[shark]

The statement from the BMC has finally been published

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/restructure-statement-and-update

*Spoiler alert* It’s awful

[mrjonathanr]

Reading that statement is the first time I’ve stopped to wonder if the BMC is no longer an organisation which represents my interests. I think the access team deserve better and a separate access entity might be a good move now.

[andy moles]

our commitment to the work ACES delivers remains as strong as ever and we guarantee retaining a higher level of resource than in recent years.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

That did not actually contain any information to address the concerns raised, did it?

“We are growing but not as fast as predicted and so must reduce our current (not future, planned for) staffing.”

Ok, what did you gamble on that didn’t pay off?

“COVID!!!”

Really? That’s the first time that one has been trotted out, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned in all the posts and counter posts. How, exactly, is covid to blame for this restructuring?

“All areas of the BMC”

Why? Were all areas equally part of the bad gamble? Were there not specific areas that failed to meet expectations? I’m trying to imagine culling from my own operation here, equally, across the board, thereby reducing our overall ability to perform in all areas, rather than identifying and addressing specific short comings and strategic errors. Frankly I’m glad I only have to justify such things to my CEO, not even shareholders, these guys are meant to be justifying these decisions to the members, really should be consulting with before taking action, yet it seems opaque.

Sorry, I read a lot of words that amounted to “trust us” with no justification of why I should or reason to believe that the interests of the members are being served.

How about a straight forward:

We committed X resources to areas A,B and Q, however, those areas did not return as expected; we believe/can show that was because of £, @ and $.

To address this we propose G, H and W on the basis that thingy and doobry can be reasonably expected, going forward.
Further, since A, B and Q, have been shown to be less (Profitable? Productive? Needed?) than expected, we will be reducing the allocation of resources in those areas until such time as the situation/demand requires a change in strategic position.

All other areas of operation remain unaffected (because, if not, if you really need to reduce across the board, doesn’t that indicate a much deeper issue than you are admitting too?)

Anyway, I’m a member, despite not really deriving anything from it for the foreseeable. I was happy to let it ride based on assumed benefit to the community at large and access to venues and preserved opportunity to partake, if and when I return.

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others. That appears to be the case and no effort has been made to dispel that impression in this statement, despite quite loud allegations. This just gives the impression of not wanting to actually address those specific allegations and so I wonder why?

[Dingdong]

That did not actually contain any information to address the concerns raised, did it?

“We are growing but not as fast as predicted and so must reduce our current (not future, planned for) staffing.”

Ok, what did you gamble on that didn’t pay off?

“COVID!!!”

Really? That’s the first time that one has been trotted out, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned in all the posts and counter posts. How, exactly, is covid to blame for this restructuring?

“All areas of the BMC”

Why? Were all areas equally part of the bad gamble? Were there not specific areas that failed to meet expectations? I’m trying to imagine culling from my own operation here, equally, across the board, thereby reducing our overall ability to perform in all areas, rather than identifying and addressing specific short comings and strategic errors. Frankly I’m glad I only have to justify such things to my CEO, not even shareholders, these guys are meant to be justifying these decisions to the members, really should be consulting with before taking action, yet it seems opaque.

Sorry, I read a lot of words that amounted to “trust us” with no justification of why I should or reason to believe that the interests of the members are being served.

How about a straight forward:

We committed X resources to areas A,B and Q, however, those areas did not return as expected; we believe/can show that was because of £, @ and $.

To address this we propose G, H and W on the basis that thingy and doobry can be reasonably expected, going forward.
Further, since A, B and Q, have been shown to be less (Profitable? Productive? Needed?) than expected, we will be reducing the allocation of resources in those areas until such time as the situation/demand requires a change in strategic position.

All other areas of operation remain unaffected (because, if not, if you really need to reduce across the board, doesn’t that indicate a much deeper issue than you are admitting too?)

Anyway, I’m a member, despite not really deriving anything from it for the foreseeable. I was happy to let it ride based on assumed benefit to the community at large and access to venues and preserved opportunity to partake, if and when I return.

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others. That appears to be the case and no effort has been made to dispel that impression in this statement, despite quite loud allegations. This just gives the impression of not wanting to actually address those specific allegations and so I wonder why?

All of what you’re asking for would actually require them to know what they’re doing or what is happening, which from the sounds of it they have no fucking clue themselves lmao.

[Oldmanmatt]

That did not actually contain any information to address the concerns raised, did it?

