[SA Chris]

Maybe climbing walls are the new clubs, and everyone is automatically affiliated that way?

[Oldmanmatt]

Then look at supporting commercial walls to become Community Interest companies and transition somewhat towards the typical "sports club" model?

Don't shoot me.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[shark]

Then look at supporting commercial walls to become Community Interest companies and transition somewhat towards the typical "sports club" model?

Don't shoot me.

Can you elaborate how this would work, how this would benefit indoor climbers and what BMC support would be useful

[shark]

Maybe climbing walls are the new clubs

Interesting perspective - Id never thought of it that way

[slackline]

How would annual membership work under such a proposal?

I've membership at...

Foundry
Awesome Walls
Climbing Works
Matrix

...but I don't have a monthly or annual pass for any.  No annual membership is paid to any of them and there is no money that could pass on for BMC affiliation.  How would individuals, who can attend any given wall with different frequency, pay a fair amount towards BMC and without having to pay multiple times over if they go to multiple walls?

[Oldmanmatt]

Then look at supporting commercial walls to become Community Interest companies and transition somewhat towards the typical "sports club" model?

Don't shoot me.

Can you elaborate how this would work, how this would benefit indoor climbers and what BMC support would be useful

Give me a while and I'll pm you.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[Wil]

In no particular reply to anyone:

I've been a BMC member since my first climbing trip abroad aged 18. (14 years now). I like to support their work with access and have attended a couple of meets over the years. The insurance cost has unfortunately become cumbersome, and I'm in the camp which doesn't necessarily agree with the competition focus, but more that I think this should be a sub dept of the BMC.

I'm confused by the several comments about it being "old fashioned". This is true in the sense that it is a council of clubs, and many people don't join clubs any more, but otherwise I think they've moved with the times well. If you want to see old fashioned join the CC (I am a member).

[gme]

The future growth of climbing has to be seen as indoors and i dont see why the BMC dont want to benefit financially from it.

Its not just a question of financially benefiting from it - indoor climbers are climbers - and if we are to be representative of climbers we have to represent and support and champion the interests of indoor climbers too.

I don't see growing their membership as a way of exclusively subsidising activities that are outside their interests. That wouldn't be fair.

Is that not what has always happened though. General membership has allowed funding for stuff such as guides to esoteric areas etc. What's different.
It does annoy me that there are some walls that are doing very nicely from the boom in indoor climbing that really don't put back. Why don't we have tha funds to stage a World Cup or build a big comp wall  like other federations do. Wall owners happy to make money but don't put back. ( I know this isn't all of them but I also know that some are doing very nicely from it.).
So I didn't mean exclusively using there money for other stuff, most should be spent back in comps. but believe what your suggesting has always happened.

[gme]

To use a business analogy to focus on how it's always been and not change tack to involve indoor climbers sounds very much like Kodak.

Maybe you can hope that Ron hills, sleeping in bothies and jelly Hanson will have its day again like vinyl.

[tomtom]

In the same way as the BMC had bought up crags that maybe in peril - perhaps in the future we will see it buying up much loved but threatened climbing walls....

I don't agree btw - just throwing it out there.

By the way Wil - most references to Old Fashioned are largely directed at Shark - to make him feel even older and weaker

[Oldmanmatt]

In the same way as the BMC had bought up crags that maybe in peril - perhaps in the future we will see it buying up much loved but threatened climbing walls....

I don't agree btw - just throwing it out there.

By the way Wil - most references to Old Fashioned are largely directed at Shark - to make him feel even older and weaker

That somewhat follows what I was getting at earlier.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...

[shark]

In the same way as the BMC had bought up crags that maybe in peril - perhaps in the future we will see it buying up much loved but threatened climbing walls....

I don't agree btw - just throwing it out there.

That somewhat follows what I was getting at earlier.

Given that Access and Conservation are members highest priority by a long way (2010 survey) the purchase of crags has happened but not without considerable resistance and considerable caveats when it does occur and judged on a case by case basis. Crags are not bought willy nilly and often gifted.

Given that indoor climbing was members lowest priority by a long way the purchase of a wall is highly unlikely. The strongest case I can think of was Broughton which was a council owned recreation centre where the climbing facilities were developed by voluntary efforts by local climbers (ie a glorified community woodie with existing steep bendcrete wall). It is an elitist venue though.

