UKC

Given all the recent news about the BMC, I do wonder if the BMC needs to split into 2 new organisations? This would broadly be one Sport Governing Body that is all things Olympics and competition. The other one would be a representative body called the BMC, that looks after outdoor training, access, conservation, but also climbing walls and the link between indoor and outdoor climbing? Why wouldn’t this work?

In reply to Tod Neil:

What about competitions at said walls? 

In reply to ExiledScot: Well there are completions and completions. I’d say a local bouldering comp that has nothing to do with regional, national or Olympic qualification could be managed by the wall in the way that are now. I’d suggest “competitive” competition be funded, organised and regulated by a new governing body and be financially exclusive of the BMC. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

I've been quite against the recent shenanigans, over spending etc.. but all the problems with the bmc haven't been because a person managing crag access can't work for the same body as competition coordination, it's because of very poor management and incompetent staff. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

I don't get involved with the BMC shenanigans for various reasons, but I think Tod's idea may be a good one. In the SME world, we have a practice of splitting off successful projects into microbusinesses, which must then stand or fall on their own merits. It really focusses the minds of any incompetent managers that may be involved.

You can see similar things at work in larger organisations too; the Post Office immediately springs to mind - some functions which should arguably be supported by the taxpayer, and some which should be exposed to the competitive world. It's hard to do that under one umbrella.

In reply to ExiledScot: Exactly, put simply, the mismanagement of the completions side of the business, should have been separate from the historical BMC roles and responsibilities , hence the suggestion to split it. The Olympic climbing should be a governed activity, not one dropped onto the BMC, which is a representative body. 

In reply to freeflyer:

But it's not a business, it's a representative body. Staying in budget to keep your job should focus the mind regardless of if you're in a private enterprise, charity or governing body. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

Plenty other sports manage to encompass all avenues within one body. It's down to individual competency. The bmc over spent hundreds of thousands, planned badly and senior management either lacked over sight, were oblivious or didn't care. The organisation structure wasn't relevant. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

Great idea. Nobody's ever thought of this before. Or debated it at great length multiple times. Or used the thread search on this forum to find out how that went.

In reply to Tod Neil:

It’s a great idea but cultural inertia and the politics of the BMC wanting to remain top dog uber alles with respect to dishing out grants etc will prevent it happening internally.

The only way I can see it happening is if there is a resolution put forward by a team of members that then wins the support of the majority of members at a Special Meeting or the AGM to make that happen.

Hats off to anyone (normal!) who is prepared to put in the personal effort required to lead that campaign and win the day and argument against a Board (and maybe even Members Council too) who will argue it’s a terrible idea.

Plenty to learn from similar failed attempts to make constitutional changes to the BMC in this way in the recent past.

In reply to ExiledScot: It was relevant because the rest of the organisation wasn’t shielded from the competition overspending. Clearly it would have been it were a separate organisation. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

BTW I posted a poll earlier this year on whether GBClimbing should be independent of the BMC. 64% were in favour 15% against and 19% Don’t know / Don’t care. *

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/poll_are_you_in_favour_of_a_mem...

* Doesn’t quite add up I know

In reply to UKB Shark: It would be important that this is considered. It’s not so hard to create an argument that the rest of the BMC needs protecting from bankruptcy by lack of future funding. Also shouldn’t Olympic climbing be pushed in greater depth than perhaps is currently possible? We might even have the next World Champion. 

In reply to UKB Shark: Seems like everyone knows it. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

It’s crystal clear it’s not going to be considered with the current Board in place. 

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder: Worth bringing up again. Who knows the new CEO might even read this thread and action the obvious.

In reply to Tod Neil:

😂

In reply to Tod Neil: I’m not sure of the answer but the issue does need serious discussion. Apart from very few noticeable exceptions there does not seen to be significant cross over between the traditional often club based membership and competitions. The difference between a governing and representative body is fundamental. At least in BC and BSAC there is a useful governing role in qualifications, eg sea kayak leadership quals. The nature of climbing and mountaineering makes these less fundamental, and is adequately covered by the MLTB. Maybe a good parallel would be the Ramblers Association? However I fear climbers are generally too tight bottomed to provide sufficient subscription funding for the BMC to go it alone without Government funding which does seem to be at least in part competition dependant.

In reply to UKB Shark:

BTW if anyone does have the stomach for the fight then it is critical how the resolution is worded. It occurs to me it would be easier to implement if the access and other traditional activities of the BMC being spun out of the BMC into a new body rather than the other way round however much that might stick in the craw.

In reply to kevin stephens: Without trying to analyse annual reports the BMC seemed to be fine self funding from Travel insurance, membership etc before the advent of the Olympics. It would be good if Shark had any more comments on this?

In reply to UKB Shark:

But then it would be a difficult sell to get custody of the assets (i.e. the owned crags), and that's the essential part. The whole point for me is that they need to be decoupled from the part that can't handle its finances and could go under.

In reply to Tod Neil:

This is all in the previous threads. Have you read any of them? Could save him a lot of time if you did.

In reply to freeflyer:

The BMC isn't a standard SME, it's a membership organisation with complex governance, including structural changes requiring a super majority of democratic membership votes at an AGM or EGM.

Nearly every social media discussion around this subject of competitions in the BMC soon loses any semblance of calm debate; at times, good staff end up getting libelled with no right of reply (hitting morale and making their positive work for members harder). When formal process is occasionally triggered, like the Motion of no Confidence, lots of disruption occurs and more money gets spent all to suit what turns out to be a motion voted down by a large majority.

The way government funding works, the OP's plan looks unworkable unless GB Climbing becomes a BMC subsidiary with greater costs (due to support duplication) and no reduction in liability on the BMC if things go wrong, all for slightly less tangled governance that would take more than a year of disruption and significant expenditure. This government funding supports quite a few posts outside GB Climbing doing good work for BMC members not interested in comps. It also supports our funding partners in Mountain Training, NICAS and the ABC.

