[shark]

Simon:

- You said redundancies, there was one (voluntary) redundancy? This may seem irrelevant but it implies a certain tone to your post.

Fair enough. My mistake. Please substitute “course corrections”

- 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".).

How they do things internally is up to them. How they present things to members is another matter. You wouldn’t need so many support and management staff if GBClimbing wasn’t there and the BMC scaled down accordingly. If we are to understand how much GBClimbing costs these very real costs should be included especially if there is to be a weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of GB Climbing becoming an independent body where it would have to shoulder these support costs itself and the savings the rump of the BMC might make in doing so. If GBC were an independent subsid of the BMC there would be a management charge from the BMC for any shared support from HR, IT, Marketing etc they benefitted from.

- 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!

If GBClimbing were separate the BMC would not pay to host a World Cup. It’s ridiculous not to include it a GBC cost. The profile raised and sponsors gleaned will only be to the future benefit of GBC

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?

You’ve made your views about me abundantly clear more than once.

I’m relaying info in good faith when others are unwilling to do so. Typically those in charge aren’t disclosing things openly and transparently. My access to info is flawed but by putting stuff out there on SM provides an opportunity for those in charge to put the record straight as the CEO has attempted to do in todays Q&A.

Does it not occur to you that the cuts in access might have been more severe had there not been an outcry on social media? Impossible to prove either way but not beyond the realms of possibility.

My experiences in the past to solely get things done or glean facts off line through official BMC channels have not been great. Always time consuming and frustrating and usually fruitless.

What random figures are you alluding to? All those figures are drawn from the CEO’s Q&A article

[northern yob]

I’ve been reading the threads on the other channel with interest on this, whilst I can’t bring myself to get involved over there, there are a few things I need to get off my chest… sorry.

There’s a lot of talk about cutting GBC  loose and having it as a separate entity. I was very much an advocate of this last time…. And I’m 100% sure that in the long run that would be better for GBC. However I find the view that it’s ok to just jettison it as it’s the reason for the BMC budget deficit hard to swallow.

In my view GBC is 100% the BMC, the mess they are in is 100% the BMC’s making. Do people really think it’s ok to run something so badly and just be able to cut it loose without any sense of responsibility or kickback?

It seems to me like there is a fundamental problem with the culture of the organisation as a whole not just GBC and that cutting out the cancer that is GBC isn’t going to save the body as a whole. The Access stuff the BMC does is amazing but exactly what else are we actually getting and are we happy with it? How many full time staff are at the BMC? Whilst I get that it’s not as simple as straight numbers in departments etc and there is crossover work between lots of it, do people really feel that without GBC the BMC is a well oiled machine?

From what I can gather(I don’t actually care enough or have enough time to look into it properly) the work JR and others did a few years ago to come up with various recommendations for the future has been to some degree ignored/not adopted… it stinks of the kind of shit our various inept governments like to do with independent reports because ultimately all they are bothered about is staying in power.

Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?

The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.

Genuinely interested in what other think, these are basically opinions which might not stand up to much scrutiny (I certainly can’t face brining it up on Ukc)

[Tony]

Being a good manager is not as easy as people think, either because they: don’t manage people; are bad managers; or, are very lucky and work for an organisation (or part thereof) which has lots of money/resources.

Changing the culture of an organisation is really not easy and takes time and money (resources) and will upset people.

The ORG’s recommendations are all reasonable but the ORG did not provide a plan of how to implement these changes (many/most of them are a bit “fluffy”), nor did they cost it up and provide a timeline.

The ORG recommendations were published in 2018, the new CEO was appointed mid-2021, there was a large disruption to BAU 2020-2022.  I don’t know him and have never met him but give the CEO some time.

[Offwidth]

There’s a lot of talk about cutting GBC  loose and having it as a separate entity. I was very much an advocate of this last time…. And I’m 100% sure that in the long run that would be better for GBC. However I find the view that it’s ok to just jettison it as it’s the reason for the BMC budget deficit hard to swallow.

Cutting lose was the BMC 30 option.... ie no BMC involvement.

The costs of a BMC subsidiary would have been slightly higher, but financial control may have been better; the bureaucracy more complex and transparency should have been improved but not guaranteed to be; flexibility would have been reduced (harder to shift staff on something urgent); the liabilities would have been the same. Saying a subsidiary was a much better option than the internal department was always plain wrong, and swapping now is fraught with serious issues. Iain Whitehouse's posts on the UKC poll thread from a professional perspective are worth reading, as are Ian W's.

In my view GBC is 100% the BMC, the mess they are in is 100% the BMC’s making. Do people really think it’s ok to run something so badly and just be able to cut it loose without any sense of responsibility or kickback?

