[petejh]

But, fundamentally, if you want a well run organisation it is logically inconsistent to think that an organisation should not pay a reasonable (comparable to other similar bodies) salary to its CEO.

Agree with this logic. Although I'd argue it also applies to organisations that aren't well-run - high pay correlates with good performance but correlation isn't causation!

A poorly-run organisation can cost the same (or more) as a well-run one. An example of this might be wasting tens of thousands of pounds in expenses through poor organisation.

By this logic it therefore stands to reason that an organisation - say... the BMC - that wished to establish from scratch a professional non-governing sporting body to oversee competition climbing would likely have high overheads. Which is what we're seeing.

GB Climbing needs to attract 'elite' level sporting performance directors, managers, coaches, trainers, advisors, administrators, event organisers etc. These people don't work for free.

The latest staff list on the BMC website (out of date by 3 years) looks like a classic example of an expensive growing organisational blob.

I think most members would expect transparency of the BMC, to understand where member money gets spent. One way of being transparent is a remuneration break-down of BMC senior management including GB Climbing, with transparency on the proportion of member's contributions compared to funding contributions.

On this, there appears to be an interesting piece of information in 'British Canoeing's' AGM minutes that's very relevant to the situation the BMC is about to find itself experiencing. It looks obvious to me that the BMC will split based on this.

[spidermonkey09]

On this, there appears to be an interesting piece of information in 'British Canoeing's' AGM minutes that's very relevant to the situation the BMC is about to find itself experiencing. It looks obvious to me that the BMC will split based on this.

Come on Pete, don't make me read the entire AGM minutes...

[petejh]

https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/uploads/documents/Board-Minutes-March-2021.pdf

(DCMS refers to department culture media and sport).
Paul Ratcliffe now GB Climbing's performance director.


6. World Class Programme funding 2021-25 and beyond
JC welcomed Paul Ratcliffe (PR) to the meeting and introduced Item 06 highlighting that a
decision was required around the approval of the co-funding allocation of £580k for the 2021-25 Paris Funding cycle.

DJ highlighted the key points from the paper;
- It is a DCMS directive that all NGBs receiving World Class Performance Funding need
to contribute to the costs of the Performance Programme
- The amount required had recently changed and increased, due to the impact of
coronavirus and the reduction of the DCMS award to UK Sport. All provision for “Gap
Funding” was removed from the process and the NGB contribution increased from
15% to 25% of core costs. For British Canoeing this amounted to £452k for the
Olympic programmes and £128k for the Paracanoe programme.
- The value of the Performance Programme to British Canoeing and the
interdependencies between WCP and core costs needed to be fully considered
- The expenditure in the programme cannot be reduced any further whilst
maintaining the potential to produce the results required
- Funding cuts would need to come out of core costs that are already lean
- The proposed sources of funding was £400k from retained balance sheet funds,
which had originated from public funding sources. The balance of £177K was
planned from commercial partnerships, but this could not be guaranteed.
There was a comprehensive discussion around the principles of supporting the funding
contribution. The Board required that the change is drawn to the attention of the members
within future financial reports.
There was recognition that the principal of this requirement is likely to stay and that it may
be at this level for future cycles. The challenge will be greater, if balance sheet funds have
already been released.

BRITISH CANOEING BOARD MEETING - 13 MARCH 2021 - FB73 - BY ZOOM | Minutes
A Board member emphasised that it was important to note that cash flows in both directions
across British Canoeing and the World Class Performance Programme and that it is in British
Canoeing’s interests to make this contribution as it represents a positive net funding position
overall.

It was noted that British Canoeing fund the non-Olympic disciplines with around £150k in total
each year and has also invested heavily in Go Paddling resources for recreational paddlers.

The Board noted and approved the co-funding allocation of £580k for the 2021-25 Paris
Funding Cycle as outlined in paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the paper.

[petejh]

Actually a bit more reading shows that 'world class performance funding', which is what British Canoeing receive, is different to the 'progression funding' GB Climbing receives. 75% UK Sport / 25% contribution by British Canoeing versus 85% UK Sport / 15% contribution by BMC.

My bad.

It still leaves the obvious question though of when 'progression funding' changes to 'performance funding'. The future looks likely to involve a 25% financial commitment to GB Climbing from the BMC, if Sport Climbing becomes a successful sport (likely). This should be communicated.

[steveri]

A couple of dumb generalisations: most climbers aren't in the BMC, most climbers don't climb outdoors much. A tiny number of primarily indoor climbers are interested in the BMC. This is a potential source for growth, if the BMC can offer them something tangible.

Indoor folk are probably more likely to identify with competitions, it's more like what they do. Split competitions off and you'll reduce the tiny number of climbers interested in the BMC close to zero, unintended consequences. But what the BMC can offer Josh and Emily down the wall is likely a different question.