“We are growing but not as fast as predicted and so must reduce our current (not future, planned for) staffing.”

Ok, what did you gamble on that didn’t pay off?

“COVID!!!”

Really? That’s the first time that one has been trotted out, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned in all the posts and counter posts. How, exactly, is covid to blame for this restructuring?

“All areas of the BMC”

Why? Were all areas equally part of the bad gamble? Were there not specific areas that failed to meet expectations? I’m trying to imagine culling from my own operation here, equally, across the board, thereby reducing our overall ability to perform in all areas, rather than identifying and addressing specific short comings and strategic errors. Frankly I’m glad I only have to justify such things to my CEO, not even shareholders, these guys are meant to be justifying these decisions to the members, really should be consulting with before taking action, yet it seems opaque.

Sorry, I read a lot of words that amounted to “trust us” with no justification of why I should or reason to believe that the interests of the members are being served.

How about a straight forward:

We committed X resources to areas A,B and Q, however, those areas did not return as expected; we believe/can show that was because of £, @ and $.

To address this we propose G, H and W on the basis that thingy and doobry can be reasonably expected, going forward.
Further, since A, B and Q, have been shown to be less (Profitable? Productive? Needed?) than expected, we will be reducing the allocation of resources in those areas until such time as the situation/demand requires a change in strategic position.

All other areas of operation remain unaffected (because, if not, if you really need to reduce across the board, doesn’t that indicate a much deeper issue than you are admitting too?)

Anyway, I’m a member, despite not really deriving anything from it for the foreseeable. I was happy to let it ride based on assumed benefit to the community at large and access to venues and preserved opportunity to partake, if and when I return.

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others. That appears to be the case and no effort has been made to dispel that impression in this statement, despite quite loud allegations. This just gives the impression of not wanting to actually address those specific allegations and so I wonder why?

All of what you’re asking for would actually require them to know what they’re doing or what is happening, which from the sounds of it they have no fucking clue themselves lmao.

Agreed. I’d have had a new, larger and ragged arsehole forcibly installed and currently be looking for employment (more likely charity) if I had presented something like that to the boss, and (at base) the members are the boss.

Edit:
No, worse, the members are your boss and customers rolled into one. If the product you are selling isn’t what your customers want, nor what your boss asked you to produce, you are (technical term) Fucked.
Frankly, bringing new members, with a low cost buy in, isn’t an answer unless you retain those members over the long term. How much of the lack of growth is attributable to atrophy over failure to attract?

[Will Hunt]

Without understanding what their various revenue streams are I can't really tell whether I'm satisfied with this or not.
I'm not bothered by indoor or comp climbing but can understand that some are. Moreover I don't know how big the Sport England grant is and how dependent that is on them feeding the comp climbing machine. From the discussion years back when the Climb Britain thing was going on, I thought that there were certain hoops that had to be jumped through to unlock the grant money that could then be shared with the outdoor side? I don't know whether this might have changed in recent years so that the comp stuff is now the tail that wags the BMC dog?

[mrjonathanr]

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.

I disagree. Access is essential; everything else is desirable. ie Access should trump the other sides.

Given the lack of communication and what little we do know, it looks like mismanagement of the comp funds is undermining the outdoor work. A non obfuscatory statement which includes clearly identified funds, overspends and proposed ‘mitigations’ would be a start.

[mrjonathanr]

Frankly, bringing new members, with a low cost buy in, isn’t an answer unless you retain those members over the long term. How much of the lack of growth is attributable to atrophy over failure to attract?

Good point. Recruitment means little without retention. It would be interesting to know what the numbers are, including individuals vs affiliated through clubs. I’ve no idea where to find this and even less desire to try to navigate the BMC site.

[abarro81]

Do leadership teams not learn that this kind of bullshit non-statement just pisses people off?

[Wellsy]

Do leadership teams not learn that this kind of bullshit non-statement just pisses people off?

Exactly my thinking. It's typical of the BMC but they must surely know from the last fiasco that the response to these corporate bullshit statements is always overwhelmingly negative?

[PipeSmoke]

Where does all the money from GB climbing even go? As far as I can tell, nearly all the athletes going to IFSC comps pay for everything themselves, apart from a couple on the olympic pathway. So is all this, which is clearly hugely damaging on what most people actually care about (access), being done for literally 1 or 2 athletes? I'm not against helping contribute towards someone like toby have a good shot at the olympics, but it seems like a complete money pit, is it being mismanaged? and why is it using the same pot as the access stuff

[petejh]

In 2020 this BMC article announced they received £450,000 to fund the Olympic climbing team, and develop future facilities/coaching structures for comp climbers:

''The BMC is delighted to announce that it has successfully bid for UK Sport’s Progression and Podium Athlete funding to channel investment into the GB Climbing Performance Pathway.