I'm not denying things have happened I would have preferred hadn't, especially on overall finances and stakeholder engagement in GBC, but the context for this is major impacts in recent years that have also impacted the organisation and more severely hit numerous other membership organisations and charities. As examples the guides were selling their group camp sites and YHA a quarter of their hostels and hundreds of members have written they feel let down and in my view engagement with this wasn't handled in an appropriate way under modern governance. My personal view is things could have been worse in the BMC without our democratic structure (Council hold the Board to account on strategy and finance and have certainly acted on that, on members' behalf, as soon as the issues became clear).

My view is it's much better to work to fix issues internally within democratic structures, on behalf of the majority of broadly satisfied members, unless at some point that looks unlikely and it's clear we need change (I think we still seem a long way from that). With a new CEO, with big issues to resolve, in an Olympic year, and our President's term ending we certainly have enough to do already, without more debates on governance change.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Seems clear the assets need to be protected, so the BMC would stay, and a new competition body created. 

In reply to Offwidth: New CEO, new president, sounds like the perfect time to split the organisation to ring fence the assets, protect the wider BMC against risks from the Olympic spend and let the competition side move a new direction. Maybe that’s too simplistic? 

In reply to UKB Shark:

I suspect a bigger part of it is that people see it as taking a huge amount of effort to achieve and that could be better spent actually addressing the problems rather than rearranging the deckchairs before addressing the problems. The BMC has spent 7 years navel gazing about governance (some was legitimately needed, but not 7 years worth) and it has taken a lot of volunteer time to achieve. Some roles would be insulated from the impact (mine included), but some will get swamped with more governance stuff (including Members Council).

I don't think the poll which Shark posted earlier this year has much value in understanding the support from the membership given how unrepresentative UKC is of wider BMC membership and how little context most people on here have about how the BMC does/ doesn't work. If it was mapped out for members where funding comes from, how crag ownership is managed alongside various other issues and it was voted on by a population representative of the membership it would hold meaning, but I don't think the majority sitting in the room at an AGM know all of the detail necessary to determine which would be better for the BMC with any confidence, let alone with the consideration of time required to actually implement it! I certainly wouldn't feel confident that I was able to make a fully informed decision unless I looked at various aspects of the BMC with this specifically in mind.

In reply to Tod Neil:

Simplistic in the extreme.

Crags are owned by the Land and Property Trust, not the BMC itself (I don't know the full details of how the LPT and the BMC are connected).

In reply to spenser:

Yes, simplistic in the extreme to think the BMC would do anything by all accounts
 

So you’re not sure if the BMC was bankrupt, the crags wouldn’t have to be sold?  That would be worth knowing.
 

Interestingly, if the Sports Council offered funding for the Olympics, which was then pulled, in its current organisational state there is nothing to stop the impending loss across the rest of the organisation leading to a bankruptcy? 
 

In reply to Tod Neil:

Yep

My assumption is that they are owned by the Land and Property Trust which is a charity ‘owned’ by the BMC. You make a good point about protecting them. Would be good to attach covenants to the deeds that protect climbing access in perpetuity. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation with someone who can't even get the names of the organisations involved correct and casually demean the entirety of the BMC including the efforts of its volunteers.

In reply to spenser: 

Obviously, a sensitive topic, but read your comments and ask who is being demeaning? 
 

I have no issue with any volunteers or staff members involved, but I can point out the way it looks from the outside. 
 

In reply to Tod Neil:

This is the demeaning comment.

The England Sports Council hasn't existed since 1997, hence my suggestion that you aren't making even the most basic of effort to research the topic.

I genuinely don't believe that you, me, and the vast majority of the membership are well informed on whether or not splitting competitions off from the main BMC would be a good, or practicable idea. Members Council members will be, Shark will know some of the detail a lot better than me as he worked there for a while (although we disagree on various issues). I know enough to know that there is a lot about the BMC I don't know despite having been an active volunteer for several years and currently chairing a specialist committee (which has minimal financial or governance impact).

In reply to UKB Shark:

Yes, just be because they are in trust doesn’t necessarily mean that if the BMC is bankrupt, they wouldn’t have to be sold? It would be good to clarify this position. 

In reply to spenser: That’s fair enough, I’m not pretending to be an expert, but we’re supposed to be having a discussion. Actually, sometimes being too into the detail can mean you might just miss the elephant in the room. 

The important point was that funding had been pulled for completion climbing, which accounted for the loss, alongside over ambitious growth targets for membership. I’m not saying this is anyone’s fault, but asking the question if an organisational split would prevent the risk occurring again in the future? 

In reply to Tod Neil:

There was no "funding pulled". Pretty opaque contractual details from UK sport were misunderstood, leading to an inadvertent overspend this year.

Even as someone who urged caution on the membership growth predictions on Council I didn't expect things to be as bad as they turned out (as per quite a few other membership organisations, and charity donations dropping, under cost of living pressures)

I have no issue with forum discussion but it is reasonable to expect fair comments and for misinformation to be called out.

In reply to Tod Neil:

Possibly, but it would cost a huge amount of valuable volunteer time and it may result in the loss of funding for some of the none competition related staff who do some really useful stuff in support of clubs.

There were also concerns raised in 2017 or 2018 about government not really understanding the concept of representative bodies and preferring to deal with governing bodies and how that may impact on access.

A big chunk of this year's loss related to the insurance issue over summer which was caused by the underwriter rather than the BMC, competition issues and over optimistic membership figures also play significant roles.

The suggestion of a split has come up time and again over the last 7 years so it can't really be seen as a new idea, it's about as novel as a supermarket playing Wham on Christmas Eve! If it's going to be done correctly it needs a lot of detailed work to be done with a summary of salient info presented to the members after review by someone knowledgeable but independent from the work.