Furthermore a wall requires active 7 day a week management whereas a crag doesnt.

Matt - Im still awaiting that PM you promised

[Oldmanmatt]

I know. I have a client in ten minutes and a group from South Devon college an hour after... just time for a double espresso and this.
I'll get to it today. I need to think it through. We almost went down this route when we took over the council wall at Parkfield (it didn't work out because councils suck).
It doesn't involve BMC purchasing walls, but moving to a non-profit model that is better suited to obtaining external funding in a manner similar to current Olympic Sports clubs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Catcheemonkey]

Maybe climbing walls are the new clubs, and everyone is automatically affiliated that way?

I think there is a lot of weight to this.

If the BMC is serious about pulling in the next generation of members, an adjustment to the business model could be to have Walls affiliate themselves and then offer BMC membership to users when they sign up. If the benefits of membership are made clear or (*deep breath*) tailored to indoor climbers I recon there would be some uptake.

You'd then have a basis on which the BMC could directly support Walls (maybe via some sort of rebate or marketing budget) and the BMC would have an expanded network to promote it.

The big question, I think, is whether the BMC and its members want to engage the indoor climbing community more closely or whether this would distract from the excellent work it does regarding access etc.

[tomtom]

I should have mentioned this to Shark yesterday - but as a more itinerant member/visitor of multiple climbing walls I was thinking about the following idea...

an organisation (BMC?) keeps the reg details of a customer - so when they go to a new wall to sign up - that wall can link to the database and bingo - the customer is there.

Taking this idea further - instead of having memberships at certain walls etc.. often say £10 year - if being BMC member got you this as well then that would seem a good idea.

As I understand it climbing wall insurance conditions are often the reason for the variable and rather detailed questionnaires/disclaimers you have to wade through at a wall - is there some way that a BMC member (for example) could therefore cut through that...

This might even reduce the walls premium - thus costs - thus rates for BMC members??

Lots of half ideas here but some mash up of wall membership, BMC membership, details database etc...

Maybe one of the big wall conglomerates ( see what I did there... :D ) could have some deal with the BMC and have a reduced entry rate? Depot/Awesome chain for example...??

[Fiend]

Edit: cba.

[cheque]

We're gonna buy the crags!

And we'll make the indoor climbers pay for it!

It's gonna be tremendous.

[slackline]

Maybe one of the big wall conglomerates ( see what I did there... :D ) could have some deal with the BMC and have a reduced entry rate? Depot/Awesome chain for example...??

Awesome walls offer a £1 discount to members of the Mynydd Climbing Club.

[tomtom]

[lagerstarfish]

We're gonna buy the crags!

And we'll make the indoor climbers pay for it!

It's gonna be tremendous.

Indoor climbers should pay double; they don't help keep the outdoor rocks clean

(chants of "build that wall")

[ashtond6]

Member via cc but wouldn't join on its own.

I think it's pretty old fashioned in its mentality
I disagree with the comps in a big way
I don't even get an insurance quote anymore as its been a rip off for at least 5 years
Guidebooks seem to be for areas with 184832 guidebooks already
Area meets are unproductive and discuss fence posts and farmers rather than access in my experience

Thought I better finally reply to some questions, especially since Fiend has puntered me twice for 'lying' in the above?????

Regarding guidebooks, I've already apologised in a previous post that it wasn't thought through - I guess in the Peak it feels a little clogged up even though the BMC grit guides were older. However for limestone guides this isn't the case.   I didn't make it clear, but the guidebooks comment was more about guides having no impact on the BMC debate - as 'for profit' organisations or locals will produce these regardless.

The area meets I attended were a few Peak ones last year in Grindleford. None before this, as I moved to Sheffield late 2015.

Dave - you say my comments about it being old fashioned whilst disagreeing with comps is contradictory. I understand your logic however disagree since IMO they are not linked. To be a young modern climber these days, does not mean you participate in comps. Personally, I consider them pretty much different sports.

Ref the comps, a few people are saying our subs don't fund these - if this is the case maybe the BMC could communicate this better? Knowing some people are put off by this opinion

On insurance - I would use it but other companies are cheaper & easier to customize.

highrepute - thanks for the support 

[dave]

Dave - you say my comments about it being old fashioned whilst disagreeing with comps is contradictory. I understand your logic however disagree since IMO they are not linked. To be a young modern climber these days, does not mean you participate in comps. Personally, I consider them pretty much different sports.

