the shizzle > get involved: access, environment, BMC

BMC Peak Area meeting this Friday

(1/1)

reeve:
The next BMC Peak Area meeting is at 7pm on Friday (8th March) at the Sir William in Grindleford.

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=4548

As always, everyone is welcome (BMC member or not) for an evening of updates on local climbing and hill walking issues, plus the two main events of the meeting: a Q&A with Paul Ratcliffe (the new BMC CEO) who will be joining us in person, and a short discussion of two proposed motions for the AGM put forward by Simon Lee.

After the meeting we will be entertained by Carlos Bedson. Carlos is an expert in the mountain hares of the Peak District, so much so that they were the focus of his PhD. Come to find out more about these elusive creatues with whom we share our local upland areas.

Chips are due 7pm so don’t be late!

Andy (chair)

shark:
Thanks Andy,

My thoughts on what GB Climbing might look like as an independent subsidiary is as follows:

Introduction

Hopefully 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.

Background

In 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 Climbing

Establishing 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.

Conclusion

In 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

Tony:

--- Quote from: shark on March 06, 2024, 12:08:32 pm ---the subsidiary route recommended by the ORG

--- End quote ---

Err, in the interests of openness and transparency (something I believe you’re quite keen on): The ORG’s precise recommendation was:


--- Quote ---The BMC should consider a clearly defined sub-group, or creation of a separate governing body subsidiary within the BMC, for the purposes of managing competitive activities and to support elite level competitive activities such as Team GB.

--- End quote ---
Source: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Report%20Summary.pdf

Which is not actually the same thing. Given the verbosity of your post, I would have thought including the full text of the ORG recommendation would have distracted little from the rest of the verbiage.

The ORG also made the same recommendation for the BMC’s activities relating to Wales but I see less fervour for that…

shark:
Your link was to the initial report rather than the final report which altered the recommendation to:

“Recommendation 24: The BMC should create a joint subsidiary for competitive activities in partnership with Mountaineering Scotland and other relevant home nation governing bodies for the purposes of managing competitive activities and to support elite level competitive activities such as Team GB”

Link here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1569

There is still work going on with the separate body for Wales but I gather there’s not a lot of appetite for it.

Offwidth:

--- Quote from: Tony S on March 06, 2024, 06:48:39 pm ---
Err, in the interests of openness and transparency (something I believe you’re quite keen on).....

--- End quote ---

It's been pointed out several times the background has had several items of misrepresentation, which have changed again (in part a good thing, as some misrepresentation has been removed... despite Simon previously claiming there was none).

Firstly, the ORG review was the first stage of a democratic process. The next stage was the development group (called ODG) which had to look at practical implementation issues and overall costs. It's output led to a decision on the current structure. It's not accurate to imply the Board just ignored the ORG review recommendation.

Secondly, various audit experts have pointed out the new proposal would be more expensive to run and have negligable reduction in financial risk (the parent pays when the not fully independent subsidiary messes up). Worse still, implementing it would involve considerable cost and disruption, at a time when BMC finances and workload are really stretched (even if members voted to agree it, based on more complete and accurate information than Simon provides). I'd add, the BMC really needs a period of calm on governance change right now, as all the seemingly endless arguments are really hitting key volunteer and staff morale (lots of departures cite this).

Thirdly the GB Climbing loses in 2023 were a result of errors on complex UKS contracts that no one spotted and a failure to apply the rules of the current governance (to ringfenced funds) that it seems had not been properly communicated to the Board and not at all to Council. It was a people issue in a structure (not the structure itself) that led to the exceptional losses.

Finally, comparisons with other organisations and the subsidiary idea also misrepresent.  The IFSC is totally independent from the UIAA (formed from it in 2007, because the comp climbers forced that). Mountain Training, as a body, began in the mid sixties and MTE is only a part of cluster of organisations, that are independent from the BMC.

Previously Simon claimed GB Climbing had been "loss making for years", when in fact budgets broadly balanced until 2022. Explaing this he rather oddly defined GB Climbing 'overspend' as ANY core BMC spend on competitions. I thank him for removing that misleading statement.

Still there is a problem: grants couldn't be awarded if the other 15% required isn't available. Plus the core funding for governance and the 1.5 FTE core funded posts couldn't be raised through grants. Subs are not enough for this and although sponsorship might be easier to obtain it would only be a welcome extra, it couldn't satisfy a requirement for stable core funding.

It's also still unclear if any such subsidiary format would be agreed with the funding bodies (in this it might be said to be similar to the governance Option debate from 2018... where an alternative proposal to the BMC recommendation was said to be possibly able to meet requirements for grant funding, but that wasn't ever confirmed by the funding bodies). It's also not a recommendation as yet that is supported by key players in the stakeholder group (funding partners, athlete reps, parent reps, coach reps). It seems to me to be pushing away comp climbers from the BMC, rather than being for the benefit of them, which I find unfortunate in a community of climbers (for numerous reasons). The bigger problem in the department remains,  in my view, as no clear resolution as yet of serious stakeholder communication issues (from a clear majority of the stakeholder's perspective). Arguments around a subsidiary will detract from resolution in that area. It is unthinkable that a governing body of a sport can have ongoing significant dysfunctional stakeholder relationships.

In summary I think the GB Climbing problems are a result of people issues,  not governance structure issues. The proposal is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and does nothing for the benefit of GB Climbing stakeholders; a very expensive and disruptive wrong solution at that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index