UKC

Received this email today - any offers?

'We are getting in touch to let you know that regrettably, the climbing wall at Huddersfield Leisure Centre will be closing as of 25th February.   Since the opening of Huddersfield Leisure Centre in May 2015, the climbing wall had been managed by the Climbing Centre Group (CCG), as an independent, 3rd party operator, on a sub-lease basis. The Climbing Centre Group has now decided to withdraw from the operation of the climbing wall. 

KAL do not have the expertise or experience to safely and effectively operate the climbing wall but will be looking for a 3rd party climbing wall operator to take over. Any updates we have regarding this will be posted on our Facebook & Twitter pages so please keep an eye on them.

KAL understand the disappointment this will cause some customers and are sincerely sorry for any inconvenience caused.  

In reply to Bulls Crack:

That's a shame, I've been there a few times and it's always been a friendly place with a good variation of routes. Unlike most walls it's also at a reasonable temperature all year round! It would be a waste if it ended up closing.

Any ideas why the current operator is withdrawing, presumably it's not economically viable?

In reply to Removed Usergilesf:

No, afraid not. It seems reasonably well used and I used to think that sports centre walls had an advantage re: overheads etc - maybe not and the rent is too high.   I t would be a shame if it closed ; it's a modern, well designed wall - I find it a bit too warm though!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

  Just called up the leisure centre hoping to have one last climb before it closes.

  Unfortunately its been closed with "immediate effect" I dont recall seeing any notices saying it was due to close so soon

  How come it's closed so suddenly? Everytime I've climbed or bouldered there the place always has people climbing in there. 

  Real shame. Staff were nice, routes/problems were good and we use to travel from Sheffield just to climb there. 

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Ah, that's a shame, I hope they find someone else to take it on. I'm surprised the sports centre can't get someone in to advise on how they'd go about running it themselves, plenty of other sports centres seem to manage, you'd think there would be a pretty much off the shelf setup plan. 

I actually designed that wall and the bouldering and thinking about it, I'm sure the manufacturer normally offers access to advise on how to go about running it, and if not I'm sure the BMC do something similar don't they? 

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Good job! I think it was a good use of the space.

In reply to Removed Usergilesf:

Yeah it seemed to be quite sudden as im sure they were posting pictures on their instagram over weekend. I didnt see this thread before i drove to huddersfield after work to find it closed :s. 

In reply to Bulls Crack:

It certainly seems very sudden, I know someone who was sold a pass for 10 visits last week and he is not happy.

My guess would be the council have bumped up the rent to the level it is just not viable, as the group seem to run Manchester and Harrogate sucessfully I assume they know a thing or two about keeping a climbing wall running.

Overall a shame though, I never liked it as much as the old place but it's still a good facility.

In reply to Andrew Lodge:

Hopefully as its a chain and they havent gone bankrupt they will reimburse him his 10 visit pass if he cannot make it to one of their other centres. 

In reply to Andrew Lodge:

It's that or some unrealistic insurance  / liability expectations. Where they had to close immediately because they weren't covered. 

In reply to Andrew Lodge:

The Leisure Centre is run by KAL Leisure Trust rather than Kirklees Council, so it’s not the Council. It could be a rent review due to come in to force next week or it could just be that it doesn’t make money and keeping it running takes money out of the rest of the group, or a rise in insurance costs leading compounding either of the above issues.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

GLL aren't involved are they!?

In reply to Andrew Lodge:

Sounds like k a l might be doing refunds. 

Drop them an email..I have about  the same problem

In reply to The New NickB:

In the email KAL say they are looking for another operator so presumably are still looking for it to provide an income - maybe turn it into a fun factory thing?  All speculation

The real reason is that they  just so under-graded the current crop of 6b+'s and people voted with their feet

In reply to Bulls Crack:

It's just a number....can do can't do...

Not the reason for closure

In reply to Bulls Crack and for anybody else who may be interested.

The abrupt closure of the climbing wall may be because KAL/the Council wants to use the space for an activity that generates more income than the climbing wall can do. 

To explain: Huddersfield leisure centre is owned by the Council, but like other Council-owned sports centres, from April 2002 it has been run on the Council's behalf by the charitable trust it set up, Kirklees Active Leisure. 

Since then, the Council has given over £45 million of public money to KAL, who is supposed to "ensure that all residents have access to opportunities for exercise which will contribute to their health and well-being". 

However, KAL's focus (and, it seems, the Council's) is on activities which generate most income - hence the Council's decision in 2014 to drop its promise of an indoor bowls facility in the new Leisure Centre in favour of "enhanced fitness provision".

The thinking behind this was made clear in the July 2014 report, which included this gem: "Financially, the return on expenditure is 3.5 times better from fitness activities, i.e. for every £1 of revenue expenditure, fitness related activities will generate £7.07 of income. Whereas, bowling will generate £1.92 per £1 expended".  The adverse health and other effects on bowlers were not mentioned. 