In reply to Offwidth: Yes, that’s fine. So funding, not pulled, but misunderstood (possibly worse) resulting in an overspend. I still get the same feeling, that a split in the organisation would prevent this risk from affecting the whole BMC. 

In reply to spenser: Yes, coming at this as an outsider, I can appreciate it’s not a new idea. I guess if the benefits outweigh the risks it might happen. I think this is enough for one day. Have a good Christmas. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

Hit nail on head.

In reply to Tod Neil:

I do not think that splitting off competitions is a good idea. My feeling is that as climbing is now an Olympic sport, this may be seen as the important part of the sport by politicians and what the majority of people on UKC see as the most important part of the BMC (access etc) could easily be seen as unimportant by the political parties. Expanding the BMC’s political influence is important for access issues particularly when we are very likely to see a change of government in the near future and the whole issue of wider access to the countryside has become a political hot potato. 

In reply to Tod Neil:

So easy when doing this kind of reorganisation to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Prudent approach would be to try and fix things as a single body before taking unreversable steps.

In reply to Tod Neil:

No. Definitely not. It's a complete irrelevance for the majority of climbers.

In reply to Tod Neil:

Merge MCofS, MTA and BMC (minus climbing GB), to become a single body to represent the access and training needs of outdoor folk on this island. Including the certification of indoor leadership and coaching awards but excluding the competitions.

I know merging MCofS is contentious but could be handled by regionalizing access and conservation activities. Unless I'm wrong and the representation of Scottish mountaineers is so very different from English or Welsh.

In reply to Philip:

Merging MCofS and BMC 🤣🤣🤣

Whilst it's a possibly sensible idea (it's as sensible as merging NI with Eire; i.e. if it was being done now, that's likely how you'd do it, but getting past the historical baggage...), good luck with that one, and what happens if Scotland regains independence?

In reply to Tod Neil:

I suspect the BMC’s finances would be fine and dandy if GBClimbing was magically removed.

There has been a lack of full and transparent disclosure about how much GB Climbing really costs the BMC for years. I was promised a breakdown by the previous CEO and it wasn’t forthcoming. I have redirected that request to Roger Murray, the current Chair but not had a reply yet.

The irony is that the comps community doesn’t like the way the money has been spent either in that it is focussed on empire building rather than focussed on the athletes. 

Given all that has occurred there should be full disclosure of all costs incurred by GB Climbing in the upcoming annual report for 2023.

In reply to Tod Neil:

I suggest having two new organisations, so that we have the following:
British Mountaineering Council
Mountaineering Council of Britain
Council of British Mountaineering

Talking of which, what have the British Mountaineering Council ever done for us?

In reply to Tod Neil:

Coming into this as a complete outsider, Splitting an organisation due to mismanagement seems like a sledgehammer to crack a roasted chesnut. It would be a good solution if competition climbing was somehow more 'inherently' financially risky (even then there are other solutions), or conflicting strategically. If mismanagement is the problem, its more commonly solved by adjusting governance eg setting up sub committees, changing reporting & hiring practices. Also, to diagnose mismanagement isn't necessarily to blame staff... the buck stops with the board members. Hence very important to have the right skills at the top, which is difficult if you don't pay for it.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Paul D made that promise at the Peak area meeting just before he left the BMC (and  before they discovered the UK Sport contract issues).

You know full well the situation changed. Things are not clear enough for Council to be fully breifed on that level of detail yet. Given the serious membership concerns, Roger reported the broad changes, to that reported in the BMC Nov update, at the recent open forum, even though the full detail wasnt clear. Something which you reported and commented on in three forums.

We can't do much about 2023 expenditure but my view is that will now obviously be unrepresentative about relative spends in different areas. Obviously Council, acting on behalf of members, will be holding the Board to account on the planned budget for 2024 being appropriate to our ongoing finances with due regard to members' priorities.

In reply to Offwidth:

What's the issue with releasing the figures? "Things are not clear enough for Council to be fully breifed on that level of detail yet" isn't a valid explanation. What's going to change that would make things clear enough to make it the right time to come clean? What's being hidden? Why? Cui bono? Being shady about it isn't a good look.

In reply to Offwidth:

“Just before”? Paul Davies made the promise in July and left in September which gave him plenty of time to respond.

The 2023 contribution by the BMC to GB Climbing may be even higher than previous years but that’s not a reason to misrepresent them in the Annual Report yet again.

I’m sick to death of the Board stonewalling when they should be open and transparent. If a proper breakdown isn’t made available voluntarily I’ll investigate getting via a freedom of information request. This is a members organisation spending members and public money. 

For reference my email to Roger Murray is 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 Tod Neil:

I agree but realistically this doesn't seem on the cards.

However, the governance structure is an absolute dog's breakfast.  If you read the arrangements  and proposed interactions between the myriad different power centres, it's no wonder there are problems. It's worth doing this imagining it's an organisation you know nothing about rather than having the BMC inond. Would this give you confidence it could be effective?

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-governance

In reply to UKB Shark:

I'd like to see a clearer breakdown of spends across key areas of the BMC as well but if I'm told the information for 2024 is still not clear and won't be until the new year (as Roger said in the open forum).

I'm pretty sure freedom of information requests don't apply:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi-eir-and-access-to-information/guid...

I'm also pretty sure Paul D was in no position to reply to you soon after that meeting. When CEO change is being looked at all sorts of legal and procedural issues can kick in well before a departure is announced.

In reply to Offwidth:

How, the hell, does this work? Are their bank statements sent by steam ship? What information doesn't exist now that will in the new year? And where will it come from? Someone must have it.

There just isn't a good explanation other than they're hiding something.