No, I was saying that people can't criticise the BMC of being old-fashioned then in the next breath imply criticism of them for embracing indoor comps too much. That's the contradiction - if the BMC was genuinely old fashioned it would want nothing to do with comps.

[nai]

To be a young modern climber these days, does not mean you participate in comps. Personally, I consider them pretty much different sports.

Only in the same way that Rugby Union and Rugby League are always referred to as completely different sports but players manage to switch codes and play at a similar level in either.

[shark]

Just stumbled across a piece by Ed Douglas when he reviewed a book called "The first fifty years of the BMC"

The below was written in 1998 and although nearly 20 years there is still a lot that is resonant (with me at least) though criticisms of being undemocratic and beyond criticism and  unresponsive to criticism no longer hold water IMO. Be interesting to hear his views now on what has changed...

https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1998_files/AJ%201998%20301-331%20Book%20Reviews.pdf
 

“…so the British Mountaineering Council, a little winded, on occasion bewildered, is still standing and looking pretty good as it enters the second half of its first century…… And I can't avoid the conclusion that the biggest threats to its survival lurk just over the horizon, not defeated in the past. A collapse in funding, the threat of a competitor, the fragmentation of climbing into a range of different activities with little in common with each other, increasing pressure on the countryside, and so on; for a politicised voluntary body with a handful of professional staff, the future looks ominous……. One of the representative body's defining features is the underwhelming interest shown in it by the very people it champions. ……The reality is that the BMC has always been a committee designed by a committee of clubs, a kind of organisational camel, ponderous and of a ridiculous appearance - it can't possibly work! - but actually quite good at coping when things get hot since whoever has stamina in the desert survives. And the BMC has proved very good indeed at survival. In the late 1980s, when a slinky sport-climbing club dared to offer an attractive alternative to the matronly old BMC, the old battleaxe swatted the challenge aside without pausing for breath. But what is it about the organisation that creates such ardent but almost constantly disgruntled support? 'Oh!' says the average climber. 'The BMC!' The eyes roll heavenward and there is a despairing shrug of the shoulders, as though he or she were commenting on some national joke, like the Millennium Dome or railway privatisation.
 
But quick as a flash they will come back: 'Although it does a lot of good work for access and conservation, doesn't it? And their insurance is very good, isn't it?' Well, sort of. The BMC has made serious mistakes over the years and adopted policies without sufficient debate, alienating one group in the interests of keeping or attracting another. It is poorly understood and undemocratic, is run by people with a strong sense of duty and is consequently unresponsive to the large majority of climbers who are not remotely as committed, making the BMC seem rather worthy and dull, at least formerly. It wins and keeps the affection of so many climbers because of the huge voluntary contribution the organisation needs to survive. Even though the majority of climbers contribute at most a cheque and more probably nothing at all to its survival, the BMC is held in esteem because a fraction of climbers give up evenings and weekends to consider and develop ideas about every aspect of climbing. The fruits of their Sisyphean labours are minuted and accumulate, giving the BMC more impetus, making it appear like some unstoppable force. It is a rock for us to cling to or rail against, but at least it is there, like a favourite maiden aunt. (When crisis looms we can hide in her skirts and appeal for help. 'Do something!') It has also meant, on the whole, that the BMC has escaped criticism in public, since nobody likes to be seen beating up old ladies. There have been bitter, even savage debates, particularly over training, but the level  the representation of our sport is placed under barely exceeds vague indifference. Had the BMC been more open and those watching its activities a little more objective and enthusiastic then perhaps its current direction would be more focused. Instead it finds itself organising climbing competitions and events with the obvious consequence of attracting new participants while at the same time claiming to stick to a policy of doing the exact opposite. It concerns itself with defending adventure climbing while supporting those aspects of modern climbing which are most corrosive to - ghastly misnomer - 'traditional' climbing. That is not to say that the BMC necessarily deserves duffing up. I am regularly astonished at how capable and thoughtful officers and volunteers are in the execution of their duties. It's simply that disapproval is heaped on anyone daring to criticise or question policies or actions. It's unpatriotic in some fundamental way to attack the BMC, as though we were perpetually at war and those opposed to the BMC's course were giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[galpinos]

Only in the same way that Rugby Union and Rugby League are always referred to as completely different sports but players manage to switch codes and play at a similar level in either.

Sam Burgess?