Despite kicking out the bowlers, despite the attraction of a £36 million leisure centre and a netwok of others across Kirklees, KAL's expenditure has usually exceeded its income, with the gap in 2017/18 being £1,659,112.  As the TOTAL for the four years before that was 'only' £989,258, things appear to be getting very much worse. 

To be fair, over that period the Council cut the amount of annual funding it provides to KAL - from £2,934,149 in 2013/14 to £1,655,579 in 2017/18.  It is also committed to reducing its funding to zero, which does not bode well for KAL of the public at large. 

Against that backdrop, it will be interesting to see if KAL/the Council does find another established operator (or maybe a Kirklees climber's collective) to take on the running of the wall, or wants to find a more 'profitable' use for it.   For now, there are loads of questions that need answers.

For those who want to know more, the Charity Commission's web page for KAL gives links to the last five years of the Trust's accounts.  

In reply to adgm:

I wasn't being serious although they were extremely harsh.

I  hope the staff find other work and the wall survives in some form  since the leading is far better than the other in the immediate vicinity. 

In reply to Widdershins:

The KAL accounts look very skewed. Staff costs are over £10 million.

In reply to Scott K's:The KAL accounts look very skewed. Staff costs are over £10 million.

Howdy Scott,  

The £10,129,237 figure for staff costs reported in the 2017/18 accounts does indeed look "very skewed" as, according to KAL's page on the Charity Commission's web site, it employs 332 people.  Which means the average pay per head is just over £30,500.  Given the mix of staff (some presumably being part-time) and the nature of much of the work, this seems very high.

I gather closure came about because the increased rent imposed by KAL made it impossible for CCG to continue. If so, the many health and associated benefits climbing brings to people of all ages and abilities were shamefully shoved to one side.

Anyway, whilst KAL Trustees may be persuaded to put the wall out to tender, the suspicion is that they want the space for other activities which they hope will bring in more income than does climbing.  Perhaps so, but KAL's accounts from 2002/03 to 2017/18 show that income exceeded expenditure in only 4 of the 16 years of reported results.  Which raises many questions about competence and governance, as well as what beneficiaries (i.e. the users and potential users) got for the £45 millions of public money that the Council has handed to KAL.

In reply to Widdershins:

Employee costs probably includes employers NI and superannuation contributions, as well as other allowances, the avg pay will be a lot lower.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I often climbed there on a Monday, and we were told the week before that it would be closed on the 25th for "training". The staff appeared to know no more than us, so presumably they were told on the 25th and the emails were then sent out.

KAL use to directly run the wall at the old Sports Centre, but did not do a very good job of it. 

CCG obviously understood how to run a climbing centre better, and managed to attract a lot of new younger climbers.

I hope that KAL will find somebody else to run it, but fear this may become a permanent closure, with the space converted to other usage.

In reply to Widdershins:

The number of staff reported as employed by KAL by the charity commission is likely to be FTE, so actually they employ more people, but as you say some will be part time.

In reply to Tim Hudds:

I've climbed at both the old and new walls for many decades, and worked as an instructor at the old wall. The wall at the old centre was directly run by KAL, and while they had a full-time manager it worked pretty well. Once they decided to get rid of the manager (because it didn't fit in with their management structure) it started to go downhill. My line manager was someone who'd never climbed in his life and had no interest. Routes weren't changed, courses stagnated and KAL used the decline to justify franchising out the wall at the new centre.

With staff permanently there, routes changed and plenty of courses attracting new climbers, the new wall has proved popular: the only downside I see is that the public sector ethos has gone, so for example Rock Monkeys, the group I ran for kids with additional needs has not been continued.

It seems to me that the wall was generating income; the argument was over who, KAL or CCG, got which slice of the cake. Neither side come out of this looking good; KAL for wanting something for nothing, CCG for sacking their staff with no notice. The answer is for KAL to directly employ well-qualified managers and instructors and run the wall as a public service for the benefit of all.

In reply to DaveGreen:

I totally agree. Running a venue like this will have lots of complications which a Cooperative or Non Profit Organisation could find much too complex or difficult to get right. But a big organisation like KAL have lots of experience and structures in place, so employing a manager and staff seems to be the obvious answer to this popular and (apparently) successful venue. Having taken on a business 5 years ago with no experience I had a very steep learning curve and made costly mistakes along the way. In another world, I would love to have this venue attached to my business. No idea why KAL isn't snatching up the opportunity. 

In reply to cruella:

John Dunne from CCG has e-mailed me to inform me that staff were made redundant, not sacked. I'm happy to correct that. Bit difficult to follow his suggestion to talk to staff when the place is closed up and we're all relying on rumour and second hand comments.

The point is that staff have lost jobs and we've lost our climbing facility. No winners there then.