This funding increase is a boon for both our elite and talent pathway athletes and will also give those grassroots participants whom are just starting their journey, with hope of one day competing on the international stage, a clear pathway to Olympic success.

Developing GB Climbing has been a priority for the BMC during 2020. This year our staff team have made significant progress towards an athlete-focused talent schedule, whilst also encouraging participation in the pathway from across the UK. The new funding from the UK Sport Progression Bid will help further develop this structure in three key areas:

• Evolving and transforming the GB Climbing Performance Pathway
  Developing, aligning and embedding elite coaches at pivotal stages in the pathway
  Delivering a world-class domestic competition structure
  The UK Sport Podium Athlete funding will allow GB Climbing, in partnership with the English Institute of Sport, to continue to support Shauna Coxsey to Tokyo and beyond.

Today’s announcement is the third commitment of support to GB Climbing by UK Sport, building upon the previous Aspiration funding and the more recent Continuity funding.

Thanks to the UK Sport Aspiration Fund, GB Climbing was able to create a High Performance Training Facility at The Climbing Works, Sheffield, which allowed our elite athletes and coaches to continue to train this year despite Covid-19 restrictions. This fund also enabled Will Bosi and Molly Thompson-Smith to prepare for, and be supported in, competition at the recent IFSC Moscow European Championships.

The UK Sport Continuity funding will allow GB Climbing to deliver Covid-secure training for the Home Nation and National Talent squads and several Covid-secure competition opportunities (including a Paraclimbing event). In total, the UK Sport investment into GB Climbing will be £450,000 over the next 12 months.

This work will be delivered through close collaboration with the BMC’s partners: Mountaineering Scotland, Climb Scotland, Mountain Training, the Association of British Climbing Walls, as well as liaising with Mountaineering Ireland. GB Climbing is also committed to ensuring that solid, effective structures can also be built for the other competitive areas under the BMC’s umbrella, such as GB Paraclimbing, GB Ice Climbing and Ski Mountaineering.

Paul Davies CEO:

“I’d like to thank UK Sport for its continued investment in GB Climbing. There’s a lot of work coming next year in the lead up to the rescheduled Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games to make sure we have done everything possible to give GB Climbing athlete Shauna Coxsey her very best shot at securing one of the first ever Olympic medals for climbing.

“It’s not only our elite athletes – including Will Bosi, Molly Thompson-Smith and more – that will be supported by this funding either. We’re excited of the potential it brings to evolve our Performance Pathway and help develop the best British competition climbing talent and coaches. It will ensure that our athletes have the best support from top coaches and access to the best training facilities, using the latest techniques all the way.

“We are also looking forward to transferring our knowledge to our other elite teams – the already highly-successful Paraclimbing, Ice Climbing and Ski Mountaineering teams – to ensure athletes in all sports and disciplines are nurtured in their journeys to medal success.” 

With the help of UK Sport, Sport England and our other partners, the BMC aims to use the funding to put the athletes at the centre of a blueprint to enable them to reach their potential dreams of Olympic or Paralympic participation.

.....


Then, in 2022, this BMC news piece announced the BMC has received government/lottery funding of £2.8 million over the next 10 years:

The BMC will receive expertise, support and an investment of £2,790,875 of government and National Lottery funding from Sport England to co-deliver the ambitions of its 10-year Uniting the Movement strategy.

The article describes the aims of the funding:

As part of the funding award the BMC will work in collaborative partnership with the Association of British Climbing Walls (ABC), Mountain Training UK & Ireland, Mountain Training England and the National Indoor Climbing Award Schemes (NICAS). Using our shared knowledge, leadership, and position of influence to create the right conditions for participation in our activities by all members of society – establishing a truly inclusive community of participants.

The BMC will be supported to continue to focus on leadership in governing and oversight*; in raising the profile of the sport of climbing, and in supporting the sport’s growth and ongoing development. The participant experience will be at the core with a system of coaches, clubs, and venues to ensure minimum standards are met in safeguarding, anti-doping, facilities, and coaching provision.

