[wasbeen]

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ccpg-review-board-statement

The initially suppressed CCPG Review has now been publicly published along with its recommendations (documents linked at bottom of article).

The extent of the issues are pithily summed up in the concluding paragraph of the report.

The article outlines the subsequent steps that are being taken to address the issues raised in the report.

It is clear that something is seriously broken. Do you have any thoughts on how to fix it? From what I have seen, when people suggest splitting off the comps side form the rest of the BMC it does not seem to have resounding approval. However, at the same time there does not seem to be realistic proposal for how it could work within, beyond just letting athletes getting on with competing and staying out the way as much as possible. 

[Offwidth]

Maybe the BMC management of GB Climbing just needs to follow the governance processes it was supposed to in the first place (governance is the reason the CCPG exists and the failures are why they wrote such a critical report)? This starts with the necessity of good communication with athletes, parents etc. Ignoring repeated chances to resolve things is what leads to critical reports, that often move slower than they could (due to raising potential disciplinary or legal issues etc.).

It should be easy to 'steady the ship' just by following the processes. However, it still won't change the fact that a group of young athletes will have probably missed their best opportunities because of what happened (as pointed out by a 16 year old athlete at the AGM), plus the resolution of the 'mess' takes time and energy better used elsewhere.

Work on 'fixing things' started ages ago. Athletes, parents, etc tried informal routes (with a broadly unsatisfactory response), they then reported serious concerns to CCPG in 2022 and CCPG did their job, wrote the report and passed it up in 2022. Council became aware of these concerns in March 2023 and although understanding the reasons for delays were alarmed with the situation and have been pushing on responding as quickly as possible and on improvements in communications ever since (partly because most of the key information reached us from outside the formal governance routes).

[shark]

It is clear that something is seriously broken. Do you have any thoughts on how to fix it?

Great question! 🤔

There is hopefully enough attention on this now from below and above to solve things short term assuming the Board does the sensible thing and starts by replacing the current Head of GB Climbing with someone competent.

However, it’s certainly worth considering whether the current governance and organisational structure needs changing for the long term.

The CCPG has been ineffective to date and needs beefing up in terms of frequency of meetings, more stakeholder representation (partners, athletes, parents) and power to enforce things and bring the Head of GBC to account. The financial transparency and discipline of having their own bank account seems like a no brainier rather than being muddled in with rest of the BMC Finances. Whether those measures are enough I guess we will have to see.

Overall the CCPG set up has an inherent weakness of being one step away from the Board. This has almost certainly contributed to the Board being less aware of what was happening at the coal face. This could be addressed by having the Head of GB Climbing on the Board - GB climbing is certainly big and ugly enough now to warrant it though it might make the relationship with the CEO awkward and the Board is already large. Probably worth quizzing comparable organisations on the pros and cons of their structures. I’m still intuitively in favour of an independent set up but there isn’t sufficient appetite for it.

[Hydraulic Man]

No disrespect but you need to stop commenting on these threads.

Maybe...It should...Working on things...

In the real world you'd be run off...

[Nails]

Hydraulic Man:  I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here?

[shark]

Hydraulic Man:  I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here?

He’s responding to Offwidth’s apologism.

[wasbeen]

Thanks Offwidth and Shark for the replies.

I appreciate how much thought and work has gone into the policies and procedures (I had a good read through over the weekend). They are certainly an improvement from 3 or 4 years ago when I last looked at them in terms of the framework, selection and safeguarding. So I sympathize with your view Offwidth that if they were adhered to, it would solve a lot of the problems.

However, the current response (or lack of) appears to be completely misjudging the depth of feeling from those represented in the letter. My guess is that whatever the response is at this point it will not be received well, as the current perception among many is that the current GB set up is literally worse than useless and there is little confidence the set up can be salvaged.

My ignorant thoughts: Keep it simple; don't waste money; and make it a safe and fair environment for the athletes and a rewarding environment to volunteer.

[Offwidth]

Where such problems are not solved informally or by immediate process routes, those impacted don't stop caring and will just try other ways to highlight issues. When they collectively become so serious they become reports and open letters (with many signatures) something has clearly gone badly wrong. However anything involving Board level governance responses (as this does) takes time as the people doing the work are busy volunteers (with busy staff support) who have to deal with this in the context of other responsibilities to the organisation, especially the staff (pretty much all of whom are blameless). It's why robust communication/governance systems that resolve problems and don't hide them are so important. Processes are further complicated by the departure of the CEO.

[Offwidth]

The President just posted more detail on the other channel.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_update_please-764634

[shark]

Andy Syme’s post on UKC disclosed publicly for the first time that there has been a budgeting error but the BMC’s finances are “fundamentally ok”.

I’m led to believe that this budgeting error is substantial (£100k+) and came about from double counting grant income by GBClimbing.

