[northern yob]

 The future of climbing might be in comps if you only consider the future to revolve around upcoming top level kids and GB team winning stuff.  Neither of which are going to guarantee that in 20 years time we'll have access to any of the crags we love. 
 

I don't believe the future has to revolve around upcoming top level kids or the GB team winning stuff. I do believe that the grass roots youths want to aspire, and to do that they need a focus point. Let's call it a point of sale!  Climbing is so much more than comps, I want people to experience everything it has to offer. The access point to all it has to offer for future generations will be related to comps in one way or another.

I like a deserted crag more than most, and I agree access will b our biggest issue in the future, but as selfish as I can be with my climbing I think it would be criminal to not encourage more participation. The access issue is a whole different can of worms.

[Johnny Brown]

the main issue for the BMC is promoting responsible use of the outdoors and an engagement in access issues

I don't see any suggestion that this would change as the main issue. Supporting comps does not have to mean diverting funds, resources or focus from access work.

[dave]

the main issue for the BMC is promoting responsible use of the outdoors and an engagement in access issues

I don't see any suggestion that this would change as the main issue. Supporting comps does not have to mean diverting funds, resources or focus from access work.

No but it might, especially if people are labouring under the vision that comps are the future of climbing.

[northern yob]

Comps are not the future of climbing! They will however be an integral part of it. To not embrace that, I think would be short sighted.

[Johnny Brown]

No but it might, especially if people are labouring under the vision that comps are the future of climbing.

Not sure why they would. This isn't about a change of direction, it's just about making sure the UK team doesn't have to crowdfund for flights, for example.

[Bonjoy]

The future of our sport (climbing) is competitions, more specifically youth competitions and the participation they promote.

In which sense/s do you mean that? That this is the direction climbing is going, or that this is what’s best for climbing, or both?
I agree that there will be more of these in the future and that this is no bad thing and that the BMC should represent the type of climbing participated in by its members.
I don’t agree that it’s the BMC’s job to actively drive climbing/climbers in any particular direction. I also agree with Dave that it is shouldn’t be the BMC’s job to increase climber numbers per se. I can only see problems in a yeast-like drive to increase participation for the sake of increasing participation. That’s not to say the BMC shouldn’t work to provide the opportunity for all to participate, but that’s a different thing.   

Climbers who came through the youth competitions are changing our sport nationally and internationally ( Ondra, Lama, Bransby, Houlding) The BMC should be promoting it more than it does, it should be supporting the GB team more than it does, is it not doing this because it is being held back by Hillwalkers?

I’d question the notion that the quoted climbers are a product of climbing competitions to any great extent. In the case of the two UK guys I think it had more to do with them having active climber parents who encouraged them. For sure they participated in and enjoyed comps but I doubt they wouldn’t be who they are today without them.
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for youth comps, as a fun thing for youths to do (my son’s been doing Mini-Works comps since he was five). It’s a nuanced point I guess but I think the BMC should help facilitate comps where there is a demand and an actual need of support, but I don’t think they should be actively driving demand. Likewise I agree the BMC should support the UK team. I don’t know enough about current support to judge whether the level is too low, though anecdotally I’ve heard it's the case.

 

Is the BMC stuck in the middle of two incompatible bedfellows? Could losing the huge number of members it has through hillwalking be a blessing?

I’m with Johnny Brown on that question. I’ve seen no evidence of hill walkers trying to steer the BMC towards or away from any particular agenda, which makes loss of membership fees and valued members a significant baby to be throwing out with the bath water.
 
 

Should climbers support the motion tabled by the "old gits" and make a break on our own? These are the questions i have, its a debate i think we should have.

No to the question, but a worthwhile debate nonetheless.

[northern yob]

I'm new to this so excuse the inability to copy the relevant question I'm answering.

It's the direction climbing is taking, wether it's what's best for climbing is completely subjective....depending on your personal view. I think because it's the way things are going it has to be embraced and used as a tool for good.

I think the BMC should actively promote and encourage participation. To think it shouldn't I think is rather selfish and not good for the sport we all love. It certainly changed my life, I want and think others should experience it. The more members/participation the more influence the BMC/climbers will have. Strength in numbers.

At no point did I say the quoted climbers were a product of competitions, or that they wouldn't be today who they are without them. My point was that competitions and the youth climbing comp scene were part of the way they discovered climbing, a vehicle say. Ultimately that's really my point, comps and the comp scene are a great vehicle for people to engage with climbing, that's just the start, what people do or where they go from there is up to them. I think it should be encouraged and be a higher priority for the BMC.

I hope that clears up my position a bit more, if we don't debate these things we can't change things, I'm not anti BMC, but I do think it should try and move with the times.

[Johnny Brown]

Totally agree, indoor participation numbers are skyrocketing whereas (anecdotally) 'the crags are quiet'. Except on Saturday mornings at the Plantation when the minibuses from the London walls arrive.

