave the BMC with partners and others which will then result in sponsorship and membership benefits but it is a long burn thing so as of today we haven't made back the £90k it cost.

In reply to Andy Syme:

Instead of cherry picking figures to make your points how about providing the full and transparent breakdown of GB costs and income promised by Paul Davies for 2022 (actual) and 2023 (budgeted). Given the time lapse actual figures for 2023 is now possible.

Following Davies departure I have requested this by email from Roger Murray but yet to receive any acknowledgement or response so kindly take this as a request to the Board. 

Text as follows:

Roger,

You may recall (though probably don’t!) that we once met once at the BMC AGM in Kendal in 2018 when I was employed as Commercial Partnerships Manager. I was greatly impressed with your insights on the level of effort (heavy lifting!) that you anticipated was required to effect governance and cultural changes at the BMC.  

During this year, I have been trying to ascertain the amount of financial support provided by the BMC to GB Climbing because it seemed to me that what was indicated on the Annual Report and what has been budgeted for the current financial year were out of kilter with the growth of GB Climbing. Two things so far have come light that were a sleight of hand in the latest Annual Report. First the cost of an IFSC Competition in Ratho (90k) was not allocated to GB Climbing but as an “investment” and secondly a portion of grant income (£120k I believe) was allocated to the BMC itself to cover the cost of running GB Climbing but in the report was allocated to, and spent by GB Climbing.    

I publicly quizzed Paul Davies on the subject when he attended a Peak Area meeting in the summer, and he promised to supply figures but never did – see email below. Now he has left I am picking this up again with you to gain that information.  

I hope you share my belief that the BMC should be open and transparent about the historical cost of GB Climbing to its members and that the figures supplied in the next annual report are a truer and fairer reflection of the level of contribution with a more detailed breakdown available by request for members such as myself who have an interest.

As mentioned below, with your permission, I am happy to sit down with Alan (who I used to work with) to collate the figures.

Best regards, Simon Lee

From: Simon Lee <simon@simonleeconsulting.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:35:21 pm
To: p.davies@thebmc.co.uk<p.davies@thebmc.co.uk
Subject: Breakdown of GB Climbing costs, grant and income

Paul,

Thank you for attending the Peak Area meeting and your offer to follow up with you directly on the breakdown of costs, grants, and income for GB Climbing.

I would welcome the following breakdown for 2022 and what is budgeted for 2023. I gather that this should take no more than half a day of Alan’s time working from Sage assuming he hasn’t done the work already – he was always very good at extracting this sort of info when I was working there and would be happy to liaise directly with Alan with your permission if that is easier for you.                                

 Breakdown

1 The total cost of GBC staff employment costs to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

2 A fair apportionment of the total cost of Staff and Management who are partly involved in GBC to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

3 A fair apportionment of the total cost of BMC shared services support staff (ie IT, HR, Finance, Marketing, Communications) to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

4 The total running cost of competitions organised by the BMC broken down by venue, travel expenses, accommodation and other costs

5 The total cost of support to the GBClimbing team and talent development activities broken down by costs including unit E, participation in international competitions and domestic training activities, travel and expenses attending IFSC conferences etc

6 The total amount of grant income towards funding the GBC employees by role and amount

7 The remaining grant income for GBC identifying what it is for

8 Total Income from sponsorship

9 Total income received from parents, spectators and competitors broken down accordingly 

10 An estimate of total number of BMC members and membership income derived as a direct result of GBC with a suitable proportion specified and deducted for the costs of membership to the BMC 

11.  A confirmation that the above includes all costs and income that could be attributed to GBClimbing

I would also like to know whether the current 15/85 matched funding ratio for staff is just for base salary or encompasses total employee costs including employer NI. 

Lastly if the aspiration is to progress to world class funding when is this anticipated to happen because as I understand the matched funding ratio changes to 25/75. 

Thank you.

Best regards

Simon

In reply to Andy Syme:

Thanks for the reply Andy, I don’t want you to be dragged into another discussion as I’m not advocating for anything other than more openness on the costs and benefits of supporting GBC (which I agree the BMC should do, just not limitlessly).

In reply to UKB Shark:

I also think it is vital that the BMC provide a breakdown of GB Climbing spending in 22 and 23 as has been repeatedly requested by you and others. To continue to not provide this invites mistrust and speculation about what BMC/GBC might not want to be revealed. Doesn’t have to be in depth - simply how funds have been allocated eg staff costs, travel costs, route setting, facility hire. My guess - one of those areas has had an embarrassingly large amount spent on it (above fair market value) and so we have this refusal to release figures. But BMC needs to learn - the short term embarrassment is not as bad as the long term lack of trust the refusal to release causes. 

In reply to Pushing50:

Absent a convincing explanation of why the commitment to publish figures has not been kept, it’s obviously possible they have not been released because they would be contentious.

The optics are not good.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

No, they're not! Yet again, I'm revisiting the idea of discontinuing my subscription. I have various monthly outgoings, and don't have an unlimited budget - do I really want to continue to fund an organisation which not only seems to think they can keep financial details secret from me, but also (apparently) thinks it's ok actively to deceive me about them? I know there's good work going on, in e.g. access, but there are limits. Perhaps I should give the money to Amnesty, or Save the Children instead?

In reply to mrjonathanr:

Again, the reason we were given at the open meeting, just 2 weeks back, from Roger (as Board chair he gave outline opinions on what the likely situation was) was that final details for 2023 expediture were not totally clear yet. I really see no sensible reason for that not to be correct, as whatever happened will come out at some point, and if it became obvious something serious was being covered up it would be hard for the Board to recover. Andy Say is a Director now and although the key critics maybe don’t trust other Directors, what possible explanation do they have for him partake in a cover up of this type? Occam's razor says the likely explanation is it's the holiday period, the few key volunteers only have so much time, there is no CEO and no CFO to help. 

Again, the commitment on a more exact breakdown on BMC expenditure on GB Climbing, including overheads, was made by the CEO when he thought he had clear information.  That was before the latest complex budgeting problems were uncovered. The situation is different now and so see my paragraph above.

What our President Andy Syme says a few posts above falls into the same catagory. It would be very difficult for him if subsequently it was found not to be true.

The conspiracy theories just don't make sense. They also distract from emphasis on the very real financial problems the BMC has, where transparency is required soon; and distract from the need to return to good stakeholder engagement in GB Climbing as soon as possible.

In reply to Offwidth:

I’m not alleging a conspiracy, but without proper communication the void gets filled by all sorts of conjecture. The BMC does not communicate well with the membership and it really needs to improve in this respect.

@bpm climb

In disappointed by the poor communications and concerned by the issues surrounding GB climbing, but not to the extent that I’d want to reduce support to the only uk body that really promotes my interests as a climber, frustrating as the situation is.