Finally, the award will enable the BMC to transform and establish an England talent pathway with multiple transition points, appropriate to athlete age and development. Holistic athlete planning supports positive athlete experiences, preparing them equally for life as a performer and for life beyond the competitive arena. Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.

All of which is basically saying they started receiving £2.8m last year over ten years to fund indoors, comps, athlete development, coaches etc. Not access.

The statement at the end by the ceo is interesting:

Paul Davies, CEO of the BMC, said: “The BMC is at an important cross-roads with increasing participation across all the disciplines that we represent and exciting developments in the sport of competition climbing. We have a responsibility to ensure that everyone can participate responsibly, safely and that they supported to achieve their potential.

“Under the ‘Uniting the Movement’ strategy and support of Sport England, and alongside our partners we will create an environment where participants, volunteers, and administrators will be reflective of the nation’s demographic, creating a better future for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers.”

That's £3.2m in funding announced in the above two articles which started in 2020 and will continue over the next ten years. Yet now we're being told the BMC isn't growing as quickly as hoped so it needs to cut back on everything, including Access, because it isn't making enough money - the key question for me is how much money do the BMC need for competition climbing, if the £3.2 million it's received/been agreed to be given over next 10 years isn't enough?

That's just from two quick searches that came up for 'BMC, sport england, uk sport funding'. Further back there are other announcements of funding. So where does the money go? Something (literally) doesn't add up from the picture being painted. Where has the money gone and where is it going to go in future?




* lol, 'governance and leadership'.. couldn't make it up.

[SA Chris]

Should it bother me that "England" "GB" and "UK" seem to be used interchangeably in the various organisation bodies and statements? Could lead to a bit of confusion?

[Tony]

I do think some people in this forum are surprisingly financially illiterate or feigning financial illiteracy somewhat.

I do not think the BMC are blameless nor, perhaps, as transparent as one might wish, but:

Your desires for what the BMC does is inherently biased compared with the cohort the BMC wish to have as members. Remember this. (And, before anyone tries it, respondents to the BMC survey are also a biased sample.)

Usually, announcements about funding refer to the total value of funding over the entire period. Frequently they also include existing funding. Bear in mind, the real terms value of that funding has decreased massively over the last 2 years as we’ve gone from ~2% inflation to ~8% inflation. Most (if not all) of the promised money will likely not be inflation adjusted. This money is also often tied to certain activities and some may not be used for operational costs (pay) but only capital costs. £3M/10 = £300k pa not outrageous sums.

A person’s gross pay is about half their cost to an employer. Inflation increases both staff costs, material and energy costs.Gov grant funding is unlikely to go up, there will also be a reluctance to pass through costs to members (also facing inflation pressures) to avoid lowering membership numbers.

This is a problem that many membership organisations are facing.

Clearly, there are a lot more hillwalkers than climbers. I imagine the BMC are trying to attract more hillwalkers to become members (better than cheapskate climbers!). Access for hillwalkers is, generally, less of an issue as - unsurprisingly- it is usually practiced on upland environments.

If you want to help the BMC spend more on access, you’d prob be better trying to get your hillwalking mates to join the BMC rather than threatening to stop paying your membership subs but whatever…

[Oldmanmatt]

I do think some people in this forum are surprisingly financially illiterate or feigning financial illiteracy somewhat.

I do not think the BMC are blameless nor, perhaps, as transparent as one might wish, but:

Your desires for what the BMC does is inherently biased compared with the cohort the BMC wish to have as members. Remember this. (And, before anyone tries it, respondents to the BMC survey are also a biased sample.)

Usually, announcements about funding refer to the total value of funding over the entire period. Frequently they also include existing funding. Bear in mind, the real terms value of that funding has decreased massively over the last 2 years as we’ve gone from ~2% inflation to ~8% inflation. Most (if not all) of the promised money will likely not be inflation adjusted. This money is also often tied to certain activities and some may not be used for operational costs (pay) but only capital costs. £3M/10 = £300k pa not outrageous sums.

A person’s gross pay is about half their cost to an employer. Inflation increases both staff costs, material and energy costs.Gov grant funding is unlikely to go up, there will also be a reluctance to pass through costs to members (also facing inflation pressures) to avoid lowering membership numbers.

This is a problem that many membership organisations are facing.

Clearly, there are a lot more hillwalkers than climbers. I imagine the BMC are trying to attract more hillwalkers to become members (better than cheapskate climbers!). Access for hillwalkers is, generally, less of an issue as - unsurprisingly- it is usually practiced on upland environments.

