|
|
91
« Last post by slab_happy on May 06, 2024, 09:18:04 am »
92
« Last post by remus on May 06, 2024, 08:07:14 am »
Oh cool, didn't realise they'd suggested a grade, I've bumped it down to E8 on CH per the current opinions.
93
« Last post by andy moles on May 06, 2024, 07:11:50 am »
Good knowledge, he's on the list. Also noticed he's done Eternal Fall so a double addition to the boulder and trad lists!
I think James and Angus said they'd give Eternal Fall E8, fwiw.
94
« Last post by Offwidth on May 05, 2024, 06:26:22 pm »
We will all see soon enough, when the AGM papers are released later this month. What could possibly be the point of telling lies within that timetable? Simon has outlined the approximate losses already (based on leaks)... he just forgot to take into account the cost savings and extra commercial income.
Council saw extensive information on provisional finances for the 2023 accounts two months back (with way more detail than normal). These would have been public already if a more complex audit than normal hadn't thrown a spanner in the works.
95
« Last post by remus on May 05, 2024, 06:02:52 pm »
Good knowledge, he's on the list. Also noticed he's done Eternal Fall so a double addition to the boulder and trad lists!
96
« Last post by Ross Barker on May 05, 2024, 04:20:19 pm »
97
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on May 05, 2024, 02:09:56 pm »
The 2022 annual report summarises GB climbing income and expenditure in pie charts (although this didn’t include their share of non-core office costs): it's why I linked it alongside the 2022 accounts.
Yes, 2023 accounts will be much more detailed. However, Council have been told we can't produce anything close to equivalent detailed information for 2022. Once Council were informed this we were stuck, as we can't accept a motion that we know will place big extra workloads on an understaffed finance team, on a very difficult task which might even prove to be impossible to achieve. All this to highlight financial management wasn't tight enough in 2022: something we already know.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don’t have a problem personally with the motions not going to the AGM but I don’t think it has been handled well and certainly the concerns raised by Simon’s motions are pretty valid.
I do hope that the accounts and explanation of the financial information are more detailed this time around. I am in a small mountaineering club and our members would not be happy with the lack of clarity and detail if we presented our accounts to them in this manner.
Also just to be clear I have no intention of leaving the BMC and I didn’t think the subsidiary idea was good. I just want better financial clarity and for GBClimbing to be financially self supporting etc
Cheers Dave
The most polite and reasonable UKB poster, has just echoed much of what has been, more stridently, posted by others, though out various threads on both channels. I’m sorry Dave, they’re not listening and hide behind weak excuses. It’s obviously far worse than is being admitted. 🤷🏻♂️
98
« Last post by Davo on May 05, 2024, 10:34:57 am »
The 2022 annual report summarises GB climbing income and expenditure in pie charts (although this didn’t include their share of non-core office costs): it's why I linked it alongside the 2022 accounts.
Yes, 2023 accounts will be much more detailed. However, Council have been told we can't produce anything close to equivalent detailed information for 2022. Once Council were informed this we were stuck, as we can't accept a motion that we know will place big extra workloads on an understaffed finance team, on a very difficult task which might even prove to be impossible to achieve. All this to highlight financial management wasn't tight enough in 2022: something we already know.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don’t have a problem personally with the motions not going to the AGM but I don’t think it has been handled well and certainly the concerns raised by Simon’s motions are pretty valid. I do hope that the accounts and explanation of the financial information are more detailed this time around. I am in a small mountaineering club and our members would not be happy with the lack of clarity and detail if we presented our accounts to them in this manner. Also just to be clear I have no intention of leaving the BMC and I didn’t think the subsidiary idea was good. I just want better financial clarity and for GBClimbing to be financially self supporting etc Cheers Dave
99
« Last post by Offwidth on May 05, 2024, 10:29:10 am »
Pie charts really help some people, really annoy others, and many sit in between. A fun pro-pie blog (with some anti-pie views referenced): https://www.displayr.com/why-pie-charts-are-better-than-bar-charts/
100
« Last post by abarro81 on May 05, 2024, 06:38:49 am »
The BMC response does a very poor job of explaining that position, or even taking a swag at how much time that would be. Doesn't inspire much confidence that the approach to communication has changed with the change in leadership. Also, far more importantly, can someone please teach whoever writes the reports that pie charts are shit for basically everything.
|
|
Recent Posts