[mrjonathanr]

Split competitions off and you'll reduce the tiny number of climbers interested in the BMC close to zero, unintended consequences. But what the BMC can offer Josh and Emily down the wall is likely a different question.

Not all BMC members have to be climbers- there are a lot of hill walkers who care about the environment and access to the mountains. I’d argue losing the running of comps still leaves a significant pool of potential BMC members.

Ideally, the BMC could do it all.  However, simultaneously being the representative and governing body looks like too difficult a balancing act at the moment. The question for me is: would the outdoor remit of the BMC be better supported if comps were split off?

[shark]

There are advantages to having everything under one roof as the BMC is then held as the de facto leading climbing body by other organisations whether they be bodies like UK Sport or major landowners like the National Trust. That status carries clout.

More specifically a key facilitating role undertaken by the BMC is it’s a ‘one sport’ application to Sport England that combines applications for the ABC, Mountain Training etc. If GB Climbing totally split off (rather than say becomes an independent subsidiary with its own Board) that status would be undermined. It is also conceivable that GB Climbing over times becomes a bigger and more successful body and would usurp the BMC in this role and would be more successful at winning grant money for itself.

If the BMC get back on track with its priorities, financial control and transparency then all of the above might be averted. As things stand the emphasis by the Senior Leadership is very much more on GB Climbing and the Sporting bodies to the detriment of Access. That emphasis needs to change as it doesn’t reflect the wishes of the vast majority of members as proved by surveys.

[Tony]

… as proved by surveys.

Surveys prove nothing. Well conducted surveys may lend support to a position.

There are some interesting contrasts between the 2010 and 2017 surveys. I don’t think either were particularly well designed and both fairly poorly reported. Reading both together is helpful.

I am sure access is important to many (certainly more than comp climbing) - I’m not arguing about that. But when it comes to people actually handing over their cash, priorities often seem to change.

[shark]

Ok ‘indicated’ then but sounds like a nit picking to me

[galpinos]

New/Revised Statement:

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

[mrjonathanr]

It’s an improvement on the first statement but the English is terrible and the lack of clarity about why they have run over budget and exactly which roles have gone/will go is concerning. It still gives the impression that they do not want to be completely honest about this.

[spidermonkey09]

I've got no problem with the English in that statement tbh. The odd occasion where a semi colon might have been better but don't see what the issue is?

On the whole a much improved statement. I think it was established that the fixed term contract of the Mend Our Mountains employee has not been renewed. I agree the central questions remain but whether a public statement is the appropriate forum for that I'm not sure.

[mrjonathanr]

There are errors that need correcting but yeah, maybe I’m being harsh a bit harsh after the obfuscatory management speak of the  first statement. The statement is definitely an improvement but I’m still unclear what the total reduction in FTE will be in ACES. 0.3 + 0.4- but has 0.8 not gone already?

[Dingdong]

I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation 

[Will Hunt]

I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation 

Could this be UKB's most ironic post?


I'm with Jim; I thought the language there was fine. Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced), there were one or two places I'd have liked an extra comma, but on the whole it was perfectly readable. Given that people always complain of the management speak it was also very straightforward.

Think of the grammatical atrocities committed by McCarthy: people called him a genius!

[Dingdong]

I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation 

Could this be UKB's most ironic post?


I'm with Jim; I thought the language there was fine. Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced), there were one or two places I'd have liked an extra comma, but on the whole it was perfectly readable. Given that people always complain of the management speak it was also very straightforward.

Think of the grammatical atrocities committed by McCarthy: people called him a genius!

I realise I forgot to capitalise his name now aha. Though I think Faulkner is infinitely worse than McCarthy when it comes to it, having at one point the longest sentence in the world with 0 commas lol

[petejh]

A long time ago, while recovering from a back injury, I sent a job application and cover letter for a part-time job proofreading. I received a polite letter informing me I hadn't got the job and that, if I was considering this as a career, I should more carefully proofread my cover letter/application before submitting as they contained typos. 


Thought the statement was 'ok'. Fair play to A.S. for making the effort to communicate. The telling part for me was his comments about GBC.

[shark]

To his credit Paul Davies CEO attended the Peak Area in person last night and I quizzed him on two areas

Regarding the two members of staff who gone prior to the redundancy exercise. It turns out the Property Officer (Phil) is a flexible contractor who is part funded by the Land and Property Trust who is so flexible in fact that he has chosen to take the summer off and Paul expects him to re-commence his work in September. However, the Hillwalking Officer did have his contract terminated early and will not be replaced. They worked 4 days a week with 2 days devoted to fund raising and 2 days to project management and their responsibilities will be absorbed by other people in the Access team which represents a reduction in the headcount.

Secondly I pressed Paul for a figure on how much GB Climbing cost the BMC less grant funding and their other income. He refuted the figure of £530k and said that it was £180k. Quite frankly this stretched my credulity as in 2021 the cost was £327k and he had already confirmed that last years IFSC Ratho competition alone was an unsubsidised cost of £90k (budget £40-50k) and no such competition was held in 2021 not to mention the increase in staff numbers in 2022. However, he promised to provide a full breakdown of the figures in due course and at the end of the meeting reiterated that I could follow him up on that which of course I will and I now have his email address.