In reply to Offwidth:

Past and future spends are clearly different issues. It is however, rather difficult to believe it’s not possible for the BMC to identify clearly where money has been spent in the previous financial year. And hard to imagine ‘we’re working on it’ will be good enough for HMRC, so why is that good enough for members?

Or am I missing something?

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Council don't know much more than the open forum information but will need to pretty soon in the new year. A group of us wrote a letter in March, as we felt we were not being provided with some significant information, we should have been under our constitution (especially on finance and some serious sounding stakeholder problems in GB Climbing that we were hearing from other sources). Council considered this and agreed and things improved after that. I doubt Council will accept the situation in March happening again. Currently there is no CEO, no CFO, it's holiday time for all, and the relevent Directors and staff and other key volunteers have genuinely been incredibly busy trying to work out what happened in a complex situation and replan what to do next.

I totally disagree with MG's 'dogs breakfast' description of the BMC governance structure.  The BMC is a membership organisation, also acting on behalf of a wider community, with a governance structure suitable for being run as a not for profit company with democratic input and inclusion of voices from the many internal and external stakeholders. Back in the option debate there was genuine concern from a significant minority of experienced members that governance checks on the Board were weakened too much compared to before (when National Council had more power but risked acting as shadow directors). The compromise, now included in our Articles of Association, was a bit more complex but it gave members more leverage on holding the Board to account on strategy and finance decisions through the new Members Council. A key area of concern back then was the risk of the competition side taking too much organisation resource compared to average member wishes, increasing risk of the organisation splitting and/or losing relevance. I for one am very glad this compromise happened and struggle to see what could be simplified without adding avoidable risk. The company structure is just a way to run a complex organisation, it is not the purpose of the organisation.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

The open forum gave an overview on expected 2023 information, but to be fair 2023 hasn't ended yet so full details can't be clear.

In reply to Offwidth: Please can we have an organogram to help explain the relationships between and roles of National Council, Board, CEO, Volunteers, Area committees etc?

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks Steve. Surely financial year 2022-23 info is available?

In reply to kevin stephens:

We could certainly do with one! Mike Parsons (lakes area ex Council rep) produced a good prototype.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

It's on an annual basis ending in December. All reports are here

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-reports-and-annual-accounts

In reply to Tod Neil:

In very simplistic terms the last accounts I signed-off for 2012 showed a cash balance of £2,168k.  The latest published accounts for 2022 show a cash balance of £1,735k.  Assuming the projected £400k deficit for 2023 is roughly reflected in the cash position then over the last 10 years the BMC has managed to burn through around £800k.

In reply to kevin stephens:

There is a pdf to responsibility matrix in the link I gave above. 

In reply to MG:

Thanks, but that tells us nothing about the structure or relationships (eg primacy ) between the various bits in the same way that an organogram could

In reply to kevin stephens:

I agree, hence my comments about governance. 

Also worth noting with the accounts is that £1.3m / 30% of expenditure is lumped together as ‘administration costs’. Furthermore the treatment of GB Climbing finances is dubious. £90k of competition costs were reallocated as an ‘investment’ and £120k of grant income that belonged to the BMC for shared costs was in fact allocated as belonging to GBClimbing. 

The BMC is primarily a gatherer and dispenser of resources (time and money) for the betterment of climbers and it’s effectiveness as an organisation should be judged in how effectively and efficiently it manages those resources.

With such limited and disingenuous financial reporting it makes it impossible to assess how well the BMC is performing and how fair the allocation of money is.

There’s little doubt in my mind that GBClimbing has an unfair share currently and generally that finances could be managed far better if there was more clarity on how the figures are made up. Even Board members struggle to understand what’s going on. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Is this the accounting error that was discovered in August or in addition?

In reply to Tyler:

This is separate to the £200k double counting of grant income that inflated this years budget.

It was disclosed by a former Director on BMC Watch that £120k of annual grant income was to the BMC towards the estimated shared costs of administering GB Climbing. However, in the annual report this portion was allocated to and spent by GB Climbing rather than the BMC.

This is a sleight of hand that has never been publicly disclosed before and also makes a mockery of Paul Davies’ claim that GB Climbing’s shared cost had never been calculated. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

It’s been questioned on here before because prior to being told there was some allocation in the GBC grants it was assumed BMC were footing the bill for all shared costs. After we were told there was £115k in the GBG grants for shared costs it was noted that this does not appear as a credit in BMC income. This can’t be an oversight. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm afraid that I agree completely with Shark on this. I was also at the meeting where Paul D (the CEO at the time) promised to provide the relevant breakdown of finances. At the meeting Paul D repeatedly implied that the numbers were almost available, that they weren't finished because he was at the meeting communicating with us rather than finishing off the numbers. He told Shark that he would be able to provide an answer via email because he didn't have the figures available at the meeting. As it turns out this was a straight up lie to Shark and the members at the meeting/membership as a whole. I feel like the BMC should have to honour the public commitment of the CEO, or at the very least publicly state why they can't fulfil the commitment.

Fwiw, I think that the BMC should not split.

In reply to Fellover:

I was there as well. I agree the BMC should as an organisation should ideally have finalised the details on the numbers or apologised with reasons (he did provide some detail in the meeting), but I'm saying, it's very likely soon afterwards Paul D couldn't. As of now, the situation is more complex, so those numbers would be out of date.

A reminder might have been more effective coming from the local area chair or MC reps. Throughout late spring and early summer one could be forgiven reading negative comments on forums for thinking there were no membership representatives or other democratic channels.

In reply to ExiledScot:

I am not sure. Most sports represent a pretty narrow interest group of mostly competitors of varying competences and even those who cant be arsed to compete seriously are somewhat represented.

BMC has a tricky remit of competition through to access rights.

Thinking about the closest representative sports they have similar problems.

