[teestub]

Hopefully all that marathon experience will transfer to climbing

[Davo]

He seems well qualified but from the blurb on the BMC I don’t actually see that he has much climbing and mountaineering experience. Personally I would prefer to see someone leading the BMC who is a lifelong climber and mountaineer and who likely has the same values or thoughts about climbing, mountaineering, hill walking, sport climbing and comp climbing as myself.
However I can see that this is clearly difficult to achieve

[spidermonkey09]

He seems like a perfectly good candidate to me who now needs to be given a chance to make the changes needed. I think you're asking for the moon on a stick a bit Davo, as you acknowledge that would be very hard to achieve.

[Davo]

He seems like a perfectly good candidate to me who now needs to be given a chance to make the changes needed. I think you're asking for the moon on a stick a bit Davo, as you acknowledge that would be very hard to achieve.

Indeed I am and you may be right!

However, for arguments sake: I think specialist/niche organisations should have at the head of them people who believe strongly in the values of that organization and who have spent a long time learning why the activity (ies) the organisation governs matters so much to its members. I think without this inherent buy in from the person at the top the organisation can end up making decisions that look perfectly respectable financially (and to outsiders) but are inherently against the wishes and interests of the members.
I do take your point that it’s hard to find someone…
Maybe yourself SpiderMonkey??

[shark]

I would also prefer it if I identified them as a proper climber as they would better understand and have the interests of climbers at heart.

Additionally if they identified themselves primarily as a climber they would have more ‘skin in the game’ compared to someone who was primarily motivated by their career.

I also noted that he doesn’t appear to have run an organisation before (large or small) and this looks to be a step up. It would be less risky to have someone who has already been the CEO or head of an organisation.

I hope he has what it takes.

[spidermonkey09]

I guess the problem with requiring a candidate for CEO of the governing body of a niche sport to also participate in that sport frequently is you drastically reduce the pool of candidates with the skills to do the job and it could extremely quickly become a case of "jobs for the boys." I think this is an accusation you could level with some fairness at the BMC in the past as well.

[Will Hunt]

I hope he has what it takes.

I've got £10 saying that all the people who currently spend every waking hour moaning about the BMC will still be moaning about it a year hence.

[Nails]

 Personally I feel that the fundamental question concerning the BMC is whether it's a membership organisation that is largely focussed on the concerns of its members ( access, safety, training, guidebooks, certification etc) or is it focussed on elite sport. It seems hard for it to fulfill both roles. I think this is the main lesson from the whole GB Climbing thing. The new CEO looks very elite focussed. Hopefully he'll be great, but elite goals and membership goals strike me as pulling in different directions. I think it needs two separate organisations.

[shark]

I guess the problem with requiring a candidate for CEO of the governing body of a niche sport to also participate in that sport frequently is you drastically reduce the pool of candidates with the skills to do the job

It was not a requirement but a preference to have sporting body experience. Sporting bodies are quasi public sector which is not a great breeding ground for financial, commercial or visionary acumen.

A climber who has run a commercial organisation should transition well. There are 80000 BMC members and many more climbers who are non-members. It’s a reasonable pool to fish in and a sizeable minority would fit the bill. Quite a few volunteers with inside knowledge of the BMC are, or have been, senior managers. Anyway what’s done is done.

I hope he proves to be an excellent CEO and climbers are happy that the organisation is batting primarily for them and not itself, it’s employees, Sport England and UKSport. He says he wants to put members first which is a good start.

[spidermonkey09]

All true, I guess it would be interesting to know how many of the 40 candidate who applied came from within the membership.

[Neil F]

They really couldn’t find a credible climber for this crucial role…   

Staggered… 

[stone]

Canoeing seems like a great background to have someone come in from because that's a successful GB olympic sport that also has an adventure/recreational/wilderness/access side to it.

I guess the problem with having a climber is that they wouldn't have experience of managing an olympic talent pathway.

[shark]

I guess the problem with having a climber is that they wouldn't have experience of mis-managing an olympic talent pathway.

FTFY

[stone]

Was/is canoeing a mess?

They do quite well in competitions don't they? eg https://www.teamgb.com/article/team-gb-announces-slalom-athletes-selected-for-paris-2024/58vJY7mXtUXsSX2mWfy8Zr

[petejh]

Interested to read he has a background in commodities trading. Hopefully he'll be well-equipped to get a grip on the BMC's finances.

