Thanks Andy,
My thoughts on what GB Climbing might look like as an independent subsidiary is as follows:
IntroductionHopefully you already aware that there is a petition underway for a resolution* that GB Climbing (GBC) is set up as a financially independent body of the BMC.
My belief is that this solution is not only best for the BMC but also GB Climbing. Clearly the team who set it as a recommendation in the Organisational Review Group (ORG) Report thought the same.
I thought it would be worth exploring a bit further what a subsidiary might look like and the advantages it would offer.
BackgroundIn November 2019 the Board fatefully rejected the subsidiary route recommended by the ORG and announced “that following lengthy consideration of the options presented, the Board agreed to progress new arrangements based on an internal department but with the same formality and robustness of arrangements as if a subsidiary was being set up” **.
The Board minutes also repeatedly refer to ringfencing so clearly the initial intent was there to ringfence GB Climbing but then the Board failed to make good on this statement as there have been no discernible attempts to implement any separation.
How might a subsidiary company look?Whilst the resolution doesn’t dictate how the Board chooses to set the subsidiary up, I thought I would set out my thoughts on how I envisage the new model working and why this would be an improvement on the current set up for those still in doubt.
As a subsidiary it would still be part of the BMC in the same way in the commercial world that a Group company owns a subsidiary company. It would have its own bank account and have to file statutory accounts with companies’ house and have its own Board of Directors, either voluntary or paid.
This is not an unusual arrangement for companies. It is quite common to have subsidiaries in not-for-profit companies - typically for their commercial activities (i.e. the gift shop of a museum).
Commonly spin off companies flourish away from the parent. For example, the IFSC spun off from the UIAA and was fantastically successful in its mission to get climbing into the Olympics. Closer to home Mountain Training England (MTE) spun off from the BMC over 20 years ago which has evidently worked for them as (to the best of my knowledge) they have never sought an inclination to rejoin! MTE continues to remain a close partner of the BMC on grant bids and other matters - in fact one of the senior BMC staff members works for MTE one day a week.
How might the funding work in the subsidiary The partner body relationship in grant bids would probably work the same way for GBC as a subsidiary as with its other partner organisations (NICAS, ABC). The partners submit their bids to the BMC and the BMC then collates them to make a one sport bid to Sport England and UK Sport. (By the way the BMC charges an administration fee for its lead role in all this).
Regarding grants Sport England (SE) and UK Sport (UKS) are the dispensers of government money and are commonly the main sources of revenue for similar sized sporting bodies to GB Climbing. A matched funding formula applies to grant funding whereby when applying for grants a bid details the running and project costs and if successful you will receive 85% of that amount with the remaining 15% assumed to be derived from other sources.
So, with a tightly managed budget and grant application processes in place then in theory all the grant money you apply for and receive should cover up to 85% of your expenditure. Unfortunately, GB Climbing finances haven’t been tightly managed in this way with some estimates being that less than 50% of GB Climbing has come from grant funding and the rest from BMC coffers.
Turning things on its head the 15% should I think key and should be the starting point to drive GBC budgets and how much it applies for from SE and UKS in the first place to make the books balance. Surely you should work out how much you can derive from other sources of income then for every £15 of that prudently allows you to apply for a further £85 of grant money, but no more. This sort of practical thinking does not appear to have happened at the BMC and GBC has taken advantage of the cheque book left open by the Board.
Why might GB Climbing operate with better financial discipline as a subsidiary If GBC became an independent subsidiary, that is no longer dependent on the largesse of a benevolent parent, it would have to stick to its budgets without excuses.
That discipline should make GBC minds more keenly focussed on the independent income which would in turn drive how much grant income it could sensibly apply for. That income would currently be derived from commercial sponsorship, membership subs and ticket sales. It might also drive innovation with other revenue streams such as merchandising and coaching schemes. The incentive to do so would be high as every additional 15p you make here could in the round be matched by 85p from SE/UKS. It would also be more keenly focussed on value for money.
There is also little doubt in my mind that a discrete body with a more defined individual identity and less decision makers would be more attractive and easier for corporate sponsors to work with.
Why might the subsidiary set up work better for GB ClimbingEstablishing the BMC back on a stable and sustainable footing is good for all branches of climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering as well as for GB Climbing.
As an independent body GB Climbing will have to cut its cloth according to the money it has. Value for money is more likely to come to the fore. This must be a good thing. The way money has been spent at GBC of late has smacked of empire building implementing an overarching command and control structure that has become detached from helping the athletes to the best of their abilities or drawing talent from the widest pool.
Independence also has advantages for GB Climbing in greater freedom in how it decides its strategic direction.
Currently the GB Climbing leadership reports to an oversight body (the CCPG) which in turn reports to a Board of Directors who for the most part are drawn from backgrounds in hill walking, outdoor climbing and Mountaineering. This means the Directors have very little insight into the world of elite sport, grant funding cycles, safeguarding and the like and must learn on the job to get up to speed on these areas to meet their responsibilities. The extra hours this has entailed extends far beyond what might reasonably be expected of voluntary positions and to the detriment of allocating time and attention to the rest of the BMC. This lack of knowledge also represents a major risk and leads to an over reliance on those full time professional staff who have a sporting body background who in turn will have bias and agendas in how they choose to direct resources and their own time, The consequences of this have been devastating in 2023.
As a separate body these issues would be resolved as the Director of GB Climbing would be intimately involved in the operations and finances as their day job. The rest of the Board would most likely be drawn from volunteer representatives from the BMC Board, Mountaineering Scotland, Mountaineering Ireland and the Association of British Climbing Walls and maybe an Athlete representative. The knowledge base would be higher, as would accountability. With everything centred in the subsidiary it should facilitate more nimble and expert decisions in operations, finance and strategy .
Why might GB Climbing as a subsidiary be better for the core membership Currently the communications in web articles and in Summit naturally trumpet the achievements of the GBC athletes. This gives a perception (rightly so IMO) that the BMC is overly focussed on competition climbing and so weakens the support of the core membership who have no interest in it. As a subsidiary GB Climbing would communicate far more through its own channels to its own fan base and this would take away the onus on the BMC marketing department to constantly get an impossible balance right in representing all elements and help rebuild some of the lost loyalty from the core membership in the process.
Finally, there has long been an uneasy feeling about the BMC being both a representative and governing body. This has caused disruption with governance and the articles in attempting to meet the requirements of Sport England and UK Sport whilst also preserving democratic powers for the members. Internally the culture of being both representative where you advise what members should do versus governing where you tell what members must do is quite different. Again, separating the two bodies solves that divergence in attitude and operations.
ConclusionIn conclusion the BMC should prioritise being fit for purpose to serve its members and the climbing community at large as opposed to doing what it perceives makes it politically most powerful. 2023 has laid bare that the BMC cannot competently and fairly manage GB Climbing especially its finances. The model I suggest is a practical solution that solves several long-standing problems.
Change never comes easy to the BMC but I think this change should be embraced rather than feared as it combats several threats and creates a few opportunities. If you feel the same way, please sign this petition so members have the opportunity to vote on it at the AGM.
* Link to petition for resolution:
https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2**Board meeting summary Nov 2019
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-november-2019-meeting-summary
