UKC

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=262202004

Well, that didn't last very long.

In reply to Ian Munro:

Not so good. Quick, get 'sport soccer' on the case - they can buy up all genuine outdoors related ventures, and educate the masses in burberry hats and addidas trousers...
So how the hell did the centre cost 20 million anyway?!

In reply to O'Sul: Might be visionary but 20million for a climbing centre

In reply to the economist:

seems like everything in Scotland is made over budget and late.......how's the scottish parliament building coming on?

In reply to HOLDZ:

20m does seem an extraordinary amount to invest in a climbing wall, however good it is. I'm sure the enormous Welsh International Climbing wall at Bargoed was made for a mere fraction of that cost, and is consequently completely financially viable.

In reply to HOLDZ:

Yeah did you see grand designs this week? They couldn't even pour a flooring slab the right depth, which cocked the whole job up. Scots eh!!

In reply to Ian Munro:

A great shame if not unexpected.

It would be very sad if the climbing community lost this facility. However my greatest fear is that we will lose access to the quarry itself. I hope the MCofS keep a close on things and make early representations to receivers and potential new owners.

As the link says Ratho is still trading as normal.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

But it's the cost of construction in Scotland, look at the Parliament Building original estimate £40 Million, now looking like being £440!

Perhaps Ratho was only meant to cost £2 million?

In reply to CENSORED:

it was ment to be 4 million.

In reply to Dave Berry: 20 , 4 , 2 million who's counting?

either way 1 million is still a massive amount of cash to spend on a wall. Thats 16 666 customers at £6 a throw excluding matance etc .

at 20 million that 333320 punters before you have even broken even....jesus what were they thinking?

not being clever...I'm going to have to ask, what is recivership? I guess it means that they need somebody with enough money to pay off the debt?!? am I correct?

d

In reply to Daniel Duerden:

Looks like the new rock shoes I bought are going to last longer than the wall!!!

Seriously, up here we all thought it was a bit shaky. I bought a 6 month membership thinking it would at least last 6 months.

Like everyone is saying, a venue would struggle to bring in £20m+, looked difficult from the outset. But I bet some capitalist, somewhere alone the line, has made money from this fiasco.

In reply to Daniel Duerden: Hired by the bank or in some cases a debtor. They go in and decide how best to re-coup the losses the buisness has incured. This can be by a number of methods including selling it as a going concern, breaking the thing down in to smaller lots and punting it off, closing the buisness and selling off the actual hardware or in some rare cases running the buisness themselves possibly until a buyer is found.

In reply to everybody: I hope you all realise that 20m was not just for the climbing arena, it was for the offices and buildings, accomodation, gym, restaurant and bar, judo facility, Deep Blue Scuba, bike trails, spa and health area, SkyRide, cafe etc...

In reply to User of Ratho:

the contractors i'd assume

even if the cash went to builing cafes, restaurant biking etc as well as the climbing, it's still at least £19,500,000 more than a regular climbing wall, like warrington, rochdale, leeds (...just a guess at the figure)

In reply to Ian Munro:

I know it said it's still trading but does that mean it's still open for buisness as normal? as I'm due to climb there this Thursday.

If it's closing do we get our membership money back as well?

John M

In reply to John M:

Even their web sites died so I can't check if it's open as usual.

Has anyone climbed there today?

John M

In reply to John M:I'm going tomorrow.

In reply to John M: Yep, it will still be open. The Receivers will trade it and try to sell it as a going concern. A business is usually worth much more as a going concern. What alternative uses would there be for the building? I can't imagine that climbing wall infrastructure has much value if not sold in place, as the removal costs would be astronomical.

The place will have been unable to meet the finance costs on development costs of £20 million. Anyone buying from a receiver will be buying just the assets, they will be able to start again from a much sounder financial position.

In reply to phil sykes:



As one of the three partners at Alien Rock (Edinburghs original and continuously successful climbing centre) for ten years AND having just appeared on the first Grand Designs filmed in Scotland only a few weeks ago I think that your inference that the Scots are inept is pretty insulting.

In reply to reuben:

Yeah, but it was quite funny! Anyway, how will this affect you? Glad for less competition, or did Ratho encourage climbers south of the border to head north?

In reply to reuben: You could just quote Wembley or the Dome to show that ineptitude does not recognise borders.

Just for fun....what would it cost (to the nearest million) to do Alien Rock from scratch at today's prices?

their website is still up:

http://ratho.ezoneinteractive.net/

In reply to Richard Bradley:

Assuming you had a building and three people to graft hard for a year or two then substantially less than one million. The trouble is in Edinburgh there are precious few buildings that would be suitable so new build would (realistically) be the only way, and that ,of course, isnt a cheap option where land is currently going for anything up to £3 million an acre for housing.

In reply to O'Sul

Ratho did have an effect but not to the extent that we initially feared. We are watching the outcome of the receiver with interest - whoever does acquire the site will have all the financial problems to resolve, knowing that the initial visitor figures which were expected were extremely over optimistic, something that was quite clear to us but presumably not the bank.

Despite the undoubted quality of the building it does go to prove that as all estate agents will tell you the three most important things are "location,location,location"

In reply to reuben:


I think it is true to say that it is BUILDERS generally, not Scots, who can be pretty inept. Builders aren't renowned for their great intelligence (as a whole - of course there are some bright ones).

You did the sensible thing Reubens and built it all yourself! And didn't hire my brother as architect.....!

In reply to Ian Munro:

The more I think about this the stranger it seems.

For the receivers to be called in this early must(?) mean that their cash flow is much much less than planned for but any night I've been there the car park has been full and there's very little space on the leading wall. In fact the climbing wall is as busy as one would expect.

The gym only opened a few weeks ago so it seems unreasonable for it to start generating a substantial income immediately. I really do wonder where the backers thought the revenue was going to come from?

In reply to Dave Berry: It's a great centre that needs time to build up its customer base. Just because the receivers are in doesn't mean its dead and buried. rally round and save a trulely magnifiecient facility.

I went round the place on one of their 'sales' tours in September last year.

I was with an architect and one thing he said stuck with me, that was that the only other building he'd seen recently that was using such expensive materials was the Scottish Parliament building and it was a project that didn't need to worry about paying its way!

In his opinion some of it could have been done with less cost.

In reply to Brian Henry:

Seconded

Though....
Someone said it before Location Location Loctaion....no one in there right mind from south of the border are going to travel this far north to just go indoor climbing!

Even if it was based in Northern England it would probaly struggle to make a profit...£20million was way to much to spend on the complex. ( I say Northern England would of been better to situate it as climbers from Scotland,N.Wales,N.England have got easy access probaly the vast majority of UK climbers are based in these areas. Being in Scotland isolates it from the Vast majority of English and Welsh climbers).

I personaly feel it's never going to gain enough paying customers regularly to make a profit being where it is.

In reply to reuben: Three Million would not be far off my guess for what you would need to buy Ratho. Anyone got bank backing for that?

In reply to Anonymous: Anyone with access to the trading figures to date will easily be able to work out how much to bid to the receivers for the business, leaving something left over for profit. If the receivers want more it will have to be as something other than a wall.

is BICC still being heald there

In reply to stew the bean:
either way 1 million is still a massive amount of cash to spend on a wall. Thats 16 666 customers at £6 a throw excluding matance etc .

About five years ago i heared that the foundry had 30000 members,so maybe it isn't that unrealistic long term? Or maybe it is it's a while since i've done maths.It sems a bit soon for things to be going wrong though.

Tim

In reply to Timmd:

100 climbers per day every day of the year (pushing it a bit during the summer) = 36500.

36500 X £7 = ~£250000 pa from the climbing wall.

Assume 4 staff X £10.00 per hour (very cheap if you consider the O'heads) = £40 per hour X 12 hours per day = ~£500 per day X 365 days a year = ~£180000

Surplus = ~£70 000.

Then pay for electricity, council tax, VAT etc., etc.,

Then think about paying off £20 million.

In reply to Timmd:

That may well be, but I can't believe that Edinburgh has anything like the density and catchment area of climbers as Sheffield.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

people in glasgow regularly talk about travelling to go and use ratho. i dont know how many actually go. i think due to scotlands increment weather a higher proportion of climbers in central scotland will only climb indoors, and many may be willing to travel to ratho.

In reply to Ian Munro:

I assume the BUSA competition is still going ahead?

In reply to Ian Munro:
Possible solutions:

1.The Govt./Taxpayer as a public resource
2.Benevolent climbing philanthropic billionaire
3.Scottish climbers save the wall charity?
4.It all goes tits up

Point to ponder:-
Scenario, Ratho struggled on for a year slowly eroding the custom of Glasgow, Alien and Dundee, who all had to shut down through lack of business.Due to the economics of a big out of town Climbing/Adventure centre being different to that of Toys 'R' Us,Eventually they also had to close down as they couldn't get the 958 persons a day required to break even. Outcome no Indoor climbing in Central Scotland.

Furthermore if every Climber who Climbed at Glasgow Alien and Dundee on a Busy night in February went along to Ratho instead that would be 450 Persons, far short of the 958 visits they say they require every single day. That means there must be a heck of a lot of Scuba divers, Mountain Bikers (Tracks still to be built),Adventure runners!! etc.
Don,t Mountain Bikers and Adventure Runners use real hills and Mountains, Britains Premier Mountain Bike Centre, Glentress is only half an hour down the road.

In reply to Ian Munro:
Really can't see Ratho closing. It's a great long term investment for anyone who can spare the short-term cash flow. The potential for the place is massive. Buying it from the receivers will give anyone a good deal, and an almost established trading business at the same time.

It strikes me that the original investors were a little short-sighted. An enterprise of this size shouldn't have been expected to break even so soon. Looks like it could have done with a little more backing...

In reply to Removed User:

You forgot insurance.

what is BUSA

In reply to SteveatA:

Wouldn't matter how many mountain bikers or 'adventure runners' went, they couldn't actually charge them for access.

I'm a runner(up the hills mainly) but I've no idea what an 'adventure runner' is and certainly wouldn't forgo a run up the hills for several circuits round Ratho! I saw the plans for the bike stuff and knowing who was doing it, it might have been worth a visit or two, very different in nature to Glentress(which might be the best Centre but not the best biking).

In reply to Removed User:
what everyone is forgetting while calculating these figures for paying 20 million off is that ratho is not only a climbing centre; a lot of the money coming through the doors is(or will be)from conferences, product launches, the rental of retail space and other non-climbing activities - a lot when apparently one product launch can net about 4 grand a day!
I think it is a real shame that the guys who had the original dream of ratho will no longer own it, but i dont think it will close down - the hard bit of the work has been done in building the thing, and I'm guessing it will be bought over and run by the new owners - i mean what else can you do with it?!
kate

In reply to standrewskate: If the hard work has all been done and it is such a viable proposition how come it's in recievership within 3 months of opening? You'd think they would hang on to reap the rewards!!

In reply to Anonymous:


Given that Ratho is the home of the National Rock Climbing Centre for Scotland, and the National Judo Academy for JudoScotland, to have located it anywhere in England might have been controversial to say the least!

As for the actual location, I'm not sure that's a major cause of the problems they've experienced. It's less than five minutes from the junction between the M8 and the M9, so getting there by car from most of the Central Belt is very straightforward. I reckon it's easier to drive to Ratho from pretty much anywhere outside of Edinburgh than Alien Rock is. Unfortunately that is the only realistic way to get there: as has been previously observed, there are no buses or any other form of public transport, and cycling along the canal towpath on a dark winter evening can't be much fun.

That could be one reason why Alien Rock hasn't been affected as much as they might have feared. At least for the Edinburgh-based weekday evening clientele, it's as easy to travel across town by car, bike or bus to AR as it is to struggle out to Ratho amongst the commuting hordes. I've not noticed AR being significantly less busy since Ratho opened, although I'm sure Reuben could give us some more details if he went through his visitor logs.