Howard J on UKC has pointed out that the £180k Paul stuck to is shown in the Financial Report, which is part of the Annual Report.  It is the difference between £0.96m GB Climbing costs (including expenditure related to the grant funding) and £0.780M income to support the activities of GB Climbing (including £0.421M funding from UK Sport and £0.166M funding from Sport England).  However he says it does not include the IFSC World Cup Ratho cost of £90k which is included under "Other Costs".  I'm also not convinced it includes other items such as a fair apportionment of support staff costs which are shared such as IT, HR, Marketing and Communications or an apportionment of Management costs and expenses such as the CEO attending an IFSC Conference in Salt Lake City. 

A final concerning piece of news was that they don’t intend to replace the Chief Financial Officer,

[mrjonathanr]

I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation 

Could this be UKB's most ironic post?


I'm with Jim; I thought the language there was fine.

Hmm… syntax and tenses… although (full disclosure) I’d just got back from climbing at 2 Tier with bruised ribs, which, it turns out, shouldn’t be the rehab of choice, nor does it make for the happiest frame of mind to post on the internet

Having this course correction plan in place at the outset was good governance, especially in challenging times as we are all experiencing at the moment. However, we have still found ourselves in a position where additional savings were required and regretfully, we had to instigate a restructure plan.

Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced)

I take it you’re American? 

[Tony]

I'm also not convinced it includes other items such as a fair apportionment of support staff costs which are shared such as IT, HR, Marketing and Communications or an apportionment of Management costs and expenses such as the CEO attending an IFSC Conference in Salt Lake City.

sounds like a nit picking to me 

CFO’s are generally expensive, say 0.5CFO = 0.75-1 ACES officer (supposing you’d get a CFO that P/T). What’s your preference?

[mrjonathanr]

CFO’s are generally expensive, say 0.5CFO = 0.75-1 ACES officer (supposing you’d get a CFO that P/T). What’s your preference?

Not overspending on the comp budget in the first place. tbh

[Tony]

Not overspending on the comp budget in the first place. tbh

I’m sure shark will share the details of the BMC’s spending overall when he has them. Until then it’s not entirely clear how costs have fallen across different areas and what their budgets were.

[shark]

Paul Davies the CEO has released an article rebutting most of the issues raised to date. I think this is going to set a bomb off in various quarters.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ceo-qa 4 

Just focussing on the cost of GBClimbing he has confirmed that the £180k cost he cited at the Peak Area meeting is made up of £780k from UKS, SE, competition fees and sponsorship less a spend of £961k which is £180k.

However, this doesn’t include the £90k cost of hosting the World Cup at Ratho.

He goes on to confirm that if a share of office overheads are included than there is a further £81k to add. However, he doesn’t say what % this allocation is or what the overall overhead is - either figure would do to get a reality check.

Anyway in my book the net contribution of support by the BMC in 2022 towards supporting GBClimbing based on the figures disclosed so far is £341k.

This is more than the revised projected deficit for this year that led to the redundancies and is obviously far more than implied by a cursory look at the 2022 annual report.

[abarro81]

341k appears to be more in line with 2021 and significantly more than the entire access spend in 2022 (274k) based on the infographic here:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/redundancies_deficits_and_direction_-_whats_happening_at_the_bmc-15275

Although the admin costs are so high that you wonder if all staff costs are somehow lumped in there or something weird? The whole spend structure looks very strange, at least to someone who only ever sees financials for consulting or manufacturing businesses). Are admin costs being that high normal for an organisation like this?

Anyway, doesn't hugely make comp climbing look good value for
money, especially when you consider that the athletes largely self fund both comps and the bulk of their coaching!

[galpinos]

Putting aside abarro's comments on the value for money of GB Climbing (I agree by the way!)

Simon:

- You said redundancies, there was one (voluntary) redundancy? This may seem irrelevant but it implies a certain tone to your post.
- Office costs allocated to areas - There seems to be criticism of not adding the office costs to the GB Climbing Budget. They don't do it with any other "slice of the pie", why should they do it with GB Climbing? (Genuine question, it is a sperate line item in the annual report and has been for the last three reports in the "new format".).
- I may not be impressed with how the Ratho budget was managed but I can understand why it would not be "GB Climbing" spend in the accounts, even though that might ruffle the feathers of the anti-BMC/anti-COMP crew. I doubt it was a GB Climbing idea, more a leadership team decision to raise the BMC profile/attract sponsors etc. It is there in the annual report, though in it's grouping it a bit disingenuous!

The scaremongering about redundancies and the access team based on social media gossip didn't age well. Is it really helpful pulling more random figures out the air?