It's hard to say and we mustn't exaggerate, GB Climbing is not run so badly in many respects, but there are clear problems in some key areas: stakeholder communications in GB Climbing are well below where they should have been; there were some poor examples of financial control and planning in overseas competition; there were some welfare issues that shouldn't have happened; grassroots responsibilities havn't got significant attention. BMC management should stop being defensive, apologise, and fix things.

Cutting lose now is a childish response and would impact activity and jobs for work funded through SE and UKS (Andy Syme detailed the large grants across the BMC in the poll thread...a large proportion of posts are outside GB Climbing)

It seems to me like there is a fundamental problem with the culture of the organisation as a whole not just GBC and that cutting out the cancer that is GBC isn’t going to save the body as a whole. The Access stuff the BMC does is amazing but exactly what else are we actually getting and are we happy with it? How many full time staff are at the BMC? Whilst I get that it’s not as simple as straight numbers in departments etc and there is crossover work between lots of it, do people really feel that without GBC the BMC is a well oiled machine?

The BMC has always been complex and within that it doesn't do too badly. I prefer to think of it the other way round to a conventional company: it's an organisation that helps facilitate and magnify volunteer efforts. It's not just ACES either: those volunteers include parents and others running youth comps. To do that it needs income and staff and governance structures and in my view the paid and volunteer roles are roughly in the right places.

From what I can gather(I don’t actually care enough or have enough time to look into it properly) the work JR and others did a few years ago to come up with various recommendations for the future has been to some degree ignored/not adopted… it stinks of the kind of shit our various inept governments like to do with independent reports because ultimately all they are bothered about is staying in power.

I disagree, the political analogy is daft and although ORG did some fantastic work it was far from perfect, in particular it had way too little information on planning the implementation of the recommended changes and the likely costs of those.

The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.

It is indeed the responsibility of those at the top to sort things out. Too often staff have been unfairly singled out and criticised on forums for doing their job.

[northern yob]

From what I can gather(I don’t actually care enough or have enough time to look into it properly) the work JR and others did a few years ago to come up with various recommendations for the future has been to some degree ignored/not adopted… it stinks of the kind of shit our various inept governments like to do with independent reports because ultimately all they are bothered about is staying in power.

I disagree, the political analogy is daft and although ORG did some fantastic work it was far from perfect, in particular it had way too little information on planning the implementation of the recommended changes and the likely costs of those.

Ha ha said the government spokesperson….. I think your strengthening my analogy

[Offwidth]

I chose to represent what the BMC is in my view, in it's widest sense, for BMC rock climbing members' interests (and those in the wider rock climbing community) in a significantly time consuming volunteer role on Council. I've constructively represented people and tried to improve things in imperfect bureaucracies all my working life, on top of my actual working role. Yes that position is incompatible with saying "everything is shit" on forums,  because it's not all shit, mostly just the opposite. That doesn't mean I think some important stuff doesn't need improving (and in fact, a few areas needed significant improvement quickly... some of which, better comms and more openess on costs, has already started to happen).

[petejh]

Political jargon-speaker creature.

[galpinos]

Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?

The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.

Jason, what is it you think isn't working at the BMC? What is the mongolian clusterfuck mentioned above? What should the BMC doing that they are not? Genuine questions by the way, I see a lot of "the BMC are awful" posts, especially on the other channel, but the reasons that they are awful is rarely/never articulated*.

*I am discounting those who are using the current lack of budgetary control as an excuse to attempt to purge comp climbing from the BMC for ideological reasons.

[northern yob]

Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?

The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.

Jason, what is it you think isn't working at the BMC? What is the mongolian clusterfuck mentioned above? What should the BMC doing that they are not? Genuine questions by the way, I see a lot of "the BMC are awful" posts, especially on the other channel, but the reasons that they are awful is rarely/never articulated*.

*I am discounting those who are using the current lack of budgetary control as an excuse to attempt to purge comp climbing from the BMC for ideological reasons.

Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?

The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.

Jason, what is it you think isn't working at the BMC? What is the mongolian clusterfuck mentioned above? What should the BMC doing that they are not? Genuine questions by the way, I see a lot of "the BMC are awful" posts, especially on the other channel, but the reasons that they are awful is rarely/never articulated*.

*I am discounting those who are using the current lack of budgetary control as an excuse to attempt to purge comp climbing from the BMC for ideological reasons.

Great question….. I’m not actually sure, which I get is fucked up!

Firstly as I’ve already mentioned I have a deep seated mistrust of organisations and authority and this undoubtedly drives the majority of my gripes.

The BMC has over the last 20yrs has become increasingly more inept with its running of comps and the team. I’ve seen really good people get involved with really good intentions and basically walk away due to frustrations with the way it is run. The fact that athletes are self funding to attend comps currently when 20yrs ago that wasn’t quite the case, yes it cost them but not like it does now! Speaks volumes. As the funding has increased the comps/team has consistently failed to be good enough and whilst it has improved in some ways it’s not enough. Don’t get me wrong they are trying but it’s not working and hasn’t been for more than 10yrs…. How much time do they need to get it right? When something is that wrong for that long it’s got to be down to the structure and the people at the top.