I know one guy who lives out near Falkirk and works in central Edinburgh. It's easier for him to take the train home after work and then drive back to Ratho, than it used to be for him to take the bus from the office to AR and then have to bus and train it home at the end of the evening.

I would expect Ratho to experience a significant downturn in climbing visitors as we move through spring and summer, because remarkable as it may seem to Mr Robertsonnotloggedin, we do go climbing outdoors quite a lot up here!

I think the main problem with the place was that it cost too much to build, and the money doesn't always seem to have been spent wisely. The hurricane-force hand dryers in the changing rooms for example - what's the point of those? And the bar which seems to have been designed more like a trendy Edinburgh night-spot than a place for climbers to hang out and have a beer.

Having said all that, I do quite like the place and I hope someone manages to keep it operating, and providing pretty much the facilities originally intended. (I'm sure Deep Blue Scuba feel the same way, as I understand they've been practically homeless waiting for their facility there to be finished!) One thing that might come out of the current insolvency/receivership might be a renegotiation of the debt so that there is a realistic chance of the business being able to service it.

In reply to SteveatA: good point... guessing it is because not all the retail units are leased, and things like the scuba place are not open yet; but i really dont know!i also guess the bank or someone has the final say as to when they pull the plug, not the people who borrowed all the money to start with? (this is all guess tho)can anyone explain to me what exactly recievership is anyway?! kate

We flew up the south west of england to climb at Ratho. It was a good experience and I am sad to hear that it is already in financial trouble; with regard to the cost I can't comment but they have done a good job.

In reply to Ian Munro:
Just been at Ratho today with my kids - managed to save the place from the receivers just by paying in for a couple of hours climbing. £40 to get in plus hire shoes and harnesses for two ten year olds. Agree Ratho is great to look at but I won't be going regularly at that kind of money (plus the petrol from Glasgow). I suspect the local walls, certainly in Glasgow, don't have a lot to worry about.

In reply to SteveatA:

The fact that it's in receivership doesn't mean that the business case didn't stand up, that the location was wrong, or even that too much money was spent (just too much of the banks). As people have pointed out, it's only been open for 3 months which is obviously too short a time for anything to have been proved. As of last week its sales targets were being met. It was the financial structuring wot done for it rather than the the business case. As everyone knows, the centre was overbudget and late in opening. This put the business plan under strain and meant that the developers had to ask for more finance in order to meet the centre's operating cash flow requirements. However, instead of extending the finance to allow the centre to keep trading, the bank bottled it and made the decision to call in the receivers, in effect knocking out the shareholder and other creditors. The bank strung the developers along with the impression that finance would be given and when the truth was revealed, gave no time for it to be found from other sources. Who knows whether there were ulterior motives, but the centre is now owned by them. What happens to it next will depend on who if anyone buys it. In the meantime, it'll be business as usual and the best chance for it to remain as is, is if people keep on going.

In reply to Martin W:
"remarkable as it may seem to Mr Robertsonnotloggedin, we do go climbing outdoors quite a lot up here! "

i know we do. i live up here. it rains a lot doesnt it. id still rather take the train to auchinstarry than try and organise someone to give me a lift to ratho, even if i thought it was going to be a bit damp

another thing i didnt think of is that a lot of people i know who climb mainly inside do so because they have no transport to crags. no transport to crags means no transport to ratho.

In reply to Ian Munro: I went on sat and the news was filtering down to the shop floor. daft really, cos it is the best sports crag in Britain!

In reply to reuben: Also the link between the nat Gallery & the RSA in edinburgh is set to open 1 year ahead of schedule & under budget - not often that happens anywhere. I can imagine that firm will be in demand for some time

I just spent the entire weekend at Ratho and travelled up from London to do it! That's how big the catchment area is...

It is a superb venue and has a lot more to offer than climbing alone. If I had the finances, I would be very interested in taking it over.

I urge anyone who has a spare weekend to go up there and climb - you won't be disappointed.

And I think it'll be around for a while...

In reply to gdjkeglv:

I wouldnt travel that far to go climbing indoors, and doubtb many would!

In reply to Removed User:

We're talking about a bank here. They're not exactly renowned for taking the long term view.

In reply to Ian Munro: Went to ratho this week end, it was only my 4th visit since it opened, and the first time in daylight. actually being able to see shows how much work is still in progress (or not as the case may be).

We cycled there from edinburgh along the canal. It was a nice day out. At the moment there is no access from the tow path, unless you want to scramble up the bank (what us!). When we asked about this we were told that one is planned, but that you need to pay Brit water ways for access. Bike racks are also planned for the future. On our last visit we talked to the operations manager, who said that they were aware how much still needed doing but that cost was a big issue.

Ratho is no doubt impressive, but if you don't want to drive then impractical for evenings. I just bought monthly membership for AR, cos its close and i can get there on my bike.

In reply to jmacewan: here here. oak doors and flat stone walls. stainless steel etc. every other wall I've been to is 'bob a job' plaster board etc. the reason being I assume is that they are also appealling to the fitness suite types and the conference market etc. all of which demand a plush product in a quality setting i.e. Ratho!

I have no doubt it will remain and there is a hint of suspicion that the plug has been pulled so soon as the bank allowed the debts to increase and must have invisaged the centre as being a viable, long term facility. My business acumen is limited to suspicion.

Re. Poor quality builders- anybody with a brain would get into building if they could as there is huge amounts of money to be made by being both good and reliable. however a university carrer is clean and requires less initiative and brawn. I'm not a builder.

In reply to alrobertsonnotloggedin:


Having moved up from London six years ago, I find the rain in Scotland is a refreshing change from the aqueous suspension of exhaust particulates which passes for precipitation in the Great Wen.

Certainly, though, the Met Office average weather stats do support your assertion: on average Scotland experienced 43.5 more days each year with rainfall >= 1mm, compared to Northern England.


Well at least the rain might keep the neds indoors, but I can't think of much else that would encourage me to go there on a wet day. Can we agree to differ on the delights or otherwise of Auchinstarry?


Indeed. I think it's easier (as in possible) to get to Aberdour by public transport than it is to Ratho, and IMHO Aberdour is preferable. IIRC my second ever outdoor climbing trip involved seconding VDiffs on the Hawkcraig in big boots in the pouring rain on a freezing day in June!

In reply to Timmd: Timm you wee prick, have you ever been to the facility and seen what it has to offer? It is apparent that you have no concept of business, the centre has 5,000 REGULAR users and many more come from all over the country to take advantage of this WORLD LEADING facility. It was never assumed that the ACR would cover all outgoings in the first year, as it is with any other new business venture.

In reply to Slamb:

Bit of a harsh response Slamb, though admittedly the post by Timm was hardly the most illuminating I've ever read (sorry).

Where precisely do YOUR figures of 5000 regular users come from? And over what timescale are they 'regular'?

From the figures that Ratho release they need 958 'visits' per day, assuming 365.25 days a year, so let's call it 1000 'visits' a day.

It is not explicit in what a visit is, though I would presume it is one use of one facility by one person (be it adult or child, with the vast majority being adults).

This was an incredibly high estimate (more like a 'guess-timate'), despite the fact Ratho hosts a World Class climbing centre, amongst many (some not yet opened) other activities.

The main problem was the astronomical cost of construction, it lost focus and became far too grandiose. £20m is a very long term investment, though it should be pointed out that £10m of that is the bank's money.

Regards to other peoples posts:

BICC's will be on.
BUSA is British Universities Sports Association, referring to the BUSA Bouldering comp. this Sat. which will be running.

In reply to Ian Munro:

Ratho is not closing, sorry Alien. With reguards to above messages, the ACR is making large profits through its conference, bar, restuarant, skyride, gym and of course climbing facilities. Unfortunatly because of growing construction prices and a set back in the scedule this knocked up the debt. For members and you punters recievership is a good move, the money will now be available to finish off the facilities to the standard first proposed, no cutting corners!

Hopefully see you out here soon, you need to see it before you can slag it! If you come out you will understand why Ratho was chosen for the site for the project. Unique and very beautiful. Get your ass out here, this is a good thing for Scotland.

Jen and Al

In reply to Ian Munro:

Isn't the big question when the ice factor is going to follow Ratho into receivership?

I heard that Ratho needed 100k visitors each year, and IF 50k.

50k visitors to a place well off the beaten track with no major centres of population nearby is a very ambitious target...

HJ

In reply to Hugh Jardon:>
Aye, it's miles frae Embra...

In reply to WeeJenny:


As I noted previously, Ratho doesn't seem to have made much of a dent in Alien Rock's clientele - at least not judging by the continuing crowds on weekday evenings (which must be there highest revenue earners).


I think you must mean revenues, not profits as otherwise why would the receivers be involved?


It sounds like you know something about the shenanigans going on with the money men. Care to enlighten us?

I don't expect Ratho to close its doors any time soon, but it's possible it could mutate in to something a bit different. Worst case scenario: the climbing wall is closed down (eg insurance costs too high, doesn't fit with the use of the rest of the building, Arts Council/lottery funding available to turn it in to a dedicated performance space), the rest of the development is turned in to a posh conference centre, the quarry area is landscaped and closed to climbing with security guards to keep out intruders. Best: climbing indoors and in the quarry both continue largely unaffected, and decent public transport facilities are provided (oh, and they sort out that dreadful car park while they're at it too!)

I shall watch with interest, and continue to visit occasionally.

so, they had a big idea, the plans got out of hand - but the place is fantastic, i recommend anyone to go stand on the arena floor and look at the walls surrounding them. sure they have had problems, probably far too many then they deserved, but its still open and it will close unless we support it. its far too early to call it dead and buried.

i have been, and feel no one can comment unless they have. i met a great family who were hoping to start climbing, and were really excited about the opportunity now on their doorstep to get involved in adventure sports, something they may not have thought about before.

i think its a great place for climbers and sport freaks to train, and the way it positions adventure sport in the community in a different accessible way. i think we should be supporting it, rather than making rude comments without facts.

In reply to Nigel Pexton:


The only problem the local wall in Glasgow has as far as I'm concerned is too many people and not enough wall.

I've been to Ratho once and was very impressed by the place. Main problem is that it's too far away and not exactly cheap. I reckon on sunday I spent less on a full day's winter climbing on the Ben than I would have spent on petrol and admission to Ratho.

The real shame is that so much was spent building a flagship project that the majority of central belt, never mind scottish of british climbers find inaccessible and expensive. Several smaller walls would undoubtedly have been cheaper, of more use to climbers and ironically more profitable.

Isn't hindsight great?

In reply to iain-mc:

>the way it positions adventure sport in the community in a different accessible way. i think we should be supporting it,

Dear God. Please tell me you're kidding. The last thing any climber should be doing is supporting the positioning of adventure sport in the community at all, let alone in a different and (God help us) accessible way.

In reply to Ian Munro:

It seems to me that climbers are never happy. Even when a fantastic new facility opens in easy reach (ie within 45 mins) of the majority of the population of Scotland, still folk aren't happy.

Ratho was not built to replace outdoors climbing. It is just another indoor facility available for climbers, so the comments from some about prefering to climb at Aberdour, Auchinstarry or wherever are just irrelevant. We all would prefer to climb outside, but given that we have long winters of short day light, and heaps of wet summer days, its good to have somewhere else to go.

Anyone who has been to Alien Rock or Glasgow on a busy night will know how frustrating it is climibing in a crowd. Waiting for routes to free up, climing right next to others. Not fun. Ratho was another option, like Hadrian's Wall before it closed.