The BMC needs to be the organisation that represents all climbers, whatever their speciality and however they get into it. As I understand it 'increasing participation' is a key requirement of receiving Sport England funding. This is because part of the rationale behind their funding is to encourage healthy living and reduce obesity/ NHS pressure.

[Oldmanmatt]

Totally agree, indoor participation numbers are skyrocketing whereas (anecdotally) 'the crags are quiet'. Except on Saturday mornings at the Plantation when the minibuses from the London walls arrive.

The BMC needs to be the organisation that represents all climbers, whatever their speciality and however they get into it. As I understand it 'increasing participation' is a key requirement of receiving Sport England funding. This is because part of the rationale behind their funding is to encourage healthy living and reduce obesity/ NHS pressure.

Amen.


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...

[Teaboy]

Totally agree, indoor participation numbers are skyrocketing whereas (anecdotally) 'the crags are quiet'. Except on Saturday mornings at the Plantation when the minibuses from the London walls arrive.

And the major sport climbing crags in Yorkshire. Unfortunately, whilst there are plenty of good alternative bouldering venues to the Plantation (albeit with fewer problems) it's difficult to find routes of the quality found at the Yorkshire big three the equally mobbed Tor has some and not always accessible LPT and Diamond I suppose).

[Bonjoy]

The BMC needs to be the organisation that represents all climbers, whatever their speciality and however they get into it. As I understand it 'increasing participation' is a key requirement of receiving Sport England funding. This is because part of the rationale behind their funding is to encourage healthy living and reduce obesity/ NHS pressure.

If that is so then there’s a pragmatic case for promoting increased participation. The question is then, is that enough of a reason? If it’s something you wouldn’t otherwise see as the BMC’s role, is the money worth the price? If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.
Subsidy money aside I don’t see a need for the BMC to promote greater participation. It’s already growing organically at a substantial and manageable (for now) rate. Why is it desirable for this to be ramped up? What is the endpoint? How many is enough?
As mentioned above, I think inclusivity and equal opportunity is a separate question to the numbers game. It’s easy to imagine a BMC participation drive doing very well at encouraging middleclass fit people to try climbing whilst failing to motivate those who don’t exercise. We could end up increasing climbing’s share of the active populace pie without increasing the size of the pie – thereby shouldering costs related to high participation without producing substantial social good.

[Johnny Brown]

Subsidy money aside I don’t see a need for the BMC to promote greater participation. It’s already growing organically at a substantial and manageable (for now) rate. Why is it desirable for this to be ramped up? What is the endpoint? How many is enough?

Steady on, no one is saying it has to be ramped up! I'm no expert, but I'm sure that if the sport is showing growth we're most of the way to fulfilling the requirement. As I understand it the funding is being reduced anyway so the onus may be reduced likewise.

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

I think inclusivity and equal opportunity is a separate question to the numbers game.

Totally agree. Climbing has a proud history of attracting and welcoming anyone from coal miners to landed gentry. From what I've heard of Caff's role it sounds like inclusivity is high on the agenda.

[northern yob]

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

where does the funding for the BMC's current outdoor access agenda come from? Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

[shark]

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

where does the funding for the BMC's current outdoor access agenda come from? Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

The majority of income is from membership fees and most members stated priority is access and conservation.

The breakdown of income and spend is here

[shark]

people who are both passionate, and a bit "chippy" from feeling undervalued, tend to be much more defensive of status and reputation.

Good point. Not thought of that angle

[northern yob]

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

where does the funding for the BMC's current outdoor access agenda come from? Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

The majority of income is from membership fees and most members stated priority is access and conservation.

The breakdown of income and spend is here

So another organisation wouldn't suck up any funding from the outdoor access agenda. It could stand on its own and give the indoor/comp scene the support it deserves whilst not affecting the good work the BMC does with regards access?

[rich d]

The future of climbing (and therefore the BMC) will be the children coming through. I know in my small sphere as many kids indoor climbing coming from non climbing parents as I do kids who come from climbing parents. Quite of few of them would never dream of climbing outside, indeed the kids and their parents  see it as some weird, cold, wet, dangerous subset of climbing. They also seem to be completely unaware that the BMC exists or that it could potentially represent them, they are all aware of Shauna and what she's done on the comp scene though and seem inspired by this.
The element of the BMC who are going for a vote of no confidence are probably partly the reason that I'm not a member anymore(plus I'm a tight bastard)

[Oldmanmatt]

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

where does the funding for the BMC's current outdoor access agenda come from? Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

The majority of income is from membership fees and most members stated priority is access and conservation.

The breakdown of income and spend is here

So another organisation wouldn't suck up any funding from the outdoor access agenda. It could stand on its own and give the indoor/comp scene the support it deserves whilst not affecting the good work the BMC does with regards access?