My experience of the insurance over the last decade has been that it’s got worse.

I’m maybe in the minority that think climbing should be being pushed from a participation point of view, I don’t see that happening( I know lots of people are against this)

I don’t see much about diversity and inclusivity , where exactly is the big push to increase this? (It should be happening at indoor walls where the bmc’s presence is non existent)

The only thing the bmc does for me is to represent me with regards access which is a huge thing and is only going to become more of an issue.

What do you think the bmc is doing for you? And is it doing it well?

I can’t get away from the feeling that bmc towers is like an old boys club where once you are in you can sit back and take an easy ride, this is undoubtedly not based on anything other than my fucked up distrust of organisations and probably not the case, but it’s something I can’t shake! It feels like the people that work there are more interested in justifying their steady job and nice salary than they are about getting things right. Which is a terrible thing to say, and hopefully not the case but that thought is always there…. It’s a problem with lots of big organisations I know.

I don’t have any answers! Comps and the team deserve better much much better. And despite everything, I know we need something representing us,but it feels like it’s a complete car crash which seems to just be getting worse.

[Oldmanmatt]

Thinking about a few of Northern Yob’s points…

I sold my wall last year and I’m no longer professionally involved in the climbing scene (first time since I was 16 that I’m not an instructor, guide or wall owner, feels odd).
Over the ten years I ran that wall and in the years before, that I ran/managed  (part time) club/base/sport centre walls; I tried repeatedly to get the BMC to engage with trying to recruit through the centre and never managed to get anything more constructive than their free “Have you tied in/warmed up” posters. When I was opening the bouldering centre, the “Walls officer” (or what ever his title was and we’ll skip his name) was so dismissive of my partner’s attempts to even get hold of some leaflets or info posters; we just gave up and made our own.
I remember thinking that GBC might finally change that, but nothing materialised.
They couldn’t even manage to keep the Youth Coach on a mailing list for comp dates.
He bought the wall, I’ll ask him how it’s going. I know he has a strong squad.
I strongly support the existence of the BMC and GBC, but as a user, never felt that it was “working”.

[galpinos]

Thanks for taking the time to answer!

I have no experience of the comp scene so have no idea on this. Interestingly, at the NW meeting last night there was a parent of someone in the current GB Climbing team and, though critical, was not as critical as I had imagined they would have been in light of some of the social media posts and rumours. (as an aside, all people willing to voice an opinion were in favour of keeping GB Climbing as part of the BMC, though all were critical of how it is being managed (in/c Roger, Chair of the BMC Board).

Insurance wise it seems as competitive as always (not the cheapest but with good cover), I have never claimed on it though, maybe it's awful.. Access wise they seem to be doing as well as they ever have.

Re participation, diversity and inclusion, I believe they are working on it. Having bumped into Paul, the CEO, at the Depot, we had a brief chat and a summary of what he said was "he really hoped what the BMC have in the pipeline appeals to and engages with the people he could see at the walls who had no idea who the BMC were". No idea what it is or whether it will work but the intent is there!

Re an old boys club, that may have been the case but doesn't feel like it anymore (and a reason why some on social media are so upset imho). There are lots of new faces, the CEO hasn't been in post long and the make up of the staff is no longer based on who climbed with who back in the day.

Personally, I'm on the Technical Committee and it has had a bit of a shake up in what we do, how we do it and how we budget, all for the better. The BMC feels like it's heading in the right direction to me, though with some (at times considerable) dumps in the road and with probably many more to come. Don't give up hope yet!

[shark]

Bit of an update:

- the BMC has informed the local areas that they won’t be funding expenses for in person local area meetings for the rest of the year due to further financial pressures ie the Locsl Areas will have to fund their own if they want to hold in person meetings rather than just online

- insurances sales have probably been hit hard due to issues that led to the web presence being hosted by their third party providers over the holiday season

- the report into the CCPG (oversight body of GBClimbing) has now been released to Members Council

- further investigations are being undertaken into unspecified incidents at GB Climbing

- the Director representing the Board on the CCPG has resigned and commented “ it is my belief that we have a fundamental problem with culture and attitude within GB Climbing” and adding “ I am just deeply ashamed that some of this happened on my watch and the more time went on I just appeared to be making a fool of myself starting off with “concerns” which later became sheer disbelief and frustration.”