Kayaking: Has much the same problems with lots of recreational paddlers not being happy with the concentration on the Olympic slalom and lack of fighting for recreational river access.  Improved a bit recently but still problematic. Has the advantage of being the awarding body so gets to lock in anyone who wants to coach etc if they fancy insurance. That plus the riverways licence keeps a lot of people paying but has had increasing backlash hence the changes in attitude I think.

Cycling: Similar issues somewhat solved by an effective split with British Cycling representing the road racing community (plus the mountain biking racing badly) and Cycle touring club evolving into CUK to represent casual riding. Messy with the awarding bodies.

In reply to mondite:

Nothing is perfect, but lots of people participate in all aspects of climbing at one time or another. The organisation just needs a structure which works in the members interests and competent staff in all departments. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

That the closest matches I can think of struggle with it makes me think it isnt so simple. I am not sure what the solution is but I think that "just" is doing a lot of work.

Aside from anything else you can end up with highly competent staff in competing departments being really good at fighting each other for the riches vs if you had some idiots in one department at least one subset of members would be happy.

I do think a major part of the problem is around Sports England narrow focus which is reflected conditions on any funding provided.

In reply to mondite:

That's the case with so many sports, the obsession of chasing podiums and not mass participation of sport for a healthy active population. All this it inspires the population is just bull, look at london Olympics, team gb did very well, but I've seen no data suggesting we are now a slimmer healthier population because of it. The Olympics is just a commercial farce, better all sports funding doesn't go beyond national and European level events. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Yup but this brings me back to its not an easy problem to solve.

Most sports governing bodies look primarily at competition which sort of leads into the olympics. but bmc have a bunch of people who have absolutely zero interest in competing seriously (beyond maybe for a centre level competition during the winter) but are very interested in access rights.

For example I also fenced for a while and whilst, to my coaches annoyance, I couldnt be arsed with competing seriously the fact that british fencing was based around heading to the olympics (without much hope!) wasnt an issue. Even if we couldnt be arsed competing we still did occasionally and everything was focused around that. We didnt have a bunch of members who didnt fancy competing but did want the right to carry sabres round town and for british fencing to support us in the cause (ok I did and do want the right but figured it wasnt really an option).

Nah lets spend money on minor sports facilities around the country.

Admittedly this might be biased by the fact I am a regular paddler at the lee valley white water centre and am thinking of moving away from the area so would love for some more all season paddling to be made available especially with a conveyor belt.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Also replying to Mondite:

Sport England is interested in Grass roots participation, UKSport are the ones chasing medals. 

I would say that if the staff in different departments are competent and management know what they are doing the staff should never wind up fighting each other for riches. I haven’t seen any sign of BMC staff fighting each other over anything before.

In reply to spenser:

I get confused by the various bodies since, thankfully, I am just a low level club member in a few sports vs having to deal with the bodies at a funding level.

That was meant as a broad response to ExiledScot about what competence means vs something I have noticed in BMC. It was just addressing the fact competent staff doesnt mean everyone ends up happy. From experience in my job where we have several competing regions fighting for my teams time a lot of the time someone being good at politics means everyone else ends up annoyed.

In reply to spenser:

Maybe because nobody knows the costings etc which seems to be borne out of questions not being answered from members about costings……

Maybe best to let sleeping dogs lie so to speak. 

In reply to mondite:

I get that, just clarifying that while the BMC certainly has problems I don't think staff infighting is one of them (thankfully!). It is definitely possible for poor management/ lack of delegated authority to put staff into opposition with each other.

In reply to mondite:

Climb gb didn't over spend by a few hundred grand because the person in an office next door looks at crag access. The key is decent management. 

In reply to spenser:

That’s what I thought until Roger Murray explained at the Open Forum that one of Sport Englands grant streams that the BMC taps into is also for elite competitive sport.

In reply to Tod Neil: I think the BMC probably needs a “reset” to get members back on board and allow it to put its troubles in the past. A reset that involves 2 independent organisations could be a good thing. 
The purpose of the “competition/sport” side of the organisation seems so different to the “access/awareness/competence” side of things. It must be frustrating for competition climbers if they lack financial support and see some of the grants going to subsidise the access side of things(I think that is the plan!). 
The competition side of the sport seems ideally suited to getting grants, sponsorship deals, maybe television rights… it should be able to forge its own path and be better for it.

The “traditional” side of the organisation that covers access and mountain awareness etc. is more tricky to fund, but needs to look at member subscriptions, government grants, a levy of some sort?, voluntary donations, bequeaths etc. I’m not sure of the answer but I am sure that with the right people it could fund itself and have a much clearer purpose. There’s millions of people going into the mountains, just need to tap into their finances in a small way.

At the moment the BMC is mess, the finances are a mess, the members are disillusioned, the competition climbers are disillusioned, I bet the staff are disillusioned, something more fundamental than a new CEO is required.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Last time the members were this disillusioned the solution was to implement a batshit new governance structure so complex that nobody has yet demonstrated an ability to explain it to me. 

Maybe this time unpicking that insanity, and PUBLISHING THE FIGURES PROMISED TO SIMON AGES AGO would go a long way. Or just the latter.