The fact that it lacked public transport was an issue, but how many climbers rely on the bus, train or bike to get to their outdoors climbs? If you have a car, then getting to Ratho was no problem. I was there last Thursday night and the carpark was nearly full, so clearly some folk managed to get there OK.

Basically all climbing centres have their faults. Ratho lacks belay ledges for instance, AR is too small, Glasgow has too many high rated climbs (for a late starter like me), Hadrian's was cheap looking. The Ice Factor is out of the way. However, given that these places are all designed as alternatives to those perfect days on the real stuff, surely all climbers should embrace the climbing centres, not bitch about them. What else are you going to do on a wet evening in January if all the centres close? Bitch about what a shame it is that Ratho closed?

I don't doubt that Ratho has its problems.

It has probably hurt itself most by charging such high admission prices. I used to climb every week at either AR, Hadrian's or Glasgow. A fiver is affordable. £7 a climb or the monthly fee is getting a bit steep though. I tend to go only once every couple of weeks now.

The ACR also should have concentrated on getting the climbing centre some heating. Anyone who has used the place will know how cold it gets.

The kids classes weren't great and the cafe is never open at times to suit users. The car park is a mess, and the general feel of the place is that its half-complete. Perhaps the vision of the adventure centre - climbing, scuba, mountain-bike, judo, gym, shops, hotel, eating and drinking - became a bit grand.

However,as an indoor-climbing centre, it is worth using whilst you can.

In reply to Arabs:

>>It seems to me that climbers are never happy.

Good point. New thread.

In reply to Arabs:


I'm happy, apart from the fact that a friend of mine works at Ratho and her future employment status may be affected by the receivership.


I was simply trying to make the point that just because it's cold and wet, that doesn't mean that you have to head indoors to climb. I sometimes wonder what Scottish climbers did before climbing walls came along. If you read WH Murray you can find the answer: the keen ones climbed the hardest route on the mountain!

Lack of daylight is a rather different issue, I grant you. It is handy to have a place to climb on dark winter evenings. In the absence of indoor walls I guess we'd just have to make sure we made best use of the weekends - which might mean heading out in the cold and wet. But then we are supposed to be rugged climbers, not sofa-bound softies!


No arguments with that.


Agreed, and not an insignificant one to my mind.


Agreed again. To say that "the majority of central belt...climbers find [Ratho] inaccessible" as the real dr gav does is stretching belief rather. The place is less than five minutes from the junction of the two main motorways in the central belt FFS. (I reckon it's about a five minute taxi ride from Edinburgh Airport as well, for those travelling from further afield.)

I reckon that location also makes it an easier bail-out option than Alien Rock if the weather does drive you off the crag (with possible exceptions of those accessed down the A1).


Go for a run? Sharpen my ice axes? Go down the pub with my mates? Cuddle up in front of the fire/telly/game of Scrabble with the missus? There are things in life other than climbing if circumstances aren't favourable.


Alien Rock has upped its non-concession/non-members midweek admission to £6 now. Ratho's only a quid more, for a lot more climbing (length as well as choice of routes).


I imagine that would have made the running costs even higher. It's big space and that roof can't provide much useful insulation. I think you'll have to get used to climbing in your fleece and belaying with gloves on. Hey, it's almost like being outdoors - especially when the condensation drips from the roof girders...


Completely agree. I don't mind it being unsurfaced, but the knee-level lighting is downright confusing.


I got the impression that they needed to include those other elements in order to improve the revenue forecast and secure the funding.


Agree.

In reply to Ian Munro:

If I were to go on a trip to Scotland climbing, I think I'd sooner sample the delights of the real stuff, and pay no extra.

So that means that unless I'm not like others, that Ratho is looking at the population of Edinburgh and Glasgow and all those in between to keep it running.

I bet the walls in london aren't making that sort of turnover, and they're in a desperately heavily populated area.

In reply to Richard Bradley: In my humble opinion, Ratho and Alian Rock are non comparable. Ratho is very cool and the shapes and angles are very crag like- Alain rock is a strange affair.... I do think that the Grand Designs appropriation is a good one- not from any Scots standpoint but definately the fact that someone got big eyes and extremely carried away with Ratho! EVERYTHING is designer- no need, they should have just built the place and not worried about whether the glass walls were curved.

In reply to Anonymous:

Absoulutely everything about Ratho would be fine if it was sustainable. It sounds like a fantastic venue and its great that the design has not been compromised but if the price of that vision is a closed centre then its all a waste. I can't believe it was allowed to get to this point without someone going "Hold on maybe we should try saving a bit of cash here". Surely the fact that it was very very late must have indicated that costs would soar. That said, the snow dome at Milton Keynes went bust the day it opened and then reopened and is still open years later. Now the place is up and running the long term prognosis for Ratho is probably very good - and as a resident of Manchester I'm jealous as hell.

In reply to Anonymous:

curved glass?

ooh, now that's given me an idea of the scale of the price!

If you're going to quote prices, I think it should be accurate ie Ratho Full rate £10, Discounted rate £7.
Alien Rock Full rate £6, Discounted rate £5. Just think you should be fair to the guys at AR.

In reply to Jed: Well, it's only cost me £7 each time I've been to Ratho so far - I must be "registered" without being aware of it (I know damn well that I haven't paid £8 for the privilege). But yes, their published prices are indeed £10 for a turn-up-at-the-door punter, vs £6 at Alien Rock. Apologies to anyone who might have been misled.

In reply to Arabs: ratho is there to allow those who have never climbed before a safe friendly enviroment where they can learn the ropes(excuse the pun)of what is an ever expandng sport,and those who do it regularly somewhere to go during those short winter nights and unbearable rainy summer days.a for the cold what do you expect when you participate in what is primarily an outdoor activity,climbing is not a warm sport there if anything it is giving people more preparation for when they go outdoors.in short the buildings amazing the quarry s an awesome ste night or day so my advice to anyone reading is come to ratho and support your national climbing centre and help it become what we all know it is capable of being.....the best!

In reply to Removed User:
Very good you can sit down with a calculator and do some simple math. You did however neglect to take into consideration the revenue from the conference and events facility, sky ride, gym memberships, the rental from tiso, judo scotland and deep blue scuba, not to mention the accommodation and the bar and restaurant!! When you look at the FULL picture it is a far more feasable business proposition.

A bit of support for this amazing facility would help. Lets not be so negative, it took a lot of vision and guts to come up with a totally world class facility!!

In reply to Anonymous:

You southern english prick the world does not revolve around england!

In reply to Slamb:



There are many more climbers in England than Scotland.

Why make the long trip when there are dozens of indoor venues in England.

The weather is also far milder further south, so outdoor climbing is possible for more of the year.

In reply to Ian Munro: 20 Million? Christ that is an insane amount of money to try and recuperate from such a venture. I take it there must have been some unforseen financial problems relating to the site construction along the way as I thought the initial cost was projected at around 3.5m million?

In reply to Slamb:

No, but a business revolves around the ability to make money.

In reply to macfunkster:

My point about the cold is that if Ratho is designed as a facility to open up climbing to the masses, then it would would benefit from having a bit of heating. Everytime I have been almost everyone is swathed in puffer jackets, layers of fleece, wearing hats and gloves.

Experienced or not, the place is like a fridge. Its hard to get going some nights because the holds are so cold. On really bad nights, its not somewhere that I would take a novice as it would put them off for life. Not everyone who goes to indoor walls wants to have the authentic "on the Ben in mid-winter" experience.

I also disagree that Ratho is a place to prepare people for climbing outdoors. If it was there would be belay ledges to allow training in leading and seconding, gear placement, general safety, rescue etc etc. Its a sports and training facility, good for developing fitness and general technique, but not good for developing rounded climbing skills. Hadrian's wall was a much better place for teaching how to climb outside, but it didn't generate the masses to sustain it either.

No climbing wall will ever be as good as the outdoors. I live 4 miles from Aberdour, and come the warmer weather, plan to be a regular there.

In reply to Tyler:


Don't worry Tyler, Rumour has it that there is an unsustainably large climbing wall coming to Manchester soon.

It will probably last long enough to damage the other local walls before it too is taken over by the bank.

Like I suspect will happen at Ratho, the new financers will do what ever is required to get the requisite numbers of punters through the doors. Meanwhile the other local facilities have survived and resisted the temptation to shamelessly promote climbing to the masses. The local walls have also managed to get by without the lottery funding and sports council grants that will subsidies these large facilities.

This kind of funding seems grossly unfair in a free market. I would like to know what level of support the sports council is proposing for the Manchester wall. Presumably as NGB the BMC would also have to sanction such a grant?

How can such moves be in the interests of climbers?

Why do so many people on this thread believe that opening up climbing to the masses is a good thing? This view is shortsighted in the extreme.

If even just a small proportion of those new punters attracted to 'world class' facilities like Ratho and Manchester end up on the natural crags we are in for trouble. Many areas in the peak are already full to ecological bursting point because punters lack the imagination to get themselves off somewhere quieter. I dare say that if you hand climbing to punters on a plate then you will no doubt attract those who cannot be bothered to look beyond the end of their noses.

This pressure on the natural environment will hinder us all. Not least future generations of keen climbers who's routes were polished by half hearted, luke wall, comsumer bred of the old and forgotten plastic climbing era.

Smell the coffee. Climbers do not need these 'world class' facilities that will inevitibly end up 'shamelessly promoting' climbing. Local organic growth it the way to go.

Climbing is for people who decide to climb, not for those who are badgered or tricked into it by a glamourous commercial marketing campaign.

The quicker the powers that be, the BMC and the sports council stop supporting such empire building programs the better.

In reply to Anonymous:

There have been rumours of a large climbing wall coming to Manc since I've been here and not a single thing has ever been substantiated, I'll believe it when I see it.

In reply to Tyler:

You probably will not beleive it when you see it. Such is the grand scale of what is planned.

For the money that this new wall is going to cost... actually for the money that has already been spent on it, you could have several local facilities.

These large big buisness ventures are very bad for climbing in my opinion.

In reply to Salmb:

Yes, Yes

My sums on the climbing wall were to illustrate to an earlier poster that he was incorrect in his guess about revenue from the climbing wall.

I know there are other revenue earners planned. However I doubt the amount of revenue they will raise will be particularily substantial either. Are you aware that 78 people are currently employed there? Would you like to hazard a guess at the wage bill?

There are plenty of gyms and health clubs in city and town centres. I really doubt that many folk will travel out to the middle of nowhere to use it.

The bar is non smoking and as the only access to the centre is by car I don't see it selling huge quantities of beer.

A conference venue might bring in some revenue but I'd still worry about location.

Perhaps you have all the facts and figures at your finger tips and can supply some hard numbers to show me where I'm wrong rather than pointing out in an ill tempered manner what I knew anyway.

If you think I'm negative about the place scroll back up to near the top of thread and see my first post - I'd like the place to succeed. In fact I was there last night donating another seven quid.

You come over like a teeny bopper whose favourite boy band has just split up.

In reply to Anonymous:

Are you able to give more details? Where are you getting your information from as judging by the tone you are not one of the backers.

In reply to Tyler:

Nope I'm not one of the backers! That would make me a charity because there is no way they are going to make their money back! Unless of coarse they deny their ethics and shamelessly promote climbing.

Come to think of it wasn't there something in the BMC rules that Alex published the other day?

a. '…it is inappropriate for the BMC as a representative body to actively seek increased participation in the sport. However some BMC activities may have the effect of attracting individuals to the sport and BMC clubs may wish to advertise for members.'

So why would the BMC back a program that can obviously only succeed finantially if the number of participants is increased?

In reply to reuben:

>>>I think that your inference that the Scots are inept is pretty insulting.

No, no, no - it was *your* inference. It was his implication. Scots eh?!

