UKC

By dummies: I mean anyone who might want to vote but hasn't got the time or stamina to plough through the vast amounts of vitriol deposited around this subject to work out what is going on (ie me).

I can see two proposals: Tier 3, from the BMC and Tier 1, from the loose association formally known as the MoNC 50

Explanation:

T3: change the BMC constitution so that the BMC conforms to the requirements for Tier 3 funding from Sport England

T1: lesser changes to conform only to Tier 1 from Sport England.

T3 allows the BMC to get more substantial funding from SE and represent the "sport" of climbing at all levels. T1 just allows for small ad-hoc funding for specific projects.

Having looked at the requirements for T1 and T3 from SE I found _nothing_ objectionable in T3 for a national body like the BMC. T1 seemed to be a light touch appropriate for a local tennis club (or something of that scale).

Conclusion:

T3 seemed appropriate to the BMC as a national body and I concluded the T1/T3 argument was about something else.  Since T3 is required to get national level funding and failing to get national level funding would mean that the BMC would (de facto) stop representing the "sport" of climbing at national level and have to be replaced by something else I have to conclude that this is really an argument about whether or not the BMC should represent the "sport" of climbing and all that Olympics stuff. I suspect this is seen about going back to the grass roots of the membership and original purpose of the BMC though.

While I think climbing as a "sport" is a bit daft, was mildly put out by the Olympics and think the Olympics did for the BCU, I do enjoy the odd bouldering world cup and I do think that the BMC should represent climbing as a sport. After all without this (T3) the BMC will be hugely diminished and the alternatives for the sport of climbing look much worse than the BMC.

Is this about right? answers in less than 50 words please!

Think this is very fair and well encapsulates my own views.

I should have said mildly worded answers in less than 50 words please!

Hello and thanks for your analysis!

We've just made an article about the relationship between Sport England Tier 3 and Tier 1. You can read it here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-sport-england-tier-1-3-relationship/ 

Cheers!

Which one renames the club previously known as the BMC as Climb Britain?

Tier 1 or Tier 3?

Are you sure about this bit? The BMC would not "have" to be replaced but it would open up the possibility of some other organisations setting itself up as a governing body and being recognised as such by SE. SE wouldn't necessarily have to accept this other theoretical organisation over the BMC if the BMC wanted to continue to be the representative body in the eyes of SE.

Also, as I understand it the BMC can still apply for funding but not on behalf of its partner organisations which would still be able to apply separately. You have to assume that SE would look on a Tier 1 org less favourably than a Tier 3 org when it comes to giving out money but in the absence of another Tier 3 org in the same space they might still want to support the BMC projects it proposes. 

Is there a T2 option?

It’s worth looking at SE’s communications on this.  Tier 1 is a moot point if the BMC wants SE funding itself, whether on behalf of partners or otherwise.

“The tier decision for an organisation is dependent on a number of factors. These include: amount of funding; length of relationship with the partner; nature of the relationship with the partner and type of organisation. The amount of funding is one factor but certainly not the deciding factor. All of the National Governing Bodies who we’ve previously funded, and who we continue to fund, have been assessed as Tier 3 of the Code, regardless of their size or level of investment.”

Paul Bickerton, Head of Partnership, Sport England in email to the BMC

Unless perhaps, that theoretical organisation existed at tier 3, and then the BMC would have de facto reneged its status

There is a tier 2 option but I think this is an intermediate step to being T3...

T3 contains stuff that you'd expect from a national body, the accounts must be done, there has to be a fairly standard structure for governance etc etc apart from being long winded I didn't find anything odd or unpleasant. T1 was just a foot in the door for small concerns where T3 would drown the cake stall and tombola committee in admin.

No, the linked article indicates that this wouldn't be possible:

"There is no current mechanism for national bodies to allow partners to receive money directly from Sport England. Therefore, if the BMC cannot meet the Tier 3 requirements, our partners’ funding will be at risk."

They might want to, but they wouldn't be *allowed* to fund any projects that are ongoing year to year, pay regular staff salaries, etc. etc..  So, no more clubs officer, I guess ...

But the partner organisations can apply themselves can't they, otherwise why say "at risk" rather than removed? Albeit they may be prejudiced given what JR told us above