In reply to David Lanceley:

I don't think it's quite that much, David; but the loss has been focussed on the last three years - just look at the annual reports available on the website.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Have you not read any of the threads on this subject? The exact opposite of that is happening! In brief, until 2022 BMC funded comps almost on a par with access and conservation, in addition comps received significant grant income from govt bodies. In 2022 the amount of govt funding for GB Climbing ballooned, BMC continued to add a significant amount to that pot as well as continuing to provide all the shared services like IT, marketing, HR, office space, etc. Also in 2022 GB Climbing accidentally helped itself to £200k of ‘other’ BMC funds which is being paid back, not from GB Climbing funds, but by cutting other BMC services. 
The idea that GB Climbing is subsiding Access is so wide of the mark I’m staggered that anyone could still think that after all that’s gone on.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The BMC is a membership organisation run on behalf of its members and the wider community. The Board (all but one who are volunteers) set strategy and finance and manage the CEO (the only paid Director on the Board). The CEO and SMT operationalise Board strategy and finance with staff, and with help from many volunteers (including a number of volunteer based: specialist committees, local area committees, and alongside affiliated club committees). Menbers Council are democratically elected to represent members and a few funded stakeholders, and hold the Board to account on their plans on behalf of the membership. The BMC has funding partners on government grants (eg MT, NICAS, ABC) internal charities (ACT and LPT) and various other organisational stakeholders. The governance workings are summarised in the Articles of Association where major changes must pass a super majority membership democratic vote at a scheduled AGM (or a membership called EGM).  There are a few other less important considerations and you need to know the what the acronyms mean.

Hardly really hard to understand.

As for what Simon was promised, the numbers have changed and the Chair told the membership the new overview numbers (wrt the November members summary) as best he could at an open forum two weeks back. Simon and the Peak area probably should have had an apology, linked to the impact of the departure of the CEO who made the promise.

In reply to kevin stephens:

The Board has 'primacy'. That was embedded in the Articles agreed nearly 6 years ago. They set 'strategy'. 

The staff are employed to implement that strategy. They do 'operations'.

Members' Council has the role of acting as 'critical friend' to the Board. "You want to sell Wilton to a landfill company? Well. I'm sorry but...."

I'm a relative newby on the new Members' Council (though I am a tired old lag from National Council) and a brand new Board member. Those organisational relationships may have become a wee bit 'fractured' of late. Repair work is being done.

For the last 25 years an intriguing question has always been ' just who is the BMC.

For the OP; the creation of an 'arms-length' competition NGB was proposed by the Organisational Review Group nearly 7 years ago. I supported that idea then.  But I think that times have moved on and we need to deal with where we are. Consider the reverse of the coin; how happy would you be be to with GBClimbing being the Government recognised NGB for Climbing and Mountaineering with the BMC having through apply to it for hand-outs from funding as a mere 'representative body'....

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

And so the year ends as it began.

T.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

There is no such plan. Currently some BMC income (including members subs) outside of the grant income from UK Sporand Sport Englant and contributes to GB Climbing (although the exact numbers have not been clarified yet by the Board). However, some Sport England grant income also subsidises BMC work outside GB Climbing.

In reply to Offwidth:

You're having a laugh 😃

Not what most people would understand by democratic elections and not representative of the membership

In reply to Offwidth:

That's what they always say. So, who's in charge? 

I've tried to follow along enough times now. I'm happy enough to give up and carry on not understanding. That's a big long chain of deniability.

Changed? Wtf? Some money unspent itself?

In reply to Tyler: Perhaps I wasn’t clear in how I worded my email. I am fully aware of what has gone on and I wasn’t saying that the competition side was subsidising the access side. I was trying to make the point that it could be the case, as it has been stated by some that the traditional side of BMC needs sport climbing because of the funding it brings in. 
If you separate into two organisations there can be no suggestion of inter-organisation subsidising…in either direction.
I’m staggered that anyone could not see the subtlety of my post, including the comment in brackets!(tongue in cheek).
 

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The Board has primacy which I assumed you knew.

In reply to Offwidth:

Then what is the other thing, the council, for? And how can people be on both?

In reply to Steve Woollard:

The list (including current vacancies) is linked below. Everyone I know on Council tries their best to represent their constituency and total experience in volunteering for the BMC must be near a few hundred years.  Positions similar to some of your posts have been represented on a few occasions by various councillors in meetings.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-members-council

All members can stand for election in categories they meet (when a current Councillor  terms end or if a Councillor stands down early). Sadly most elections are not contested and also sadly we have some positions vacant for some time.

In reply to Offwidth:

So what does the Council "holding the board to account" mean?  Why does it need holding to account* if it is in charge? And how is it a members organisation if the Board is supreme?

*A meaningless neologism, of course.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

A Council is a common feature in membership organisations, my Trade Union has one and so does my Professional Body. In the BMC case individual positions are set out in the Articles. Four Councillors sit as Directors: the President elected by the membership and three Councillors as Council Nominated Directors elected by Council based on skills suitable for the Board. Other Directors are observers on Council, including the Chair and CEO. The position formally meets governance rules for government funding eligibility.

In reply to MG:

We have a Memorandum of Understanding and if Board and Council disagree on a small number of Reserved Matters, on areas critically sensitive to membership, the Board has to negotiate further until agreement is reached or to take the decision to a full membership vote. There are also a wider area of matters where the Board are required to consult with Council but can overrule the Council position.

In reply to MG:

Well it appears, and is indeed the main issue that, currently only one of them is holding any accounts.

In reply to Offwidth:

I never said they didn't, and I'm sure they do, otherwise why volunteer.

I was picking you up on you implying that they are appointed by democratic elections and therefore representative of the membership.

There was talk sometime ago about finding a way to engage with members who can't make the regional meetings, but this seems to have been lost in the long grass 😳

In reply to Offwidth:

And also how is an ordinary member suppose to contact their council member, there are no contact details

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Lets use you as an example: you could stand for President in 2024; you could stand as an NEC  (Nationally Elected Councillor.... probably for one or more of any of the four posts if you mountaineer, climb, hill walk and climb indoors) as all would be due for re-election sometime in 2024; you could stand as one of two local area reps in your designated area (where most have some online or mixed online/physical meetings each year).

Also in terms of better supporting those who can't make area meetings we have a series of planned open forums on Board related matters. In addition, the four Council NECs are planning open forums in 2024, on zoom, on the work they have been doing (that will be much less constrained.... attendees should be able to see each other and chat).