In reply to Tyler:

Sorry I didn't answer your question! If you keep your ear to the ground in the right places you can find out all sorts of things.

A google a couple of weeks ago revealed a news item on a Manchester commerce site, maybe the chamber of commerce, its gone now though because they must still be keeping things under wraps until they have a concrete location.

Ask your local climbing wall, people in the buisness seem to know more information than just hearsay.

I'm not in the buisness by the way, just a concerned punter.

In reply to Anonymous:

Good post - it sort of somes up the whole elitist / clique argument. Why should anyone else be encouraged to climb - we like it and "they" are different.

Well, I guess that the reason grants and such like are available is that we've got a government which (despite many other failings) is at least trying to encourage a healthier population - "sportscotland is the national agency for sport in Scotland. Working with our partners, our core responsibility is to develop sport and physical recreation in Scotland."

And that also sort of sums up Ratho. What we have is a means of developing physical recreation. Comparisons with AR and outdoor "crags" just aren't valid for many of the actual and target clientele. Go down there and have a look at the car park - count the 4x4's the Subarus WRX's, the Volvos and BMWs - we're talking about a completely different market. Count the number of beginners - ask Tisos how many new harnesses they've sold. Then go down when there are groups of school kids in. I remember when Hillend opened and the schools suddenly had access to this fantastic facility. The same will happen here and in a few years time, the number of climbers will have increased substantially - get used to it.

In reply to Dr U Idh:

No I don't have to get used to it. I pay my BMC membership and I want them to impliment policys that allow for sustainable climbing.

Increasing the numbers of climbers is not sustainable. Why do you thing they have that written into the BMC policies

I do not see it as elitest to not encourage new punters. I am crap for a start. A reason aside from the environmental impact and the conservation pressures is the risk.
Climbing is a risk sport. I would not personally encourage anybody to take up climbing. That my view and also the view of most of my climbing companions. Many climbing wall bred punters have the opposite view. I understand you would have to have personal experience of bereavment to appreciate it. I hope you never do. Broken bodies are a painful sight and not easy to forget.

In reply to Anonymous: What is your view of the 450 climbing walls around the country, the majority of which shamelessly promote climbing.

In reply to graeme alderson:

The local walls I go to are very careful about not promoting climbing. i.e. they do not advertise in the none climbing press, do not post fliers etc. i.e. if you want to take up climbing you have to find them. If they had any other approach I would not go there simple as that.

Ethics above all else.

As BMC climbing wall and competition officer do you have any particular feeling on this. i.e. would you advise a climbing wall against public advertising? Are you happy if they do publically advertise? Do you ever publically advertise competitions? i.e. in places other than the climbing press?

In reply to Anonymous:

It's probably more like they only advertise to an audience where they know they're going to get custom.

What's the point paying high premiums to advertised in the none climbing press when you've got a low hit rate. Pay a similar amount to the climbing press, and you've got 100% hit rate.

In reply to graeme alderson:

I think what you will now see with Ratho and eventually with the new Manchester wall is grand scale public advertising. This will be the only way these large facilities will pay there way, despite the funding from the SC.

High finance has a different ethic to your typical local climbing wall owner come entrupenur. Your local climbing wall owner or syndicate will hold their own ethics regarding promotion, and the ethic of their traditional clientel in higher store than any empire building ambitions.

I predict Ratho and Manchester will be using adverts on the back of busses and full pages in the local rag in order to try and get the numbers through the door. That is a tactic you have never seen any local wall using.

I would prefer we did not have these 'world class' white elephants if that kind of 'shameless promotion of climbing' is what is required to make them viable.

In reply to Al Urker:

Your arguments are assuming that there are enough existing climbers interested in indoor climbing to make these 'white elephants' viable. There are not.

Look at any local climbing wall, easy to get to, moderate to good facilities, nothing fancy, friendly, non corporate, more like a social club. The bread and butter of these places is not the existing climbers but the school, church and scout parties.

More so then with high class venue. and more so then that they will have to be promoted to the general public to make them pay.

That isn't in the interest of existing climbers. It is only in the interest of the empire builders and profiteers.

In reply to Anonymous: In my experience the walls that you go to are very unique if they do not promote climbing at all. Do they not have websites or brochures that mention the climbing wall that might be seen by some unsuspecting member of the public.

Have you never been to any of the bigger walls, and by these I don't just mean the commercial walls, I inlcude numerous council run facilities. If your answer is no then fair enough, you are sticking by your principles.

But if you are saying that you have nothing to do with companies that promote climbing then I take it that you have never owned any North Face kit (nice big posters up at Liverpool airport at the moment) or Karrimor (remember the piccy of John Dunne on the top of the old shack) or the numerous other companies that advertise publically. Or that you have ever owned any of the books about climbing that are on sale in places like Waterstones.

When I talk to people interested in opening new walls I would always advise them that an important part of their market is schools, groups etc.

For national competitions, no I would generally not advertise outside the climbing press as I am only trying to attract competitors. But the host venues are free to advertise as it is the walls that recieve any money from spectators.

The bigger events eg the old Festivals of Climbing at the NIA, yes we did advertise them publically. And the newer events such as the Outdoors Show, yes they are advertised but not by us as the organisers do that.

In reply to Anonymous: Lets have a quick vote from those on this thread. 'Existing' climbers only please.

Would it be in the interests of Manchester based climbers to have an excellent climbing wall in Manchester. Yes or no.

In reply to Al Urker:

I will eat my words... Cathode ray tube and all if I am wrong about this.

Within two year of the Manchester wall opening you will see adverts on Manchester trams and in the Manc evening news. Direct advertising to new punters. It will be the only way they will make ends meet. Likewise for the Ratho only sooner.

Greame do you think that is a bad thing? I would like to hear your answer.

Plastic fanatics may go gooey eyed at the prospect of such facilities but the means by which to make those facilities popular will cost us all dear in the long run.

Likewise Graeme might get an extra couple of lines on his CV regarding some multimillion pound grant application but that doesn't serve the rest of us if, within a decade, it doubles the numbers of punters out on the Peak edges.

What is the true value of plastic? Lets get things into perspective and prioritise with consideration.

In reply to Anonymous: Look at any local climbing wall, easy to get to, moderate to good facilities, nothing fancy, friendly, non corporate, more like a social club. The bread and butter of these places is not the existing climbers but the school, church and scout parties.

Slight contradiction in your argument. Local walls don't advertise yet they are dependant upon group usage. How do the groups find out about the walls, possibly through the local Sport Development unit and advertsing?

In reply to Anonymous: I think that the true value of plastic is demonstrated by the number of existing climbers who regularly use climbing walls. BMC 2000 Member Survey, 84% of members climb, 81% of that 84% regularly use climbing walls.

Also whilst you obviously have some knowledge of the porposals in Manchester you do not know half of the facts about either Manchester or Ratho eg Ratho got less than 5% of its budget from Sport Scotland.

I am not able to say much about things in Manchester at the moment as they are still confidential. But there are 3 big proposals at the moment, only one of which is asking for public money.

In reply to graeme alderson:

Websites and brochures are all 'pull' methods of advertising. You have to request the web page or brochure. Brochures or fliers are not left in doctors waiting rooms or at bus stops.

Newpaper ads and back of bus posters are 'push' methods. They are in the punters face and unavoidable. Those who care about the future of climbing do not use such methods.

The climbing walls I attend do not either. I have made enquiries.

The kit adverts you mentioned are more subtle they are more about lifestyle then actually literally suggesting you get yourself down the wall and try it out. But now you mention it yes I do avoid those overly commercial brands. I would definetly do so if they literally suggested taking up the sport rather than just used it as a lifestyle metaphor.

Shame on the BMC for 'Outdoor welcome Now', Festival of climbing and other publically advertised spectical.

You are effectively breaking the 1986 policy about non promotion I sighted above.

a. '…it is inappropriate for the BMC as a representative body to actively seek increased participation in the sport. However some BMC activities may have the effect of attracting individuals to the sport and BMC clubs may wish to advertise for members.'

If you disagree with that policy you should use your membership vote to attempt to change it.

You should not abuse your officer power and break it. You are an implimentor not an policy formulator.

In reply to graeme alderson:

Likewise you would have to request information from the Sport development unit, or look up the center in a directory of sport facilities.

I am not suggesting that climbing walls hide from punters. That would be absurd. What I am insisting is that they do not directly adverise to new punters with 'push' type advertising. If they do they have crossed a line in my opinion.
There is a clear distinction in these 'push' and 'pull' methods of making your presence know.

Oh course there is also a difference in effectiveness but so be it.

I garentee that the only way that these new mega facilities will pay their way is by direct 'push' advertising.

The BMC should not use these methods for any of their activities. They should also avoid any program or developement that will inevitably end up using 'push' methods.

In reply to graeme alderson:


Please god make one of these happen. If there is one near to Chorlton then I won't bother cluttering up shitty peak crags again.

In reply to Anonymous:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were existing BMC policies in direct or implicit contradiction of each other. For example, the BMC is signed up to equal ops policies. From what I have read from sports england these are designed to stop the various uk sports from being so disproportionately dominated by whites.... a laudable aim. But how the heck would anyone acheive that in climbing without direct promotion of climbing to under-represented groups?

But anyway, climbing walls only stay afloat by getting non-climbers along for birthday parties etc. I'm not convinced that this will necessarily lead to ever increasing numbers on the crags. Plenty of people are perfectly happy just to have a safe play at climbing down a wall, they don't want the real thing, with the attendant dangers.

In reply to Anonymous: I will not answer accusations of abuse of power to someone who is not registered and hides behing anonimity.

In reply to graeme alderson:

But befor you answer that just consider if you will be so happy if your local wall, under commercial pressure, is then only open on short hours or goes under altogether.

Futher consider if it is right that government via an NGB approved grant, directly subsides one facility over an other. Giving that mega facilitiy an unfair advantage in a supposedly free market?

Then start to consider the implications of that mega facility actively seeking to attract new punters. Ratho 1000 visits per day. Then consider if 10% of those new punters are out on the Peak edges next summer.

Then consider having to get a permit to climb, or more probably a permit to park your car. Then consider the Conservationist response to protect resources under increased pressure.

Organic growth with climbing walls has been not too detrimental. Through in a couple of million pounds, bottom line targets and share holders and you are talking mass market big buisness. It is not a good idea.

In reply to graeme alderson:


How convienient. You could at least answer whether you would advise against push methods of advertising.

In reply to Anonymous: How convienient for you that you can hide behiind anonimity, make accussations against people and then just fade away.

Also how convienient that you can ignore facts such as the AGM voted on the BMC Development Plan 2002-2005 which included such things as the English National Centre. The membership made the policy not me.

Bye.

In reply to gingerkate:

Kate you are behind the times the BMC accepted the Sport Council lolly and committed themselves to an equity policy on the following grounds.

Page 8 of the Sports Councils STEP BY STEP GUIDE
TO DEVELOPING YOUR SPORTS EQUITY POLICY" states;

"You should ask yourselves the following questions:
What could we do to pro-actively encourage under-represented groups to take part/join in?"

It does not say you have to actually do anything! The BMC only had to actually ask themselves the question 'What could we do!'

So because the sports council was vague in its implimention notes the BMC took the money from the SC for NGB status, formulated the required equity policy, but not one that actually contradicted the 1986 future policy review policy of not seeking to increase numbers of particapants.

i.e. the BMC does not have a policy that actually impliments directly targeting new punters from any group let alone under represented groups.

It does have noble and proper policy on representing all groups i.e. by not discrimitating, using varied subjects in photographs. But because the sports council were vague in their implimentation guidelines the BMC did not actually have to start promoting climbing to under represented groups in order to hold the mantal of NGB.

The Sports council accepted the arguement that it was improper to encourage people to take up an inherently dangerous sport.