“As part of the work in resetting the budget earlier this year a budgeting error was discovered which the FAC are looking into.  This work will take some time to complete but the FAC and Board will provide an update to the MC on 24 Oct.  Once any impacts of the error are clarified an update on the error and any corrections will be provided to members; until then please allow FAC to undertake their work to provide the Board and MC with the facts which can be then actioned.

Whatever the outcome of this work the headline is that while the BMC finances are under pressure they are fundamentally OK; membership still raising, albeit on same trajectory as last year, and the Board and MC have no concerns that the BMC will 'go bust'.”

I’m waiting for his response to my further questions on how the finances stand in relation to the reserves policy and whether the Board has confidence in GBClimbing leadership.

[shark]

Processes are further complicated by the departure of the CEO.

While he is no longer a Director I am led to believe he is still working till the end of the month

[shark]

So there was a bit of an update last Thursday in a newly launched monthly update article which is intended to work alongside the email newsletter.

The most pressing issues IMO are the Finances and GBClimbing.

Re Finances on top of the BMC issues of income not meeting budget it turned out there was a big error in the budget in terms of how much money was available. My understanding is this came from
double counting grant income and is in excess of £100k but this hasn’t been confirmed or denied. Andy Syme disclosed publicly about the error on 9 Oct on UKC. The Board was aware of it well before that date (they must have been because I was) I don’t know who got the sums wrong in the first place or how the budget got past the CFO, the CEO, FAC, the Board and MC without being picked up.

The newsletter had this to say

This work is complex and is taking significant time and volunteer effort to complete; ensuring that we have a clear and consolidated set of reports.  Once the impacts are clarified an update and any necessary corrective actions will be provided to members;"

This is literally no information in the update on the cause or magnitude of the mistake.

It does not reflect well that after 3 weeks the extent and impact of the mistake hasn’t been fully evaluated and does not give confidence that the Board is in control of the finances generally or they know perfectly well and don’t want to tell us.

Re GB Climbing the comps community is still waiting on action or otherwise regarding their declaration of no confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing

The newsletter had this to say

The Volunteers have now completed the listening sessions with stakeholders and we would like to thank the staff, coaches, volunteers, climbers and parents for their positive engagement and honest feedback.  An initial summary has been provided to the Board on 23 Oct and the team will feedback the headlines on what they heard to those involved in sessions over the next couple of weeks.

The Board will be considering the options available for addressing issues that have been raised at the next meeting on 1 Nov.

So presumably after the 1 Nov we will know whether the Board backs or sacks the ‘leadership’. I can’t see any kind of credible alternative fudge here.

If the Board backs the ‘leadership’ then the comps community then has to put up or shut up by collectively deciding whether to garner enough votes to force an EGM to have a targeted motion to force the leadership or alternatively even the whole Board out.

The advert is also out for a new CEO. You don’t need to be a climber to apply. There’s a focus on financial acumen, handling governance complexities and negotiating ability. Deadline for applications is the 13 Nov. Here’s hoping for a good ‘un 🤞

There are two new Members Council reps voted to the Board: Trevor Smith and Andy Say. Andy is an interesting addition. Currently NW Area Chair (I think) and presented an alternative constitution to the BMC one which gave the Board primacy. He might provide some challenge to any prevailing groupthink. Fiona Sanders has also resigned to join Mountain Training as their Chair. She was from Members Council so presumably that creates a vacancy.

Finally the Governance Officer Lucy Valerio who acted as Company Secretary has left and again an advert is out for her replacement

[steveri]

Small point, Andy Say is NW Members Council Rep rather than Chair, strikes me as a good egg.

[stone]

I know almost nothing about competition climbing nor competitive sport in general. I'm not expressing an opinion here. I'm just trying to understand the situation.

I wondered whether there could be a mismatch between running the elite team in a way that pleases most athletes whilst meeting the UK olympic sport ethos of 100% focussing on medal contenders? I mean that is what governing bodies of UK olympic sports are supposed to do isn't it? Aren't top-20 athletes just supposed to go recreational and not distract from those likely to get an olympic medal?

Am I totally misunderstanding this?

[Wil]

I think you're right about Olympic funding, but much of the funding comes from Sport England, which isn't the same.

The nearly £3m from Sport England was supposed to achieve this:

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.

[stone]

Thanks Wil for clarifying that.

I'm still a bit puzzled though about the gripe athletes had with reduced numbers being sent to European comps.

I can see how the sport England remit means that there should be lots of opportunity for people across the country to get involved in competition climbing. But does it extend to sending a big team off to European comps under a team-GB banner? Not doing that was a key gripe wasn't it?

[mrjonathanr]

I think you're right about Olympic funding, but much of the funding comes from Sport England, which isn't the same.