- in an email to me the CEO has said he will publish a further Q&A that may include costs but didn’t commit to providing me with a full breakdown of costs for last year + budget for this year

- UKC similarly put a number of questions to the CEO on 7 Aug which haven’t yet been answered and have given him a deadline of Monday before publishing a further article about the BMC

- the next Members Council meeting isn’t until 7th October

[Fiend]

Bit of an update:

- the BMC has informed the local areas that they won’t be funding expenses for in person local area meetings for the rest of the year due to further financial pressures ie the Locsl Areas will have to fund their own if they want to hold in person meetings

Well that's gonna help my "reduced sarnie / reduced chips" diet at least.

Sounds like a bit of a  show to me??

[shark]

Yeah it’s a struggle to make the Areas work at the best of times without undermining the already hard pressed organisers like this to save minimal amounts. It either signals the financial situation is awful or the Board see the local Area structure as of low importance. As Neil Foster points out on UKC, amongst other things, the Area meetings are a good breeding ground for volunteers. It’s certainly how I got sucked in..

[Oldmanmatt]

“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?

[T_B]

How many people typically attend the Peak Area meetings? I.e. how big a venue is required?

[shark]

How many people typically attend the Peak Area meetings? I.e. how big a venue is required?

40ish. I offered to try and find a free venue but sounds like they’ve got it covered.

[T_B]

OK. I have a venue next to the Foundry. It’s where we run our pre expedition weekends so has a high quality projector in situ. Not the Peak tho but available. I’m sure the Riverside could rustle up some chips.

[shark]

“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?

Something to do with junior safeguarding.  taken from the resigning Director's post on the BMC Watch Facebook Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/6440203509399107/
 
More to the point, the real scandal is that there have been several significant incidents of concern since the review has been delivered including the safeguarding of junior athletes.
I cannot comment on those as they are subject to other investigations.

Also heard on the grapevine there has been recent cock ups with failing to make grant applications and entering people into the wrong competitions.

[shark]

OK. I have a venue next to the Foundry. It’s where we run our pre expedition weekends so has a high quality projector in situ. Not the Peak tho but available. I’m sure the Riverside could rustle up some chips.

Nice one. Passed info on to the Chair

[steveri]

As Neil Foster points out on UKC, amongst other things, the Area meetings are a good breeding ground for volunteers. It’s certainly how I got sucked in..

An absolute bucketload of good stuff happens at local level. All this nonsense from above just serves to piss off all the unpaid people doing good work. The BMC would be half as effective without local people on the ground. No disrespect to staff on the payroll.

[shark]

Significant, well researched article by Natalie Berry on UKC titled “BMC CEO Paul Davies on GB Climbing” which incorporates Paul’s response to a number of questions posed by Natalie.

Natalie was formerly on the British team and a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.

Members Council are meeting tonight to discuss the proposal that has been produced in response to the damning internal report of the CCPG (GB Climbing oversight body) .

[Tony]

a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.

Based on your quote, I thought this was going to a thrilling expose of incredible financial malpractice.

Alas the “fact checks” amount to:

1. the BMC didn’t get everything they wanted from IFSC and they disagree about what had been on the table. (Paul doesn’t say the IFSC didn’t honour what was agreed but was disappointed with what was agreed.)

2. The BMC’s website is a bit sh1t and not everything has been updated - shocker.

3. I don’t even understand the 3rd fact check: it sets out the reporting responsibilities of the CCPG (ie to the Board) and then says that it was  minimally discussed at the Membership Council (ie not the Board), given it is not related to a reserved matter -  shock, horror, again.

[remus]

a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.

Based on your quote, I thought this was going to a thrilling expose of incredible financial malpractice.

Alas the “fact checks” amount to:

2. The BMC’s website is a bit sh1t and not everything has been updated - shocker.

I kind of agree overall, but not on this point. As an org the BMC interacts with a lot of potentially vulnerable people. Having an up to date version of their safeguarding policy and contact details for their safeguarding officer publicly available is pretty low bar, and not meeting that low bar is negligent.

[Oldmanmatt]

a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.

Based on your quote, I thought this was going to a thrilling expose of incredible financial malpractice.

Alas the “fact checks” amount to:

1. the BMC didn’t get everything they wanted from IFSC and they disagree about what had been on the table. (Paul doesn’t say the IFSC didn’t honour what was agreed but was disappointed with what was agreed.)

2. The BMC’s website is a bit sh1t and not everything has been updated - shocker.

3. I don’t even understand the 3rd fact check: it sets out the reporting responsibilities of the CCPG (ie to the Board) and then says that it was  minimally discussed at the Membership Council (ie not the Board), given it is not related to a reserved matter -  shock, horror, again.

Excellent take.

Now, I can see you’re a discerning fella, perhaps you’d be interested in this bridge I can offer you? Really, it’s going for next to nothing…

Seriously though, the article was both concerning and an anticlimax after Simon’s intro, but I’m surprised you find so banal. I do feel you are working hard to maintain your original anchorage, in a rather stiff gale of opposing (if inconclusive) evidence. No smoke without some sort of reaction, which may or may not be fire.