Greame seems to have changed his mind and unilaterally has implimented direct 'push' advertising policies in contravention of the 1986 policy review.

Dear graeme alderson & Anonymous:

Could you please have your debate elsewhere, I want to hear about how useless us Scots are, not what may happen down south.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir: Useless at what, football? thats a given isn't it. You're pretty damn good at make whisky though.

In reply to Anonymous:

Actually I will withdraw that last comment because I don't actually know it was you that used direct advertising for the NIA event and I think the 'Outdoor welcome now' thing was down to somebody who has gone on to 'better things'.

In reply to graeme alderson:

Dear graeme

There are 2 things I can't defend, that is Scotish football and Ratho. I do not drink whisky, so I can't comment on it's quality.

One saving grace with the Tartan Army is they know the team is a joke, whereas with Ratho, I better say no more.

Norrie

PS If you are applying for funds, I have a Scottish address you can use, a 1% fee does not sound unreasonable.

In reply to graeme alderson:

I've not seen that BMC Development Plan 2002-2005 but just found it on BMC website. Will take a look when it is downloaded.

Can you confirmt the current status of that document?

In reply to graeme alderson:

I am not saying that climbing walls are a bad thing. Just that BMC climbing wall policy should do nothing to jeopardise outdoor climbing. In my opinion the big buisness ethics that come with these mega centers will do just that.
Futhermor they will damage the many local ethically moral climbing wall owners and managers. The end result of having a 'worlds class' facility doesn't justify that.

From what I hear the facilities in the north west are more than adequet for those wishing to train at the usual levels.

The only difference that a 'world class' facility will make is to competitions. Do you have any statistics for comps Greame? Spectators, numbers involved. Profit and Loss? I would wager that it is the number of participants is infitessimaly small. This a huge expenditure for a tiny minority. As for spectators most climbers are of the opinon that if the wanted to take a 'passive interest in the exertions of others and work themselves into a patriotic frenzy tehy would stick to watching football on the telly'

Most punters would prefer to see convienient local facilities than 'local facility destroying' mega gyms.

I believe with you have a vested interest in these mega facilities Greame. i.e. for your competition remit. Don't let it get in the way of you better judgement and what is actually best for the majority of punters with no interest in competitions.


5% you say? Ha Ha that still a million quid! You can create a pretty respectable local facility for that much money.


No prises for guessing which proposal the BMC is backing? The one that requires the funding?

In reply to graeme alderson:
The answer is no. Another facility will just saturate the market.Also just attracts more peolpe into an already crowded environment.

Just look at what is happening to healthclubs - everbody piles in on what looks like a good thing - now there are to many leading to contractions. Typical marketing pattern, initiallly cash cows, then everybody leaps onto it, market matures, then collapse or consolidation.

In reply to Anonymous:
>Climbing is for people who decide to climb, not for those who are badgered or tricked into it by a glamourous commercial marketing campaign.

while I can understand your concerns on this issue - who are you to judge who can and cannot be allowed to join the hallowed ranks of "the climbing fraternity".

>The local walls I go to are very careful about not promoting climbing. i.e. they do not advertise in the none climbing press, do not post fliers etc. i.e. if you want to take up climbing you have to find them. If they had any other approach I would not go there simple as that.

I'm not sure which walls you visit, but the reason most walls dont advertise widely is that they cannot afford to do so and consequently hope that reputation, by word of mouth, attracts enough people to pay the bills. The vast majority of privately owned walls may be owned or managed by climbers but if they thought advertising would definately bring them in more money they'd be doing it right now. To assume otherwise is to believe that the climbing world is unaffected by the basic laws of capitalism- pretty unlikely living in this part of the world

In reply to neilh:


The market in Manchester is far from saturated. If any new wall is ever going to be profitable then Manchester would be the place.

In reply to reuben at alien rock,edinburgh:

Who said I judge who joins and who doesn't. What I do is let people make their own mind up. I have never been evasive or obstructive to other in regard to taking up climbing. I just do not actively encourage anybody to do so. That is not judgeing.



You may or may not be alone amoung climing wall owners but the day you started public advertisements would be the day I stop contributint to your facilities.
I am glad you cash flow is limited in that case. A pestulance upon your business if you ever have the credit for such advertising!

I am glad I kept my hobby and vocation seperate.

In reply to Tyler:

I think Manchester would be better served by serveral moderate local centers to supliment those already in place.

In reply to Anonymous:

Then you're a tw*t!

if the climbing wall gets money, by and large it gets reinvested in the facilities.

Remember that a sportscentre can have one person to a machine, and that machines can be crammed in as tight as aesthetics allow, and that people tend to stay for 45 min to 1 hr.

Climbing walls tend not to put an upper limit on time.

Also you can only for safety reasons let so many people climb a wall.

To increase revenue once full, a wall has to build more wall space. If that's possible then that's what they do. If it isn't, then all it can do is raise the entry price, or have other facilities like a shop.

At this point, advertising is pointless as the wall is at capacity.

The only thing it is left to do is try and fill the empty periods with schools, or by lowering prices off peak, where advertising may help.


Also, let's not forget that climbing is now on the national curriculum where possible.

In reply to Anonymous:

Well so far no one has built one so I'll happily take something like Ratho. Besides small walls are a bit of an anathema, if you're going to put leading in it it needs to be at least the size of the Edge in Sheff to be worthwhile

In reply to Al Urker:


For me the end doesn't justify the means.
I do not want better facilities if that means increasing the number of climbers.

The outdoor effects of increasing the number of climbers negates the indoor climbing benifits.

I would happily trade all indoor climbing to prevent a doubleing of the numbers of climbers outdoors. I say that being quite a keen twice a week indoor climber (excluding the summer of coarse).

It is a stark choice but if we go down the road of mega climbing centers with big buisness driving the market I feel it is one we will wish we had taken.

I am happy for climbing walls such as the majority of those already in existance to carry on as they are, most seem to be at least breaking even without drastically shifting the outdoor numbers too badly.

In reply to Anonymous:

I take it you live near real rock then?

I don't.

I need walls.

In reply to Al Urker:

It isn't just a matter of personal convienience. Actually I usually climb at the most inconvienient and consequently quite locations!

What I do realise is that making climbing a mass participation sport will unfavourably change the nature of climbing no matter where you choose to climb.

I can live without walls

I need unhindered, unregulated, non bolted, natural rock.

In reply to Anonymous:
No, the sports council thingie goes deeper than that. The BMC has achieved level something or other...... sorry, not good on remembering the names for these things. And it goes waaaaaay deeper than just not being a bunch of racists..... I emailed the sports council and found out the details. (Anyone want them, email me and I'll forward them).

But anyway, I don't think your premise, that more people having fun climbing days at walls equals more climbers on the crags, holds water. Obviously particpation is on the up, but I reckon it has a natural ceiling, because people aren't daft, and they know it's an inherently dangerous sport. So most people who try it as a lark on a school/firm/party outing will not make the transition to rock. Some will have a day out on rock.... but only those whose hearts are touched by the experience will go on to become climbers as we use the word... and every one of them has as much right to be on the rock as either you or me.

In reply to gingerkate:

Kate have you got an example of the BMC directly promoting climbing to under represented groups?

I don't think you will find a ligitmate example exactly because it would be against the policies as formulated by the 1986 future policy review.

Although obviously there may be exceptions due to the odd errant officer actinb unilateraly and without authority.

The above sports council guidance regarding equity policy was discusses as discribed by the Management committee prior to accepting Sport Council NGB status.

In reply to Anonymous:
No no, I'm not saying they are promoting climbing to anyone. I'm saying they blagged money off the sports council, and I really don't think they are sticking to what the sports council expects.

They have implemented a two-tier membership structure, with upgrading club members paying far less for full individual membership than non-club members. Think of the demographics... I'd be amazed if that two-tier charging system didn't mean that the average black BMC member was paying more for membership than the average white BMC member. And I'm sure the sports council would be distinctly unimpressed by that, because the whole thrust of the document is to challenge that kind of subtle, unwitting, racism, as well as the direct and obvious sort.

But this has nothing to do with your argument!

I'm just saying, don't expect the BMC to know what its policies are and stick to them, because it's far too fluffy and turgid to have any idea, really. And I mean 'the BMC', not 'the officers of the BMC', who all seem to be doing their level best. It's just treacle, what do you expect of treacle?

Sorry, but somewhere along the line I morphed into dennis

In reply to gingerkate:


Kate in the 16 years that I have been climbing I have noticed a massive increase in punterism at the local crags, mostly over the last 5 to 8 years. I ascribe this effect almost entirely to climbing walls. So far the increase is sustainable with limited effect on existing climbers.

The introduction of big buisness, multimillion pound, mega centers is an unbargined for factor that will bring professional promotion methods to what has been hitherto more or less a cottage industry.
You are all undersetimating the effect of well crafted marketing campaign that multimillion pound industries can mount.

"and every one of them has as much right to be on the rock as either you or me"
Kate please let me assure you and everybody else that I would not and have never hindered anybody's right to climb.
On the contary I have been of much assistance to all sorts of people that sought to give it ago.

Let me be clear. That is not the same thing as actively encouraging new climbers throught 'push' marketing campaigns. I am happy that anybody in the UK can now climb if the urge so takes them. I have no desire what so ever to urge them in that direction however. I do not feel that this in unequitable in the slightest. Please explain if you disagree.

In reply to Anonymous:
But Anonymous.... (I wish you had a name, if only an alias, it's silly addressing a person as 'Anonymous')..... But Anonymous, they won't be promoting CLIMBING (as we know it) they will be promoting pissing about on a wall. There won't be any dosh for them in promoting CLIMBING. And I really don't reckon promoting pissing about on a wall will increase the number of climbers beyond the increase we have already seen.

But you may be right, I'm only guessing. Same as you.

In reply to Anonymous:
ps And whilst I am not worried about developments like Xscape (which I assume is the sort of place you mean?) I certainly agree that BMC money shouldn't be used to promote climbing. So if they are planning on doing that, I agree with you, it's not a good idea.

In reply to gingerkate:

I agree. Most policies have been hidden under a vail of obfuscation. I think Poger Rayne was behind much of this.
There was a tendancy not to publish policies so that if you wanted to do something contentious then there were no 'pesky policy' documents to tell you otherwise.

I doubt that most people at area meetings likely to have rolled up their sleeves far enough to have got to grips with rooting out most policies.
The policies should have been published long ago.

Hopefully the publishing of the result of the 1986 future policy review the current future policy effort will help thin out the treacle.

Worth pointing that the price differential between club members and individual members was actually enshrined in the 1986 review. So the BMC were acting constitutionally with last years subscription fiasco. I say that as an individual member. I think you are barking up the wrong tree with the discrimination arguement to club fees. The risk now is that the BMC dienfranchise individual members by charging them too much that they go elsewhere for insureance. As you say a whole different argument.

In reply to Anonymous:

That's why I didn't it further (ie stir it with the sports council). I'm bloody sure I'm right about the demographics, but there's a recognisable and somewhat detestable phenomena of white people using race and equal ops issues for other goals, and I wouldn't want to play that game.

In reply to gingerkate:

Yep I am guessing too, best guess I can make using the previous 16 years as intuition.
I could be wrong but I don't want to risk it. The end just doesn't justify the means.

If its is only messing about on the wall what has it got to do with the BMC? The BMC represent climbers?

As NGB the BMC has to sanction grants from the sports council for things like climbing wall developments. They should only do so where the developements are in the interests of existing climbers.

As I said if 10% of those new punters required to make the Manchester wall viable end up outside then that is quite an increase. Multiply that up by another couple of mega centers across the country and we are in trouble numbers wise. The BMC should be protecting outdoor climbers from the risks associated with big business profiteering. Why risk a detrimental increase in outdoor climbers for the sake of a couple more plastic holds?