If you want to help the BMC spend more on access, you’d prob be better trying to get your hillwalking mates to join the BMC rather than threatening to stop paying your membership subs but whatever…

Holy fucking shit.

I rarely feel “angry” at a post here, but to call Pete or myself “financially illiterate “ is just extremely condescending and fucking, plain, wrong. I’m certain we all understood everything you wrote. Absolutely fuck all to do with the budget allocations of the organisation nor does it address any of the legitimate points and questions raised.

[petejh]

Tony, if your 'financially illiterate' cheap shot is aimed at me than you've missed the point being made. Which is:
In times of financial overshoot which require slim-lining of the important bits of the BMC as has just been announced, do you not think it matters A LOT that we all understand what the total costs are of various parts of the BMC, and who's spending what, so we can all make an informed opinion on what the priorities are, whether those priorities make sense and align with member's priorities?

Those details don't seem transparent.

edit.. deleted the rest as it's basically same as the above.

[Oldmanmatt]

I do think some people in this forum are surprisingly financially illiterate or feigning financial illiteracy somewhat.

I do not think the BMC are blameless nor, perhaps, as transparent as one might wish, but:

Your desires for what the BMC does is inherently biased compared with the cohort the BMC wish to have as members. Remember this. (And, before anyone tries it, respondents to the BMC survey are also a biased sample.)

Usually, announcements about funding refer to the total value of funding over the entire period. Frequently they also include existing funding. Bear in mind, the real terms value of that funding has decreased massively over the last 2 years as we’ve gone from ~2% inflation to ~8% inflation. Most (if not all) of the promised money will likely not be inflation adjusted. This money is also often tied to certain activities and some may not be used for operational costs (pay) but only capital costs. £3M/10 = £300k pa not outrageous sums.

A person’s gross pay is about half their cost to an employer. Inflation increases both staff costs, material and energy costs.Gov grant funding is unlikely to go up, there will also be a reluctance to pass through costs to members (also facing inflation pressures) to avoid lowering membership numbers.

This is a problem that many membership organisations are facing.

Clearly, there are a lot more hillwalkers than climbers. I imagine the BMC are trying to attract more hillwalkers to become members (better than cheapskate climbers!). Access for hillwalkers is, generally, less of an issue as - unsurprisingly- it is usually practiced on upland environments.

If you want to help the BMC spend more on access, you’d prob be better trying to get your hillwalking mates to join the BMC rather than threatening to stop paying your membership subs but whatever…

Holy fucking shit.

I rarely feel “angry” at a post here, but to call Pete or myself “financially illiterate “ is just extremely condescending and fucking, plain, wrong. I’m certain we all understood everything you wrote. Absolutely fuck all to do with the budget allocations of the organisation nor does it address any of the legitimate points and questions raised.

Ok, ok…

Overreaction. My bad.

[Tony]

My comment about about “financial illiteracy” was -of course- provocative; I was really suggesting the latter clause. I will be more specific: I think some comments have been disingenuous or, at the very least, hyperbole.

I was, in the main, reacting to Pete’s comments but I’m sure there’s others. (I’m not reading 24 pages on  the BMC … again!)

I just feel that there are very knowledgeable people who are writing that they can’t comprehend this sort of performance when, really, it is not such a stretch to comprehend.

I have been a member of organisations that are run by committee and they are terrible, nothing happens. Direct democracy is dreadful.

I did write that the BMC is not as “transparent as one might wish.” But, I can imagine there are circumstances that limit their openness and setting a low bar for full transparency leads to a hiding to nothing.

It is not the case that the BMC’s boss is it’s members and climbers - especially UKB climbers - are not it’s only customers.

If Climbing comps bring in a sizeable portion of the BMC money then they support a sizeable portion of the overheads. Two small organisations are unlikely to be as efficient (overall) as one larger organisation.

I’m not saying the BMC should not reform further but, come’on: let him who is without sin cast the first stone…

[Will Hunt]

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.

I disagree. Access is essential; everything else is desirable. ie Access should trump the other sides.

On this, I think having an organising/governing body for comp climbing is essential, if not just for the safeguarding provision as well as all the other admin there must be (how many sports are there where there aren't child abuse scandals? Why would we expect climbing to be different?). Whether or not that should be done within the BMC or some other organisation is debatable.

[petejh]

I just feel that there are very knowledgeable people who are writing that they can’t comprehend this sort of performance when, really, it is not such a stretch to comprehend.

