UKC

UK Sport has announced an investment of £2.775 million of government and National Lottery funding in Sport Climbing and Paraclimbing ahead of the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games. £2,275,000 has been allocated to further develop the existing British Mountaineering Council/GB Climbing Sport Climbing programme, while £500,000 will fund the creation of a new Paraclimbing programme. The funding is part of a broader £330 million package supporting 50 sports.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Guess this gets the BMC out of it's financial problems as it's all under one umbrella!?

In reply to facet:

Nope, this money will have very specific things for it to be spent on and I would imagine stipulations in the contracts for it not to be spent on anything else. 

On the bright side in the council meeting 2 weeks ago we were told that the BMC is on course for a surplus this year (in large part thanks to the staff working their socks off) and this will be going straight into the reserves. The plan all sounded very reasonable, but you would need to ask one of the more financially inclined members for the detail.

In reply to UKC News:

Nice to read some goods news about the BMC!

In reply to UKC News:

This looks like great news and recognition of the achievements of our athletes in Paris.

I have two possible reservations.

First, I've not read anywhere whether this funding is conditional on a level of match funding from within the BMC's own resources. I think it normally would be.  If so, where would the BMC find this match funding? Will it come from our membership fees?

Secondly, how will the BMC ensure that this level of funding doesn't increase the influence of GB Climbing within the BMC to the possible detriment of other important aspects of the BMC's work?

It would be good to hear reassurances on these questions.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Matched funding is no longer relevant fortunately. However, there are other huge financial risks to the BMC from this level of funding insofar as ramping up the recruitment of a large GB Climbing office support team and then having to shoulder redundancy costs if in the next cycle funding gets pulled, which happens.

As with all these things government money gets channeled through intermediaries like the BMC to meet policy objectives (in this case medal tally) whilst minimising government financial risk and management obligations. 

Are we prepared to continue to carry these risks and have this part of the BMC increasingly dominate time and attention? IMO no.

The case for separating off GB Climbing remains..

In reply to facet:

The money is ringfenced and the sports councils put in really onerous clawback provisions within their funding agreements, so definitely not.

In reply to shark:

Surely the risk of having to pay redundancy costs could be avoided by employing people under fixed term contracts? 

In reply to Iamgregp: As I understand it, once you get beyond 2 years rights change, https://www.gov.uk/fixed-term-contracts/renewing-or-ending-a-fixedterm-cont...

In reply to shark:

They already have a big team. I don't know how many people are required - but is there any suggestion that they plan to (or would need to) increase numbers?

In reply to abcdefg:

A quick Google suggests these grants will mean roughly a 50% increase in budget and more than a doubling of grant income, and a post above suggests that the existing staff are already working hard; I think it would be reasonable to hypothesise that an increase in staffing will be required to spend that budget effectively.

As mentioned above, contractors or agencies could be used to externalise some of the risk and reward, but that will eat into the funding pot available to meet the contractual KPIs that I would imagine are attached to the grant funding.

TLDR; there will be a lot of things for the organisation to balance in spending significant extra resources so it's a reasonable question to ask.

In reply to Ciro:

It isn't a case of UKS / SE saying "ooh, didn't you do well in Paris, have some extra dosh. Spend wisely!". (Although also without the Paris performances there is no way as much would have been forthcoming). This award will be the result of some serious form filling, planning and negotiation, so any additional headcount / resources will already be known in Didsbury Towers, and the reporting requirements on its usage are fairly stringent. It also may not be entirely for team development / coaching, as it could also encompass any projects / events GBC / BMC may be planning for this funding cycle.....

In reply to abcdefg:

It would certainly be a good question to ask how they plan to spend the money at the next Open Forum or via your the Members Council reps.

I do recall that Paul Ratcliffe our CEO saying he ran a department of 50 when in charge of the Performance department of British Canoeing. Maybe someone who knows canoeing (or similar sporting body to ours) might be able to comment how indicative that might be with respect to GBClimbing. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

Yep

In reply to UKC News:

Another reason why GBC should separate from the BMC as the drive to achieve elite climbing results will become detrimental to the interests of ordinary BMC members

In reply to Steve Woollard:

In other sports - Athletics for example, I'm sure others with knowledge can add further sports - that has certainly been the case. The sport as practised by the overwhelming majority of the participants gets very little help from the national body, and even gets hindrance due to the edicts continually being pumped out. That doesn't include the ever increasing annual fee for which there is ever decreasing assistance.

In reply to Ciro:

Where are you seeing this, the article shows only a 20% (40% if you include the ring-fenced paraclimbing grant) increase in grant funding from UK Sport (most of which would be eaten up by inflation). Grant funding specifically for GB Climbing from Sport England would have to more than quadruple for there to be an overall doubling of grant income.

What is the budget for GB climbing that is supposedly going up by 50%? Costs for GB Climbing have varied between £542k and £1.5 million since 2020 but if we assume the median of £1 million I don't think a 50% increase is affordable.

In reply to Tyler:

You're right, my mistake. I read it as an annual round of funding, rather than over four years.