My point is that in order to be viable these mega centers like Ratho and the proposed Manchester wall will require a massive increase in numbers, and the marketing campaigns to enable that.

The BMC shouldn't sanction developments that require and increase in participation numbers in order to be viable.

Tells you something about the BMC that whenever anyone with inside knowledge comes on here and criticises it they are always anonymous. The whole culture of the organisation seems to be one of secrecy and intrigue.

i think its a good idea to remind you how difficult it is to make the transition from indoor to outdoor climbing.i am still doggedly trying to make regular outdoor climbing a part of my life having started indoors and it doesnt get easier.

it is nearly a year since i started climbing at ibrox. i have been outside with a qualified instructor once since then, and once this year with a friend. both times to auchinstarry. my climbing activity consists mainly of bouldering at the kelvinhall wall. i have managed to afford one and a half sets of wallnuts to start my rack and a helmet along with all the stuff needed for indoor. i have done a conville winter walking course and that has been the only winter experience ive had.
this is not for a lack of trying. ( the only way i dont help myself is by not utilising the uni mountaineering club)

of at least 7 friends of mine who have tried climbing i am the only one who shows a strong interest in climbing outdoors and only 2 or 3 of us use climbing walls with only me using a wall more than once a week.

this doesnt seem a huge threat to the outdoors to me. although ratho supposedly has a set-up to make the transition from indoor to outdoor climbing easier it has never tempted me. it seems more likely that this would only be a set-up to make the transition more costly.

In reply to Anonymous: As someone who has discovered this discussion by mistake, I must agree with "whats his name" I've been going to the hills for over 30 years and it annoys me when I bump into other people enjoying themselves. I mean to say me and my mates did it the hard way and want the hills to ourselves. Only the other week I did a very popular hill just outside Pitlochry (I wont give you its name, in case anyone else wants to climb it) it was mid week and I met two other people, which did detract from my enjoyment. I would like people to stop writing books and publishing magazine and outdoor shops to stop sell equipment to beginners.
Every time I go to Ratho (How many people who voice their opinion here have actually been there) it annoys me to see
young people whether with their parents (what are they thinking about), school parties or parties from Rugby clubs all enjoying themselves. It should not be encouraged, who knows where it will lead. The climbing wall should only be for experienced climbers like me who can get up all the grade 4 routes after going there for only 3 months. So lets keep the outdoors for only the elite few.
Ps can anyone explain what the BMC is, I've never seen it advertised anywhere.

In reply to alrobertsonnotloggedin: I will happily help you get climbing outdoors more often. E-mail me if you're interested.

In reply to Anonymous:

I can't be bothered to register and I don't need a reply. . .

But for someone so clearly educated I am baffled by you total lack of insight into what you are droning on about.

Fact is Pal, you are living in the past. Climbing in the UK was once a pastime enjoyed by the few. . . now it is not and will only go one way.

Trying to force climbing centres not to advertise and handcuff the BMC and indeed to stop the flow of enterprise is frankly hilarious. Just look to other sports. . . snowboarding - how long did THAT take to become popular? Carp fishing - that baby takes care of over 50% of angling in the UK in short time.

Now, if you had chosen, say, gliding as a hobby then I am sure you would have found something to moan about. . . like forcing the use of open cockpits because you feel participants should feel the air.

The UK is a tiny little lump of earth and rock stuffed full of people who have every right to experience its delights as you are. If you don't like it then don't live here. If its too crowded then move far north or even another lump of earth somewhere. You can't bleat you can't do it because if it meant to you as much as it seems then you could find a way.

Nahh, You are old school. . . old ways. . . old ideals. . . old ideas.

Sure Ratho is too huge. Anyone who knows how to open a business could see that it would have needed more cash and perhaps the scale of project was too large. But hats off to the vision and enterprise that got it there. Imagine the personal endevour to get the job done. Imagine the personal hard earned funds some of them have just pissed up the wall for their vision.

Rant over.

In reply to Ian Munro:

Has any1 else nothiced that although ratho is big the amount of space actully used for climbing isn't massivly big (or mega). The free standing boulders probably provide about the same amount as is avaiable at most large climbing walls. Not sure how may lines they have (?) must be about 80 at most (less when comp wall is offline), but considering how big the space is this isn't that much

In reply to Anonymous: Your prediction is already out of date - I have seen a Ratho advert on the back of a bus.

In reply to es:

You're right, alot of the advertised space that goes into making it 'the biggest climbing wall in the world'is made up of height rather than number of lines. Assuming that - at some point - the rock is bolted, you might get another 8 - 12 permanent lines.

Speaking of which....(Ignoring the issues of effics and the retrobolting the 3 or so lines that were previously outdoors), is the prospect of climbing on rock indoors a major draw/ bonus feature? I quite like the idea of being able to mix it up myself...but someone on this thread identified 'belay ledges' as an important part of any good climbing wall, which certainly wouldn't make my top 100!

In reply to QuarryKid:


I think the height is one of the good things about the place. It makes the "pitch" length much more like decent outdoor routes. You may not get so many routes done in a session, but the routes you do get done are longer, so overall I reckon it works out about the same.

In reply to es:


The bouldering area should increase once they get the cave under the cafe open (if it's not open already - it's a few weeks since I was last there).

In reply to Martin W:>

Apparently this won't open until they get the mats, and they won't get the mats until they can pay for them - all £30k worth! So there may be a bit of a wait.

In reply to Anonymous No 2:
Re Anonymous No 1

Bravo !

In reply to you all:

I visted Ratho for the first time yesterday - these are my general improessions.

1) Overall - Fantanstic facility - absolutely amazing in scope and concept.

2) Very over engineered and over-designed.

3) Superb facility for climbers operating at f7a or harder - so good I am seriously considering flying over from Northern Ireland on Easyjet for evening/day training sessions there.

4) Not very many routes for £20 million (loads of area but not actually many lines) certainly less than the Westway and that gets very crowded with punters/kids/courses. IMHO no way whatsoever to get 1000 climbers there in a day without serious overcrowding.

5) Following on from 4 - It is not really desinged for 'instructing' or 'teaching' climbing - it is far too focused on loads of 20m+ hard staminia routes on the main wall. The climbing wall designs show a decided lack of imagination in this regard, compared to, for example, the military walls at the Joint Services Mountain Training Centre or Hereford - both more focused on 'skills training' and built for only a few £100,000s.

6) I think the best thing about the whole thing is - you now have a nice car park, landscaped approach paths to the routes in the quarry and a stylish bar to drink in afterward following climbing a few trad extremes there! (I think the trad routes there will get more traffic than ever before - so definate scope for a Rockfax miniguide! if you are reading this Alan/Chris)

7) Staff were all very positive and helpful.!

So generally I hope it stays open and I hope to climb there. What it certainly is not (currently), is a blatant attempt to popularise climbing - the wall is definately focused on the ELITE at present. I have to admit that it is focused very upmarket, but I think we have to face facts - climbing is a very middle class pursuit in general. However, I fear the at some point, someone will realize that putting in another 100+ 12m top rope routes and advertising climbing/adventure courses to every school in the Central Belt is almost the only way to seriously recoup the investment.

I am certain the I could recoup the £20 million through encouraging mass participation, get climbing on the school sport syllabus and fill the place with 100 of kids everyday. However, as has been discussed above, this might not be sustainable in other regards....

HTH (or not)

Mark

In reply to Anonymous:


You can come down here and have all the Oxfordshire rock you like, I'm off to the local climbing wall.

In reply to Anonymous:


How can I be living in the past when the 'fact is pal' that I am quoting current BMC policy not past BMC policy. The BMC should not be promoting climbing to anyone because as you will read at
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/pols/existing_policies.htm

"…it is inappropriate for the BMC as a representative body to actively seek increased participation in the sport."

As I stated there are several reasons why this policy was formulated;
1) Limited outdoor climbing resources already under pressure.
2) Climbing is dangerous.

I have no doubt that the current Future Policy Review should and will endorse that existing policy and hopefully should also clarify what activities constitute the promotion of climbing.

Namely 'push' advertising where your methods appear in the face of you prospective clients suggesting participation, rather than prospective market seeking out the means by which to participate for themselves. There is a big difference.

The BMC need not and should not support enterprises or developments where 'push' advertising is the only way by which those enterprises can attract new numbers in viable quantities. Or enterprises that are so obviously bloated at conception that the only way to recoup the investment in the future will be via mass participation.

The BMC has the means by which to influence many of these enterprises because it must give the nod to the Sports council on grants.

You say that the trend to increases numbers is one way but I disagree. NGBs have a great influence on trends through things like sports council grants and guidance etc.

There are several other factors that may limited the trend towards outdoor mass participation.
1) Insureance for groups
2) High profile accidents.

In short efforts to increase numbers of particapants are not sustainable and the BMC should not support enterprises that have to appeal to the mass market in order to be viable.


The BMC is not an enterprise or a profit making enitity. It is responsible to it's executive and members not shareholders. Its policies are not concerned with bottom line profit but with the interests of its members.

Yes the BMC does have to be handcuffed to a degree. It is inevitibable that such organisations can become self-serving and expansive. Not a snipe or a judgement just a statement about how things often can turn out in such organisations.

The interests of BMC members are not served by increasing numbers of particapant climbing. Certainly it may serve certain officers interests if their remit and empire is expanded by bloating numbers of participants.

This must be kept in check by the members. Officers must stick to policies at all times and consult the executive when it doubt.



Sustainable old ideas.


That vision is now going to require mass participation in order to be brought back into profit.
If 'anyone.. [could see that] the scale of the project was too large' then why was this undesireable outcome of mass participation not predicted and challanged?
Or rather only predicted by those you would term, naysayers, old school, in the past etc.

In reply to Pink Spotties:

What does the bus adverts say Pinky?

In reply to Anonymous2:

Wherever you were educated they obviously didn't teach you that not all old ideas are wrong.

In reply to several people, some of whom ought to know better:

Take a deep breath. Close your eyes. Picture the word 'rights'. Now take it, drop it into a black box, turn the key and throw the box into the sea. Now open your eyes and start to type. You may then conceivably have something sensible to say, although on present evidence it doesn't seem very likely.

In reply to Original: Just to be totally pedantic

"The following statements are taken from both the 1976 and the 1986 reviews. The 1976 statements were in effect endorsed by the later review, and therefore these statements represent BMC policy as at 1986."

could be interpretated as being OLD policy bearing in m ind that the Artilces of memorandum were changed in 1993 and that the same document on the web has the following 2 statements as stated objectives.!!

"To provide or promote facilities for climbing, training and instruction.

To sponsor organise and promote climbing competitions and to control climbing competitions in the United Kingdom"

And to finish off: Ratho is in Scotland ie comes under remit of MCofS.

One question though before I stop replying to this thread. Do you ever use Preston wall?

In reply to Original:

I am also saying that a new mega facility in Manchester, an order of mangitude bigger and more expensive than say the Marple wall is not sustainable.

That is it will not be sustainable without 'push' marketing tactics and increased numbers of new participants.

Extrapolating from the existing policy of not attempting to increase the numbers of participants I do not think that the BMC should give their blessing to such an enterprise.

Manchester would be much better served by additional moderate local facilities than by a £5 million pound mega site.

Still you wouldn't have your world class competitions site then would you Greame. That would be a shame for you and the dozen or so serious comp climber. Oh and the 50 or so comp spectators.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:


Sorry John, I may be being extremely thick but I have NO idea what point you are trying to make here. I get the impression that you disagree with some of the posts in this thread, but I've no idea which ones. Honestly, no wind up. Could you possibly clarify?