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Presumably phone/email your local chair/secretary for local area Council Rep details or phone/email the BMC office for any relevant Council Reps contact details (area or NEC). The President, Andy Syme is a regular here, as is Andy Say and myself (Steve Clark).

I missed the thrust of the comment below, before:

All Council candidates are elected democratically by their constituency if there are more candidates than posts. There have been full membership elections for President at past AGMs and a full election for the current NEC Hill Walking (from 3 candidates). All area Council reps are ratified by their local area even if votes are not required because there are only two candidates for two vacancies or one candidate for one or two vacancies.

In reply to Offwidth:

Could do, at least these have the semblance of being an election.

These appear to be shoe ins and not in anyway a democratic elections and exclude member who are unable to attend regional meetings.

I watched the last zoom forum and there was no opportunity to interact with the Board, we were basically lectured to

In reply to Andy Say:

Thanks, that's a succinct explanation which I can understand.

So why can't the Board backed up by the Council instruct the staff (CEO etc?) to release the breakdown and allocation of funding and costs? Or at least set a Strategy that demands financial clarity?

In reply to Steve Woollard:

We DO have 'Nationally Elected Councillors' on MC for specific 'interests' (Walls, Hillwalking, Climbing...). There is a suggestion that maybe an online 'national area' could feed into them and serve as a forum for those that can't/won't make Area meetings.

In reply to Tod Neil:

I have come to this thread very late and have not read much of it. Below is my opinion as a BMC member who takes a great interest in it and all it's work.

The BMC should not split into two organisations, as they would quite quickly start to compete with each other, to the demise of one of them, probably the best part, the BMC, (access, equipment, lobbying etc) which does a lot for the climbing and outdoor community.

What needs to be done is for the BMC to start acting in a more open and membership oriented organisation. Part of the would involved taking back full control of competitions from the present 'management', installing new management and keeping a much tighter fiscal control of it's activities. Currently the comp climbing department appears to be an out of control entity, run for the management and staff, with little consideration for the athletes, and the overall wishes of the members of the BMC.

Competition climbing is not something I do, but I am interested in it and believe that, if it was operating correctly and effectively,, it could be a great asset to the BMC, but at present this is not happening, and currently does not look like happening. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I hope that they really are 'open forums' and not 'member lecture forums' where only selected member questions were answered and no contentious questions given much air time. A forum is supposed to be a two way event, not a lecture!

In reply to spenser:

Maybe this is where greater communication with the members and more openness could be useful?

In reply to Offwidth:

A reminder might have been more effective coming from the local area chair or MC reps. Throughout late spring and early summer one could be forgiven reading negative comments on forums for thinking there were no membership representatives or other democratic channels.

Were these the same MC reps who know some facts but were banned from telling them at the last area meeting? 

In reply to spenser:

I feel sorry for the 'ordinary hard working' staff. This whole sorry saga appears to be a result of poor management oversight and poorer financial management. This has then been compounded by a 'secret society' mentality, where the hope is that if we don't tell the members anything they will give up and just continue to pay ever increasing membership fees! 

What's the old saying? Membership mushrooms. Kept in the dark and fed on B""l"""it!

That is what all this is starting to feel like.

(I have a good friend who is a very competitive athlete, and he believes that GBC are purely an empire building set up, with no real interest in the athletes, and apparently he is not alone amongst the athletes!)

Apologies for hijacking but I seem to have had a query about BMC discount codes deleted and can't think why.

Already contacted BMC and no reply and now on Christmas break. Fair enough - but the system can't rely on members having to contact their office for it to work anyway.

Can anyone help please?

Or admins, at least tell me why my question was deleted? 

Last time I asked the BMC for discount info they said that a members' area was coming so we wouldn't have to keep on relying on contacting their office and waiting for them to get back, but that doesn't seem to have materialised. 

Cheers.

In reply to Tony Buckley:

Twas ever thus

In reply to johncook:

Thanks for your comments. I am personally most interested in the BMC flourishing as a vehicle for outdoor climbing in the U.K., particularly with regards to maintaining access, conservation, outdoor training and the like. This is the representative body, representing the interests of the members, or potential members who might ask why should they support the BMC?

I do like the fact, we have a potential Olympic champion in Toby Roberts, but this has no bearing on my own climbing, in the same way other Olympic athletes in other sports don’t.

My feeling is still that there appears to be natural divide in the more traditional areas of BMC operations and the Sports climbing, Olympics driven one, so I don’t quite understand where the two organisations would compete if there was a split?

Broadly speaking BMC membership, travel insurance etc supports the traditional activities, and grants cover the competition stuff. 

I’m not aware of any competition in chasing the same funding, but if even if there was it should be recognised as being for different outcomes and applied for as such.
 

During this discussion, nothing anyone has said so far has changed my opinion that the BMC would benefit from remaining the same in terms of structure (often with volunteer assistance), and protecting members interests as a representative body. At the same time a new Sports Competition based organisation, more commercial in outlook and management and separate in structure, could be created. This would create a single focus of competition excellence, that is not necessarily of interest to the average BMC member.
 

At the same time competition management would be unable to deflect resources from the BMC. This would also best represent the wider interests of the BMC who on the whole don’t want to see resources mismanaged, or taken away from other areas. Again this would allow the BMC to focus on the stuff that matters to members, just like yourself who’d probably prefer to see the members funds being spent on access to crags rather than training elite athletes. 
 

In reply to Tod Neil:

When people suggest a split, there often seem to be assumptions about who BMC members are and what they want. 

Pretty much all the competition climbers are BMC members (proportionally speaking I bet they are much more likely to be members than trad climbers, for example). Who gets to say which members count and which don't? 

In reply to RedGeranium:

Isn't it effectively compulsory for competiton climbers to be members?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes, definitely need to be a member to be on any of the squads (e.g. GB, national, regional), and I think you have to be in order to enter a national comp.