[shark]

Although poorly publicised last nights open forum was a vast improvement in openness than the previous one on the 11 Dec in terms of both the set up (able to interact with the Directors and use the chat function) and also the level of detail of financial information presented by Paul Ratcliffe which is a strong indication that there will be an improvement in openness and transparency to ordinary members going forward

The current public estimate for the 2023 deficit/loss has now moved up to £397,000 up from the £250-300k cited by Roger Murray, the Chair at the last meeting. Another blow to this years finances is that the cost of liability insurance is rising from £591k to £855k

Since I last posted the Board unilaterally announced that the AGM is to be online only. The articles state they are meant to consult with Members Council so that qualifies as a collective breach of the Directors Code of Conduct and leaves that decision open to legal challenge.

The AGM announcement is here

This week Lorraine Brown the Head of GB Climbing resigned which follows on from Tom Greenall the Head Coach resigning

Andy Syme the President is not standing for re-election. I’m not aware of anyone who is intending to put themselves forward. Roger Murray the Chair’s term in office expires in September, I think.

[T_B]

No mention of the Open Forum in their February update email. I would have attended if I’d known about it.

I’m not surprised by the increase in Liability Insurance premium.

[Offwidth]

The current public estimate for the 2023 deficit/loss has now moved up to £397,000

Yet again not a number I've seen, I'll only believe it when Council are informed of a change to the number we were given a few weeks ago.

[shark]

That was taken from the Open Forum (weren’t you on it?) where I asked Paul Ratcliffe if the £250-300k deficit estimate given by Roger at the previous open forum still stood.

Paul Ratcliffe said it was broadly right but then went on to say £147k was from GB Climbing 50k from the insurance debacle and another £200k from elsewhere. I asked on what and he said restructuring. I started to question that and pointed out that adding up those three figures came to £397k. At which point Roger intervened angrily and said that Paul had provided a “realistic set of figures” and I would “just have to live with it” which shut down the conversation.

If Paul or Roger misunderstood what I was asking or saying or vice versa then I apologise. I know someone who has a transcript which I could probably get hold of if you want a more accurate account but that was my recollection.

If anyone else reading this who attended had a different recollection of this exchange let me know.

However, the figure also chimes closely with what other insiders have said about the scale of the deficit though they have calculated it in different ways.

[Offwidth]

Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.

[shark]

Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.

That doesn’t make sense. I was very clearly talking about the deficit. Any savings and extra income would be included to arrive at the deficit estimate.

[abarro81]

. At which point Roger intervened angrily and said that Paul had provided a “realistic set of figures” and I would “just have to live with it” which shut down the conversation.

If Paul or Roger misunderstood what I was asking or saying or vice versa then I apologise. I know someone who has a transcript which I could probably get hold of if you want a more accurate account but that was my recollection.

If anyone else reading this who attended had a different recollection of this exchange let me know.

Sounds like a very "open" forum 😂🤦‍♂️

[shark]

He had always come across to me as a cuddly uncle type figure before but reportedly he lost it even more colourfully at an MC meeting having at the start of the meeting emphasised that everyone should treat each other with courtesy and respect…

Although out of order he has worked ridiculously hard and been under a lot of pressure.

[Offwidth]

Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.

That doesn’t make sense. I was very clearly talking about the deficit. Any savings and extra income would be included to arrive at the deficit estimate.

The 2023 deficit included in the report to Council included extra costs compared to the budget (as per your numbers) minus extra income and savings in predicted spending. The 2023 deficit was within the range predicted by Roger. It's nothing to celebrate but not as bad as it could have been.

[Davo]

Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.

That doesn’t make sense. I was very clearly talking about the deficit. Any savings and extra income would be included to arrive at the deficit estimate.

The 2023 deficit included in the report to Council included extra costs compared to the budget (as per your numbers) minus extra income and savings in predicted spending. The 2023 deficit was within the range predicted by Roger. It's nothing to celebrate but not as bad as it could have been.

I have been generally following the BMC threads here and on UKC and although I disagree with the idea of having GBClimbing as a separate entity I really do agree with the need for greater transparency and better communication in terms of finances. Yours and Simon’s debate here around what the actual level of the deficit is, was and should be just highlights this for me.

If the finances were open and communicated more clearly then there wouldn’t be the need for a discussion about how much the deficit actually was, this would just be a fact.

This is why I have signed the petition for more openness and transparency for finances.


On the subject of having a subsidiary, nothing I have read has altered my viewpoint on this that it is a bad idea. I really think we need to endeavour to keep as much of the climbing and mountaineering activities in the UK within the remit of the BMC. I genuinely fear that by making it a subsidiary this makes it much easier for it to be completely separated at some stage in the future when the board of the BMC decides it really doesn’t understand competitions and doesn’t want to be responsible for them.

Just my thoughts as a BMC member

Dave