In reply to Martin W:

All the ones that say that people who don’t climb have just as much right to climb as we do. However true this might be, it’s got very little to do with a debate on whether we ought to encourage them to do so.

In reply to graeme alderson:

You must interpret that statement with due consideration for the 1986 FP review. It is inapproprate to take it out of the context of the rest of the policies.

'…it is inappropriate for the BMC as a representative body to actively seek increased participation in the sport.

You can promote to a target existing audiance without seeking new particicpants.
That is not what is now happening at Ratho and not what will happen when the new Manchester wall is built.


See answer above, That does not include promoting to non participants.

Yep, Ratho is water under the bridge. The main point of my post was in regard to history repeating itself with the manchester development.


No. Is Preston a council run wall. I am cautious with Council facilities because many councils have just the kind of equity policy that I disagree with. i.e. promoting sports, maybe including climbing, to non participating underrepresented groups.

That is also not in line with the 1986 Future policy statement.

Can I ask Greame.

How do you feel about the policy I cited above?

Also how do you fee about the what I posted regarding the way in which the BMC interpreted the sports councils equity policy? I think it was spot on but perhaps you have a different view? Obviously you are entitled to that view as a BMC member, but you are not entitled to use you position as an unelected officer to impliment differing views.

In reply to Mark Stevenson not logged on:

I'd agree with your observation completely. Beginners and low grade climbers would make little impact on the leading wall and the top roping wall is quite unexceptional - AR 1 and Ibrox are far better. I suspect that's one reason why AR 1 and Ibrox have seen little impact on their incomes.

£7.00 is also a lot to shell out for the bouldering. Although good I don't think it's any better than AR 2 but more expensive and harder to get to.

To be honest I don't see a facility such as this putting hordes of poorly motivated bumblies on our crags although I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns expressed.

I see nothing wrong with using a need for iniative and enthusiasm as a way of limiting access to limited resources.

In reply to Mark Stevenson not logged on:

>>Superb facility for climbers operating at f7a or harder

Precious few climbers regularly operating at that level in Scotland. Possibly less per head of popn than England even - less of a cragging (especially sport) focus.

Would have been a darn sight cheaper buying them all a cellar conversion.

In reply to graeme alderson:

Just a minute Greame why in heaven name am I interpreting the Policies of the BMC to an officer of the BMC?!!!!

Go and see your line manager. These things should be as clear as day to each and every officer. You cannot have officers running round in a daze doing what ever they feel like. The policies form the framework for spending our hard earn subscription fees.

In fact can Mr Turnbull respond please on why his officers need to have the policies of the BMC spelled out to them?

It is obvious to anybody that you cannot take one policy out of context from another. The policies are not contradictory. If anything is prompting disclarity it that your own agenda and aspirations seem to be colouring your own interpretation of Policy.

In reply to Al Urker:



I do live miles from any real rock!

In reply to Anonymous:

Opps! I should just clarify that statement. I don't care who promotes other sports to anybody, ever!
It is only the promotion of climbing and mountain sports to new punters that I am concerned with.

While I agree that not all old ideas and views are incorrect in this case the view of holding back the indoor climbing industry IS clearly outdated.

However, taking the points you raise anon 1. . . the BMC is also behind in the times. It is caught between pandering to its long standing members who are trying to hold back the tide and with the new, which is pushing for increased facilities.

In this respect, remember that indoor climbing is new and the nub of the problem is that a proportion of new climbers will transend to ourtdoors.

Your problem is that it will help to overcrowd the outdoor areas and possibly create restrictions - you will just have to accept that market forces will apply and the BMC will have to deal with them.

For a national body NOT to promote its activities is silly. Push or pull advertising is not the issue really and a red herring. The bottom line is that an national body is there to promote its sport of which indoor climbing is a part.

Granted I can feel for ya! But you must know you are flogging a dead horse. As the sport of indoor climbing grows, if the BMC does not ally itself with it it will become less and less important.

I see a time - and in the not too distant future - when a seperate body will be created for indoor climbing because the BMC is not taking it seriously - and that includes being involved with large concerns seeing it for what it is. . . a worthwhile investment in a 'new' and healthy adventure pastime with access to ALL.

Indor climbing IS sustainable - that is proved. Outdoor climbing needs to be looked at afresh as a result. It may be a shame but better it is allowed for now and the future issues dealt with ,then at least the BMC will be able to control it. . . its advertising, its safety, its 'rules', before it is totally out of their hands.

The BMC is indeed a voice for its members. . . a large percentage of them climb indoors, including you. While you may have your opinion so do the rest of the members. . . if you can stem the tide you will have achieved the near impossible. Perhaps your efforts would be better put towards shaping the future rather than holding back the tide?

Back to Ratho. I have no doubt the owners/investors knew the risk. Their vision was for a worldclass centre and that has been achieved. Yes one could argue you could have done 10 good centres for that money and in this respect it was flawed. Yes, I also agree that it was foolish in the extreme to hope for the numbers they require.

But that is not the point you are making. . . your point is basically that you do not want to see your beloved crags busy with punters stopping you enjoy the freedon you currently enjoy and you are trying to stop it in the face of popularity.

There is a choice. Keep to your line and fail in the end - as you know will happen. Or accept the inevitable and help guide it through decent education of its aims, dangers and ethics. . . which is what I believe the BMC should be doing.

We will have to agree to disagree.

In reply to Removed User:

Well put. I cannot see how this approach is not equitable.

If any pals ask me, I will take them climbing, as I have done with probably hundreds of associates. However you will never catch me suggesting to a new punter than they give it a try.

In reply to Anonymous:


Well so long as its not in your back yard its all ok then.

In reply to from anon 2:

I am not talking about holding back the indoor industry. I am talking about keeping it in check with what is sustainible outside.

There are not millions of new punters who wake up in the morning and spontaneously think 'I'll take up climbing today'. The profiteers are not responding to some Volvoest advert primordal desire to go out and buy into a product. The profiteers are creating that demand.

Many of those profiteers would not get off the blocks without sports council funding that the BMC must approve.

What I am saying is that the old trend of cottage industry sized walls kept predominently to ethics and was a sustainable venture.

The recent moves toward hyper commercial facilites, Ratho, Manchester, maybe the X escape thing, are not sustainible ventures. They involve a change of emphasis, from attracting predomiently pre existing climbers toward actively increasing levels of participation and attracting regular new punters.

The BMC in keeping with it's not increaseing numbers ethic shouls steer clear of these new hyper ventures.


I think you will find that the only people pushing for hyper facilities are those who stand to benifit from the profits and grant that enable them.

Many of the prospective clients of these hyper facilities are not yet climbers! They are ignorant of the sport!
Tell me How they could be pushing for increased facilitities.

What climbers need is sustainable and convienient facilities. These hyper sites are neither.

Look at what people are saying about how convienient Ratho is(not!). Likewise a central large hyper center will be expensive to use, inconvienient to get to and will forever eliminate the possibilty of more than adequet smaller local facilities.


Hey? You what? Indoor climbing has been around in its present for for more than 20% of the BMC life time. Actually for more than that if you count the concrete and brick council walls. It is the current trend toward hyper centers that is new.

And deeply flawed.


I do not have to accept the restrictions. The BMC is in a position to heavily influence these enterprises.

If new punters where hammering on the door of the BMC demanding new facilities I would fain agreement. However the participants that the hyper faciliites will support are not even climbers yet! The thought of climbing hasn't even crossed their mind. The idea will be put there when they see and advert on the back of a bus or see a full spread advert in the Newspaper.

That is the crux of it. It is creating demand rather than responding to it. It is empire building.


I doubt the BMC is unique as a nation body in this respect. If the BMC where required to promote climbing as part of its remit from the sports council I would vote that we forget about the trivial amount of money the sports council now gives and drop them altogether.

Consider this, imagine you are the president of the future BMC.
You have printed sexy posters and sunday supplement ads. All bestow how great climbing is, tower spires in the alps climbed with ease etc etc. Lots of new punters take up climbing. Then the public start to question why 100 or more climbers die every year, Why is climbing as great as the posters say? 'it killed my son,father,daughter,sister etc'

Would that rest easy on you concscience? Sleep easy would you? I doubt that you would sleep easy know that you actively encouraged the particiation of some of those new punters.

You would then feel duty bound to invoke measures to make the game safer for the masses, bolts, regulation, certification. Measures that would change the game forever.

reference the following new article;
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=124615&command=d...

Substitute climber for absieler as I'm sure the jounelist has and you will see the future with the increased numbers that you hanker after.


I am not suggesting that the BMC narrow it's flock or not maintain its broad church approach. What it needs to do is stick with the sustainable policies of its members and educate the rest as to why those policies are in place.


I do not believe that outdoor climbing is a sport for all.


I believe we have yet to see the true inpact upon indoor climbing of insureance increases and regulation beurocracy.

The priorities of the BMC should remain focussed on outdoor activities. Indoor concerns should be managed in accordance and with regard to their impact on the outdoor sport.



If there was no outdoor climbing I would have no need for indoor facilities. I suspect that many exisiting climbers feel the same way.

In reply to from anon 2:

Yes, also don't forget the ethical aspects about the risk. i.e. not encourageing punters to take up an inherently risky sport.


It isn't inevitable it is merely politics.


I guess so.

In reply to es:


If you want to term it such then fine. But I don't feel that the reasons I have cited in favour of the existing non expansive policy are selfish.

In reply to Anonymous:


You've been repeating this like a mantra, and the more I think about it the less I believe it. Climbing is by no means alone in being an inherently risky pastime. I'm tempted to argue that more physically demanding activities than not are also inherently risky. For example: skiing and snowboarding all involve moving at speed in the vicinity of obstacles such as trees, rocks and steep drops. Those strike me as being inherent risks. Yet, shockingly, there are companies out there who advertise special holidays for people to actually go and be taught how to do these suicidal things. Even more shockingly, they actually do this with the aim of making a profit.

Would you boycott a riding stable which advertised lessons in the local press? Because horse riding is one of the worst leisure activities for death and serious injury.

Round here Knockhill circuit advertises on billboards and buses. Of course motor sports are inherently risky - it even says so on the spectators' tickets - so that must be evil too. So must all those retailers who sell "Red Letter Days" at race or rally schools.

If a friend came to me and said that they were wanted to find a new pastime which got them out of doors and gave them some healthy exercise then I would have no qualms about suggesting, amongst other options, hillwalking or even climbing, if they I knew they were an adventurous type. Sure, I'd talk about the risks - but to my mind the recognition and management of hazards is part of the skill and the enjoyment of such activities. If that friend really got in to climbing, and was then killed or seriously injured as a result of it then I would not feel responsible for having suggested it if I knew that they had chosen freely to participate.

Last summer I invited a visiting friend to join me on a trip to a local crag. It didn't feel like a heinously immoral act at the time. Do you think it was?

In reply to Martin W:

>>Last summer I invited a visiting friend to join me on a trip to a local crag. It didn't feel like a heinously immoral act at the time. Do you think it was?

Not immoral, more a matter of personal conscience. personally (and it is a personal view, not one I'm 'selling'), if someone asks me about climbing, I'll take them but i wouldn't suggest it/encourage it to someone who hadn't raised it the issue themselves.

In reply to Anonymous:

And my being carless and busy at the weekends, means that the only climbing I get in is visiting the climbing wall.

I couldn't still call myself a climber without one.

I still don't get this "Ratho is difficult to get to" thing. For anyone in the West of Edinburgh (or West of Edinburgh, Leith is a nightmare journey across some of the most congested and poorly surfaced roads in the country. Of course, it IS on a bus route - but then again, the Ratho clientele wouldn't be seen dead on a bus.

As for the "1,000" climbers needed and the lack of wall space, I think it's actually 1,000 visitors. Start counting in the gym, spa, judo, scuba, restauraunt, bikes, running, hostel and corporates and the number looks more realistic.