In reply to nickg_oxford:

Indeed.  And it's not as funny as it used to be.  Nostalgia isn't what it was either.

T.

In reply to RedGeranium:

Only around 1% of BMC members are competition climbers

In reply to RedGeranium:

Hardly surprising that competition climbers are propotionally more likely to be members then and therefore your comparison of membership uptake is essentially false equivalence and pretty much pointless.

In reply to Tod Neil:

There appears to be a significant number of people calling for splitting the competition aspects off into a separate organisation (difficult to tell how significant because how representative is UKC). However I feel that a lot of that is down to the financial mismanagement, unpopular diversion of funds, and people wanting to avoid any repeat of this and I do wonder how many would be calling for a split if the mismanagement and unpopular diversion had not occurred.

But because the relevant figures haven't been disclosed, we don't actually know the amount of this mismanagement and diversion or all of their causes.

I feel that until we have this information, it's difficult to determine what best to do and therefore potentially premature to consider splitting the BMC up.

Which is why openness and transparency are so important. There is IMO no valid excuse for the relevant financial details not to be disclosed by the board to the membership.

I actually think the governance structure is the wrong way round and it should actually be the Members Council that has primacy and determines the overall strategy with the board being responsible for operationally implementing that strategy.

Unfortunately, this is effectively impossible to implement, largely down to the requirements of the grant funding bodies. But this in itself has been forced by the changing financial regulation environment which has increasingly pressured/required charities and non-profit organisations to have their governance structured more like a PLC with all the attendant disadvantages that such a structure brings.

In reply to FactorXXX:

No, the point is that comp climbers are all members, and yet somehow it's implied they're not real members and can be chucked out by the trad contingent. All climbers are equal, but some climbers are more equal than others?

In reply to RedGeranium:

It seems so but the other way round. Competition climbers have forced a governence structure and taken a share of resources that is overwhelming favourable to them at the expense of ordinary climbers for whom the BMC was set up.

In reply to MG:

I have a lot of sympathy with the financial hit that non-comp members are seeing, but would respectfully point out that comp climbing members have largely been innocent bystanders in it all - the decisions about governance were taken by the BMC as a whole (as Steve W pointed out, we are only 1% of the membership, so how would we force anything?). Comp climbers have no choice but to engage with whatever arrangements are put in place. And yes, a larger share of resources has been spent on/by GB Climbing, but it hasn't been 'taken' by comp climbers, it's been largely wasted. I can assure you that the GBC situation is very very frustrating for comp climbers as well as everyone else!

In reply to Tod Neil:

The BMC and Sport Climbing is a bit like the EU for the UK. A lot of people ideologically did not want it and will never really accept it and will never shut up about it until it splits.
Another lot of people ideologically think its the best thing since sliced bread, and will defend it to the hilt, and if it ever did split, would never shut up about it.

For the vast majority, it is of minor interest other than these regular pantomimes on UKC and I assume on other forums, with the same old characters rather like Widow Twanky and Dicky Whittington reciting their entrenched positions. Its behind you! Oh no its not! Oh yes it is!

Happy New Year and keep up the entertainment, it will stop raining soon enough.

In reply to Godwin:

I think a majority are happy as long as the division of money and other resources is fair and equitable 

In reply to UKB Shark:

and I think you are Buttons

In reply to RedGeranium:

I'd say the wider involvement of BMC members in competitions is a good bit more than 1% of membership. The many thousands entering local fun comps don't need to be BMC members but quite a few involved are. Those volunteers helping YCS comps are usually BMC members. Families and friends supporting comp climbers in other ways don't need to be BMC members but often are. Others enjoying watching the comps on TV or YouTube or in person are often BMC members. I fit most of those categories as a trad climber, boulderer and mountaineer.

Pretty much all comp climbers I know are 'self' funded (ie no subsidy from the BMC) and sadly some have pointed out some changes in GBClimbing arrangements in recent years  led to their costs increasing. Numerous other problems surfaced, that were summarised in a BMC Committee (CCPG) report, which is part of an ongoing process of resolution. Good stakeholder engagement in GB Climbing is essential and to me resolving problems in that are a bigger issue than this obsession on comparative costs. Especially as the BMC stands to benefit more on average on grant support outside GB Climbing than it costs BMC funds to run GB Climbing on average in the next few years, according to what our President pointed out on another thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/new_bmc_ceo-766650?v=1#x98635...

Still, the critics are right that the current financial position needs urgent action on transparency for members in the new year.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Absolutely this. The set up of GBC is clearly wrong; look at the wording of the open letter sent in by those for whose benefit it was supposedly set up.

And if the recent new accounting system implementation was successful, it should be easy to do......it actually wasnt that difficult with the "old" system, but just wasnt done.

Unfortunately not possible. This is how it used to be before all the shenanigans a few years ago with the ORG. The board must have primacy, as it does now, or else the members council could be seen as shadow directors. Shareholders / members bodies can't tell directors what to do. They can only tell them what they would like to see done in terms of the organisational direction; its up to the directors how to do it. If the shareholders / members dont like how its being done, they can replace the directors, but cant dictate strategy or tactics.

At least this brings authority, responsibility and accountability into the right places within an organisation.

In reply to Offwidth:

I know absolutely nothing about BMC finances other than I give them £47/year. Is this contributing towards the £30k approx for the competitions organiser and £25k/year approx for an assistant as recently advertised or is this coming from a GBC grant?

In reply to spenser:

I had to fight my boss and the then President to keep comps going when I was Comps Officer in the '00's

In reply to RedGeranium:

But I bet the vast majority of the 450 people who do the CWIF or the 92 people who did our recent Christmas comp are not BMC members.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

That was well before my time (2018 onwards) but I think it was the right thing to do on your behalf.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Not like you to get into a fight Graeme 😉.