Sub-committee, please.
With partial autonomy and a budget.
Use that Logo/branding that cost so much and was rejected by the Bearded-bigboot-reactionary-boys of the British Union of Mountaineering...
(*Sn**ger!* Actually I think a good dose of tradition is good for us and the old guard make some valid points).


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]

If the answer is no (and I don’t know if it is or not), then maybe the answer would be for a separate organisation representing indoors and comps.

The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow.

where does the funding for the BMC's current outdoor access agenda come from? Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

The majority of income is from membership fees and most members stated priority is access and conservation.

The breakdown of income and spend is here

So another organisation wouldn't suck up any funding from the outdoor access agenda. It could stand on its own and give the indoor/comp scene the support it deserves whilst not affecting the good work the BMC does with regards access?

I'm not sure what you mean by another organisation sucking up funding. Do you mean lose out on grant funding to other organisations or lose members to other organisations? The are certainly other organisations that are involved in campaigning for access (though not with a crag access focus) such as the Ramblers Organisation but we work with them at a National level on the all-parliamentary committee. The issue with Sport England grants is there less money to go round for everyone rather than another body competing against us more effectively.

In terms of improving revenue to make up shortfalls going forward, the BMC has considerable untapped commercial potential to increase revenues which is why I was employed as Commercial Partnerships Manager 8 weeks ago to explore the options. A minority don't like some aspects of further commercialisation even though we have longstanding commercial trading operations including an online shop, travel insurance business and guidebook publication arm and longstanding sposorship arrangements with outdoor industry companies.

With regard to the 'indoor scene' the GB team and the Competitions we run both have largely untapped commercial sponsorship potential to generate their own funds especially now we are an Olympic sport. Whether that is sufficient depends what you mean by the funding "it deserves" as anything has the potential to be a bottomlesss pit of perceived requirements.

There is also a move to increase the subs by £2.50pa which doesn't sound a lot but when you times it by 83,000 members is substantial. The BMC also has substantial rainy day reserves.

Financially we are not in a bad place yet but there is a now a (partially) recognized need to focus on long term sustainable revenues if we are going to continue and grow activities and influence as we have been. Overall I don't see the core access work being under any kind of threat.   

[northern yob]

I'm new to this so i haven't quite grasped the quote thing, Adam referred to sucking up funding in relation to bonjoys comment about an indoor/comp organisation. i was merely pointing out that based on what you said about funding the BMC's access agenda such an organisation wouldn't affect the funding which goes towards access. Does that make sense?

[northern yob]

With regard to the GB team and the funding it deserves, as Adam pointed out a start would be sending them to competitions. Rather than them having to crowd fund in order to attend, especially given that as you said financially the BMC is not in a bad place.

[shark]

I'm new to this so i haven't quite grasped the quote thing, Adam referred to sucking up funding in relation to bonjoys comment about an indoor/comp organisation. i was merely pointing out that based on what you said about funding the BMC's access agenda such an organisation wouldn't affect the funding which goes towards access. Does that make sense?

Ok Adam said: "The problem I see it is that indoors is where the growth is. You could soon see a bigger organisation sucking up all the funding and the BMC's outdoor access agenda reduced to a sideshow."

I'm not quite sure where he has formed this alarmist view. Even if this did happen I dont see how it would decrease the level of our access work as long as outdoor climbers and hillwalkers who care about access continue to sign up as BMC members. 

Re forum quoting etc plenty of easy to follow guidance here: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/page,wiki_help_ukb.html

[shark]

With regard to the GB team and the funding it deserves, as Adam pointed out a start would be sending them to competitions. Rather than them having to crowd fund in order to attend, especially given that as you said financially the BMC is not in a bad place.

The crowd funding (which UKB supported) was due to a major sponsor going bust.
 
Currently some athletes are supported to go to international comps to varied extents. I would be working to increase sponsorship to enable that support to be widened. However for all 80 athletes of the teams and development squads and 20 managers and chaperones for youth climbers to all be paid to attend any international event irrespective of form would be a huge bill and even with sponsorship income and the Olympics etc is currently an unrealistic expectation based on my research of comparative funding of other niche sports. If Climbing became a permanent Olympic fixture then that would up the ante considerably for the sport and the climbing industry.

[northern yob]

Is climbing a niche sport anymore? I agree sending them all to everything would be insane. Could the BMC do more with regards funding, i think so.

[Johnny Brown]

Why would another organisation suck up all the funding?

I meant the Sport England funding, long term. I don't see any benefit of two organisations, the long term result will be one will become irrelevant.

the GB team and the Competitions we run both have largely untapped commercial sponsorship potential to generate their own funds especially now we are an Olympic sport

Suspect yob knows more than I do about this, but there have been some quite specific BMC failures in this department.