The nearly £3m from Sport England was supposed to achieve this:

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.

What, exactly, is ‘this’ in plain language, beyond management jargon? And the last section is not a sentence. Is it an intention, aspiration, already in train?

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.

Communications from the BMC seem muddled. Perhaps that reflects the clarity of thinking that lies behind them.

[tk421a]

Thanks Wil for clarifying that.

I'm still a bit puzzled though about the gripe athletes had with reduced numbers being sent to European comps.

I can see how the sport England remit means that there should be lots of opportunity for people across the country to get involved in competition climbing. But does it extend to sending a big team off to European comps under a team-GB banner? Not doing that was a key gripe wasn't it?

I may be wrong, but I think one point was they could've let more go, and register them for the comp. And given that the athletes mostly self fund, there would be little / no cost to GB Climbing / sport England funding.

[shark]

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.

What, exactly, is ‘this’ in plain language, beyond management jargon? And the last section is not a sentence. Is it an intention, aspiration, already in train?

My take on this is that GB Climbing has gone down an expensive road of empire building but without covering the basics first and in the process loaded cost and risk on the BMC it can’t bear. This seems likely to be the real root cause of the worsening financial position at the BMC. Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.

I don’t know for sure how many staff are now employed directly by and fit GBClimbing but IIRC it is in the region of 14!  Additionally grant money earmarked to cover shared administrative costs incurred by the BMC to support GBClimbing has been diverted to spend directly by GB Climbing.

In the process GBClimbing seem to have lost sight of the simple fact that for athletes an essential part of success at competitions is getting competition experience. Restricting numbers attending comps gets in the way of that and also not funding athletes to attend comps gets in the way of that, typically restricting participation to better off parents. Yes do all the fancy expensive structural stuff when you’ve got money to burn and the basics are already cemented in place, but not before.

[stone]

Can't widespread competition experience be gained by having comp-style route setters etc putting on lots of local comps all around the UK?

To me (as an ignorant non-participant), that seems more likely to discover a potential talent than sending a large team of not-quite-top-level athletes to international comps.

Do cycling/athletics/etc send athletes who have no hope of a medal to international comps? I'd imagine that it isn't just about funding but also about team focus, organisational bandwidth, etc.

I saw a TV program about the 2012 Jamacan sprinting  team. It said that the key to success for Jamaican sprinting was the inter-high-school comps in Jamaica. It was about huge numbers trying very hard and then a tiny number picked from that going to international comps.

[webbo]

British cycling used to send young riders to championships where they had little chance of a medal so they could experience bigger fields, longer and harder races.

[wasbeen]

To compete internationally over a full season is in the region of £10-20k, even in the junior ranks. This is almost all self/parent funded. In practice, the most successful will be paying multiplies of this once you take into account coaching costs, parents attending comps etc.

In effect the best UK comp climbers are the best upper middle class (and above) climbers. This is the approach that British tennis has taken, which also has a reputation of being very inefficient at turning money into top players, with the best often achieving despite/outside the system.

I am convinced that an approach which widens the selection pool by reducing competition costs (e.g. a stronger domestic scene). With a reduced number competing internationally but with more financial support would be infinitely more successful.

It is also worth noting that those who signed that letter were climbers/parents currently within the GB system. Those who are asking for more opportunities to compete internationally presumably are those that can afford it. The ones who slipped away enroute are not represented.

[stone]

I guess that there are (at least) two strands to this.

One is about upset at not sending lots of athletes to international comps. On that my impression is that perhaps it is a needed change for team GB to only send medal contenders whilst strengthening/widening local competitions.

The other issue is about BMC not being transparent and trying to evade accountability. I think Shark is absolutely right to be  vigilant in calling that out and trying to sort it out. With any bureaucracy there is always a gravitational pull towards being self-serving and degenerating into just being buildings full of staff who spend all day sending one another emails strategising on warding off criticism. The only way to prevent that is with transparency and accountability. Any hint of that faltering needs to be dealt with very promptly indeed IMO.

[mrjonathanr]

My take on this is that GB Climbing has gone down an expensive road of empire building but without covering the basics first and in the process loaded cost and risk on the BMC it can’t bear. This seems likely to be the real root cause of the worsening financial position at the BMC. Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.

Thanks for your thoughts. The picture is unclear, but looks like just like you say. To be effective it’s essential to set clear aims, both with participation and podiums, and have structures and strategies to build incrementally towards them. The obvious explanation for unclear messaging is that it reflects unclear thinking behind it, with no will to engage transparently. It looks like GB Climbing first and foremost needs to decide what it’s for and recognise a duty to be accountable for its operations.

[Tony]

Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.

Based on the associated revelations around BMC (mis)management (especially on the comp side), I’d suggest that “strategy” in the above sentence would indicate a competence that was manifestly absent.