I have been a member of organisations that are run by committee and they are terrible, nothing happens. Direct democracy is dreadful.

I did write that the BMC is not as “transparent as one might wish.” But, I can imagine there are circumstances that limit their openness and setting a low bar for full transparency leads to a hiding to nothing.

It is not the case that the BMC’s boss is it’s members and climbers - especially UKB climbers - are not it’s only customers.

If Climbing comps bring in a sizeable portion of the BMC money then they support a sizeable portion of the overheads. Two small organisations are unlikely to be as efficient (overall) as one larger organisation.

I'm saying income and expenditure should be transparent so members could take an informed view on how the organisation they pay to be a member of allocates its (and their) money. Essentially what you're saying is: 'yeah they're crap at being transparent - that's member organsiations for you'

Now they've just reported that they've failed to attract extra members (that were seemingly unrealistically forecast) and in the financial shortfall are cutting bits of the BMC that are of the most value to the most members. And it's a bit unclear what the financial relationship is with the bit that is of least value to most members but which attracts the most money and costs the most (GBC), to the rest of the BMC. 

I'm also saying I'd prefer (but don't expect) a BMC that didn't focus as much on comps/athletes/coaches/olympics and did focus more on advocating for access to and protection of hills, cliffs, moors, coastline, the outdoors -  i.e. all the bits that the vast majority of us actually value the most.
And you seem to essentially be saying 'the BMC is a bit crap at representing the majority of their membership because they want the funding that comes with being the NGB for competitive climbing. So why can you not comprehend this poor performance?'

I can comprehend it, I suppose I just don't like it.

[Oldmanmatt]

It most certainly is the case that the members are the club. What you have described is the co-opting of the club by another organisation.
I’m not suggesting this has happened.

If a club does not exist to serve it’s members, it is not a club.
I don’t think anyone has said that climbers or UKB’ers are the largest or most important members. Pretty sure many of those climbers etc are also hill walkers, mountaineers, winter climbers, skiers and various combinations of. The British Mountaineering Council was set up to represent the interests of those people. It markets itself as such. It is more than reasonable for the members to ask for both transparency and assurance that GB climbing is not now wagging the BMC tail.

Access, surely, affects most of the  mentioned activities above? Didn’t we just have a bit of a battle over Dartmoor camping?

And, where would the BMC’s legitimacy lie, if membership were to plumet?

No, sorry, but the “if you’re not selling what I want buy, then I ain’t paying” line is perfectly justified.
All you appear to be saying is “don’t question your betters, they know what’s good for you”.

It’s true, I’m sure they “have their reasons”. Also, damned certain the members have a right to know those reasons and the official statement does not reveal anything.

This isn’t merely “less transparency than I would like” it is blatant obfuscation. It’s a political press release, not an answer to legitimate calls for explanation.

How much opacity do you think members should tolerate, before taking their money and support elsewhere?
What a disaster that would be.
Control has been removed from the membership and the organisation is now a corporate one (probably a needed step). Many members are suddenly realising they have been disenfranchised by that change.

However, the organisation is reliant on it’s members for both legitimacy and financial stability. Is it just outdoor climbers complaining? How does GB Climbing benefit hill walkers exactly?

Anyway, I’ll cast the damn stones I’ve paid to cast, cheers.

I realised I’ve been a member for thirty years, either directly or via the RNRMC. I’m (sorta) paying twice right now.

[mrjonathanr]

On this, I think having an organising/governing body for comp climbing is essential, if not just for the safeguarding provision as well as all the other admin there must be (how many sports are there where there aren't child abuse scandals? Why would we expect climbing to be different?). Whether or not that should be done within the BMC or some other organisation is debatable.

You make a good point about safeguarding, but my comment wasn’t intended to imply that this wasn’t essential in the context of comps but that running comp climbing isn’t, to me, essential in the context of the national body.

[webbo]

Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.

I disagree. Access is essential; everything else is desirable. ie Access should trump the other sides.

On this, I think having an organising/governing body for comp climbing is essential, if not just for the safeguarding provision as well as all the other admin there must be (how many sports are there where there aren't child abuse scandals? Why would we expect climbing to be different?). Whether or not that should be done within the BMC or some other organisation is debatable.

There may well skeletons in the closet. It may take someone to become one before it comes out.

[Fiend]

Are these skeletons GB athletes with too much "REDS", or desiccated husks who have been suckered in by Mark20 peddling Silicon dioxide??