The British Mountaineering Council has published a series of papers outlining new proposals for the oversight of GB Climbing, following management issues related to the internal business unit last year and a member-led proposal to establish GB Climbing as an independent subsidiary of the BMC. The leadership also shared the assessed implications of a splinter organisation and an update to members regarding the 2023 annual report and accounts.
In response to analysis by new CEO Paul Ratcliffe and feedback from athletes, staff and BMC members, these new proposals aim to improve financial management and transparency through ring-fencing money and reorganising oversight groups based on focus and funding.
BMC President Andy Syme told UKC:
"In essence this is about addressing the problems we have had in 2023, many of them set up in 2019 and 2020 IMHO, in a way that achieves the aim of giving members the confidence that competitions can and will be run better, without going down the road of splitting up the 'broad community' which, as I said at the 2018 AGM, is vital for the long term success and viability of the BMC and was resoundingly supported by members.
Clearly having Paul in his new role of CEO has given him, and the Board, the opportunity to look again at what we did, right and wrong. It is worth saying that this proposal is supported by both the Board and Council as the best way forwards for the BMC and everyone is hugely encouraged and impressed by the immense amount of work he has done since coming into the role; to work through the issues we have and to identify positive solutions or actions to address them, and in getting out and meeting members and partners.
The finance paper is obviously a holding statement, but again I am encouraged that Paul is ensuring that we clearly understand our position at end of 2023 and that there are positive proposals for us to work our way back to a much stronger position."
The GB Climbing paper reads:
"Since the introduction of UK Sport and England Talent Funding, it is evident that there have been significant challenges in the accountability and management of GB Climbing. There has been a lack of clarity of what is the purpose of the department and the accountability for funding.
"This paper outlines the Board's proposal for the strategic direction for the BMC to deliver competition climbing within the broad community we represent. This proposal is not a full operational plan, which will need ongoing consultation with all stakeholders to deliver, but is building on the reviews and recommendations from 2022 and 2023 and the work already started to address the challenges we face."
New Performance Department Proposals
1. Establishment of a BMC Performance Department, with ring-fenced funding primarily via UK Sport and England Talent Grants, led by the Head of Performance and overseen by the Performance Advisory Group.
Currently this funding is for Sport Climbing only, but if other BMC disciplines received funding, then these elite pathways would evolve within the Performance Department. The department will be focused on the athlete pathway for the funded programmes and include GB National Teams in the Funded Disciplines, the UK Sport Programme and England Talent Programme. Funding for this department will be ringfenced in separate accounts made transparent to the Board, FAC, Council and Grant Agencies.
2. Replacing the CCPG (Competition Climbing Performance Group).
The paper states that the CCPG's focus was previously too broad. The elite teams will instead be overseen by the BMC Competition Commission, the BMC Ice Climbing Commission and the BMC Ski Mountaineering Commission. The Competition Commissions will be responsible for reporting to the BMC Board on a quarterly basis through the BMC Competition Manager.
3. Removing the name GB Climbing.
The proposal suggests that the name appears to be 'divisive rather than inclusive', citing a need to create a sense of belonging for elite climbers in the BMC. It is proposed to have a 'One Team' BMC approach with:
• One brand and one communication channel balanced across all strategic priorities.
• National Teams will become BMC Teams to strengthen the BMC brand, attract a different and younger audience and increase international representation.
Implications of a GB Climbing splinter organisation
The papers also detail what the President and Board of Directors consider to be the implications of a GB Climbing split-off from the BMC, including 'reputational damage and implications for relationships and funding', 'splintering of the mountain activity set' and 'implications for participants', plus 'organisational chaos' within the remainder of the BMC.
Further implications for a new, independent competition body, the paper reports, would include 'funding withdrawal', 'inability to retain public funding' and international accreditation and 'organisational inefficiency'.
Annual Report and 2023 Accounts
The BMC also published a statement to members ahead of the final audited financial figures for 2023.
"The audit of the 2023 accounts is still in progress and is planned to complete early in May 2024. It is planned that the final accounts will be presented to the Board by the auditors at the Board Meeting that is to be held on the 11th May.
"Consequently, at this time the BMC will not offer figures for the loss nor the reserves as at the end of 2023."
In addition to the audit, a 'rigorous review' of the 2023 accounts was undertaken by an external accountant. UK Sport has also confirmed that the BMC's grant accounting is compliant with the UK Sport and Sport England grants. The 2023 Annual Report will include a substantial section on how issues related to finances, staffing and the performance of GB Climbing were managed in what was described as a 'very challenging year'.
Key components which have contributed to a loss [previously estimated to be circa £250-£300k in the March Members Open Forum] are listed in the statement as including:
• Membership failing to grow as projected
• Loss of Travel Insurance in July 2023
• A large accounting error within the UK Sport Grants
• A large overspend within the non–grant funded activity of competition climbing
'Lessons learnt' regarding financial management include expanding the finance team, ring-fencing funds, scrutiny of activity spends, separating accounts and management for grant-funded activity, quarterly accounts provision and a conservative budget for 2024.
Read the papers in full on the BMC website.
The BMC will be hosting a Q&A in an Open Forum webinar on 21st May, where members can provide feedback.
Comments
The financial statement is possibly unique in containing no figures whatsoever and is a series of rehashed excuses for overspends and delayed reporting. Are we to expect a qualified set of accounts?
However, there are some new figures in the paper rebutting the proposed member led subsidiary resolution.
For context in July 2023 the previous CEO Paul Davies indicated that the shared costs were £81k in support of GBClimbing.
The current CEO now says the “in kind BMC support to competition activities” is worth of the order £200k pa !!
Quite some difference and is in addition to the level of direct funding of £186k pa which he says was agreed by the BMC Board in October 2020.
This level of financial support is significantly higher than that indicated in the last annual report and is unfairly disproportionate support to a minority segment of the BMC.
My instinct that we have been grossly misled on the true cost of GBClimbing to the BMC have unfortunately been proved true.
I should add that the above is just the baseline contribution by the BMC to GBClimbing. Extras such as the £90k Ratho World Cup in 2022 and the £150k spent on the expectation of grant income that didn’t exist in 2023 are in addition again.
Back again! This £200k is really irking me in terms of how it is made up but also in terms of grant funding.
It was disclosed last year by Jonathan White last year that a significant chunk of grant funding (£100k+) is towards the shared admin costs. I don’t know, but am pretty sure, that this element of grant funding didn’t go straight to the BMC coffers but instead was claimed by and spent by GBClimbing for general expenditure.
I am now wondering whether there is some of this element of grant funding actually includes all or some of the aspects of the “in kind support” in which case it should be subtracted from the net BMC support.
In short I think we should be informed:
- Whether this element of grant funding was included in the grants attributed to GBC in each of the annual reports?
- How much it is and has been each year?
- Was it spent by GBC in general expenditure?
- What if any elements of the £200k might be covered by this element of grant funding?