In reply to Martin W:


For sure there are other dangerous sports that take a different approach. As I stated I am only interested in what is in the best interests of the future of climbing. What other sports impliment as a matter of policy is upto the members of their governing body.

I am stating what I believe to be the BMC's current policy position. It would be unsustainable and be detrimental to the future of climbing if the BMC members decided to eliminate the policy that stands against the BMC directly seeking to increase Participant numbers.

Most inpartial folks, i.e. those without vested interests, who think about it hard enough come to the same conclusion.

many mountaineering clubs also take the same stance, i.e. they do not advertise for members in public places such as libraries or newspapers etc


As an individual that is for your decision to make and one you must live by.
I agree that your choice as an individual may be more discerning than a cereal packet promotion! Your assesment of your friends abilitiy to understand the risk may be a factor.

You might feel differently if you suffered the loss of somebody you encouraged to climb? You may feel like the shorter life they led was more fulfilling for the fact that they climbed? Similarly if somebody you encouraged to climb suffered a permenant injury. Who knows?

I have not suffered these things because I don't encourage anyone to climb! However I do have experience of climbing related bereavment and know that its a struggle to reconcile the two things in your head.
Its not that I ignored the possibilty of loss before the accidents it just that after an accident you awareness is acutely raised. That and many other people, especially family members, feel justified in challanging you about it.

Twould be easy if all accidents were the result of carelessness, you could easy then use the 'would never happen' to me excuse. However few accidents are that simple.
The caused of many accidents are clearly just part of the sport.

Sooner or later most climbers have to face the fact that they could befall the fate as those they have lost.

In reply to Anonymous:

Still no word from Greame?

Greame now that I have explained how the policies that you cited do not contradict each other, can you offer a personal opinion on the

'…it is inappropriate for the BMC as a representative body to actively seek increased participation in the sport.

Policy. Should it stay or should it go, in your opinion?

Does it now get in the way of what you feel your job entails.

How about a whole new topic called "Should the BMC promote climbing?" as this has absolutely nowt to do with Ratho.

In reply to Ian Munro: I think the major issue here lies with the Banks. Witness the stranglehold the banks have on the football clubs in Scotland, yes the football clubs have taken the piss with the banks over the years and now that the banks are 'struggling' to increase their massive annual profits have started a zero tollerance campaign to debtors.
Unfortunately in the UK, MAJOR sporting developments still rely heavily on private sector finance ie from banks. Ratho should be rescued by the Scottish Exec and saved as a non-profit making National adventure sports centre.

I feel for the people who have sacrificed so much in developing Ratho, unfortunately the UK is not the place to get involved in developing any type of visionary world class sports facility.(its a pretty good place for developing military weapons though)

Ratho's local football team (and fellow slaves to the corporate banking system) Livingston recently beat Hibs to win the CIS cup, hopefully thats a good omen for Ratho.

I hope it survives, the somewhat forgotten about post-industrial wasteland of Central Scotland is a better place for having it.

I would exepect that Ratho will simply get refinanced. The banks (or VC's) will put more cash in but take a larger equity stake in the venture to give them a far bigger pay-back in the long-term. The original owners will lose control of the venture etc. You may even find the banks put in new management (or additional financial controls). I doubt it's all over for Ratho. As one who loves well south of the border, I'd love to visit one day.

In reply to EB:
>.

And who'd pay for that exactly?

In reply to Al Urker: can you not read? the Scottish Exec

In reply to EB:

What, out of their own pockets? Like they did for the Parliament?

In reply to Rob Naylor: out of our pockets, Im quite happy paying taxes for decent sports facilites, rather that than on funding aggressive foreign policies

In reply to EB:

Stictly speaking not the Exec - the authority to spend is based on votes of the Scottish Parliament.

Personal view - Ratho = white elephant, classic case of the big capital spend pipe dream with (seemingly) piss poor business planning and dependent on unrealistic income 'expectations' (ie: cross fingers and hope).

Don't want to spend a rusty farthing of my own money on the place, doubt that the 99.9% of Scots who don't climb would think otherwise.

In reply to GFoz: Id be quite happy to pay through my taxes for a World Class Indoor cricket ground, and I detest cricket. In fact id rather pay even more than my current high amount on taxes full stop if it meant reinvestment in public services and sports facilities, Im just back from Norway and that is a perfect example of a high taxed country with amazing public facilities. (however, contrary to popular belief, it isnt much more expensive to live there than here and they get treble the salaries)
Fat chance of convincing the selfish bar stewards in middle England of raising income tax substantially though.

In reply to EB:

What you're ignoring about Norway is the very much greater effect of the oil economy on the country. They have about one fifteenth of the population of the UK and about 4 times the oil and gas reserves. Per capita oil and gas income is many times higher than it is in the UK, and still not plateauing due to developments in the Barents sea.

When I first visited Norway, the oil economy was good, but not fully developed. Then, the living standards were much more comparable with the UK than they are now.

From memory, I think the current per capita income in Norway is about £21,000, about £5000 of this being derived directly from oil & gas. In the UK it's about £14,500 with about £300 from oil and gas. Take away the oil & gas revenues and you have about the same income. That extra £100 per man, woman & child per week to the Norwegians can pay for an awful lot of social services, sports facilities etc.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

Bags a bit of Scottish independence then. How about we get 80% of the remaining oil, with only 8% of the UK population. Wouldn't that mean similar per capita income to Norway? (even after we'd paid for a Parliament building and Ratho!)

In reply to Dr U Idh:

About £2,900...just over half what the Norwegians see from oil & gas.

Add to that their abundance of natural resources, timber, fish (kept safely away from the rapacious nets of the EU) and hydro power, and there'd still be a fair way to go for a stand-alone Scotland.

But then suppose Aberdeenshire decided to secede from Scotland? You'd be boogered

In reply to Dr U Idh:
in the short term you'd be quids in. Of course, once the oil ran out you might have a problem or two.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Dear Simon

Agreed,however, it would be our problem to solve.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:
Just so long as that solution didn't involve coming to us for a hand-out.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Just so long as that solution didn't involve coming to us for a hand-out.

Dear Simon

You miss the point. When we break the shakles and stand on our own, there is no going back. The only hand we will have out is to use it to wave good bye.

Norrie

In reply to EB:

I'd have to say I'm more in tune with McConnel's philosophy that the teh Exec should do less, better.

Maybe when the basics of State provided servcies run with a modicum of effectiveness and Shettleston's life expectancy is higher tha nIraq's , maybe we can starrt thinking about building the EBDrome

In reply to Norrie Muir:
Good luck to you (so long as you don't introduce border controls for English climbers). Though the SNP's talk about 'Independence within Europe' would tend to suggest the possibility of external finance being sought at some stage.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Dear Simon

Could you be more mature, we are not racist, all tourists would be welcome, whither they are climbers or not.

Not all nationalists are supporters of the SNP. I realise you do not fully understand European funding, so I will let you off with the above statement.

Norrie

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Simon, in this and other postings you are displaying the classic symptoms of English-superiority-complex delusion #1 , i.e.

"Scotland, almost uniquely among European nations, would be unable to manage on its own. It has only survived as far as the 21st century thanks to the help of its magnamimous southern neighbour, England."

In reply to Rob Naylor: the oil is a fundamental part of norways economy, YES. but whats your point?

The UK is the 3rd richest economy in the WHOLE world, Norway is no where near it.

The issue lies in the distribution of the UK's immense wealth.


RE the scottish independence and oil discussion, what people forget is that the oil is in UK/international waters, not Scottish waters, do people not remember the ridiculous debacle thingy mi jig Ewing got herself into when she started ranting about scotlands oil in the 70's?

the only benefit to scotland of the oil industry is the fact its the closest piece of coast (shetland, Aberdeen) to the UK sector and related oil service sector employment. Again, its to do with distribution of wealth, the majority of the oil revenue goes to multinational corporations who have no ethical or econcomical tie to any 1 country.

In reply to DougG:

Dear Doug

Do not mention other countries that broke away from E******, including the USA, Canada, Ireland. I do believe certain un-enlightened people still think they are failures.

One can't convince the deluded.

Norrie

In reply to EB:

My point is your apparent failure to understand the difference between GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and Per Capita Income. The UK does indeed have a much larger GDP that Norway, but the larger cake has to be sliced into much smaller slices due to the much higher population.

The point is that Norway's oil wealth allows for about £100 extra per week per man woman and child to be spent on provision of services that wouldn't be possible if it wasn't there. In the UK it's about £6 extra per week.

In reply to EB:

It has repeatedly been shown and proven ( in the UK and other countries)that if you tax to death high eareners all they do is waltzx off to somewhere where they pay less or they shelter themselves in tax avoidance schemes. The net effect is that the tax burden goes up for everybody else.

Again it has been proven that more tax is earned by lowering the rates, because more people will pay it if they consider it equitable and reasonable.

What you do have to have is a strong economy

In reply to neilh:

Dear Neil

You bring back memories of the late 1970's and early 1980's. Yes, it will be a strong econony, however, with our present Politicians there is insufficient wealfare provision to assist those who are not high earners.

At least Maggie looked after the poor and allowed us to go climbing.

Norrie

In reply to Rob Naylor: I understand fully actually,


so what your saying is, If the UK was in Norways shoes and had an extra oil-related £100 per week per person to spend on provision of services then it would?

I doubt it would, I very much think the windfall would go 'somewhere' else

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Of course I understand it. As do the Spanish, who make excellent use of it. As will, I expect, the Scots.

In reply to EB:
I doubt it would, I very much think the windfall would go 'somewhere' else

Dear E

Like paying consultants to tell what we already know.

Norrie

In reply to DougG:
I am under no illusions as to the superiority or otherwise of the English.
Some (not you, I'm sure) seem to believe however that Scotland's problems stem entirely from their oppression by the English colonists, and that once they are free from this yoke the Scottish people will prosper evermore.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
English colonists, and that once they are free from this yoke the Scottish people will prosper evermore.

Dear Simon

Why do you use such terms? Most Scots do not use such terms, as it implies superiority.

Norrie

In reply to EB:

We don't know whether it would or not.

Your original point was that the Norwegians had such a wonderful welfare state because they used their money better/ more efficiently that we did.

My counter point was that they have a hell of a lot more of it per head of population *to* use.

I'm sure the rats nibble away at Norwegian cake slices, too. It's just that when the rats are sufficiently stuffed, there's *still* more cake left for each person than there is in the UK!

In reply to GFoz:
Dear GFoz

I did not realise you were a Tattie-Muncher or was it the stench of corruption that forced you to relocate.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Was there really a strong economy back then, I remember it being horrendous, high unemployment, high inflation, Britain -the sick man of europe etc.

In reply to neilH:

Dear Neil

What I was reminded of was your statements were the same. The umemployment was great, all that climbing, not having to rush home.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:
Dear GFoz
I did not realise you were a Tattie-Muncher or was it the stench of corruption that forced you to relocate.

hilarious. here, here.

In reply to Norrie Muir:


Norrie,

Unusually for one so lucid, you've finally lost me - the McConnell/Tattie connection being about 17 yards over my head. Not a New Labour supporter if that's what you're asking. Reasons for my relocation are hard to fathom, even to myself.

Regards
Foz

In reply to Anonymous:
A comment on many of the posts - Yes Ratho is a fabulous facility, and yes, it cost FAR too much, and if anything, the facilities are over the top, but I can recall recently a discussion thread which contained many criticisms of the Sunderland Wall for not having any cafe facilities and only rudimentary changing and toilets, and having a bland wall. Difficult to please, us climbers!

Oh yes, Sunderland is still trading after more than 1 year. Food for thought?